User talk:El C/generic sub-page12

Icewhiz

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

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

El_C, are you aware of this: [1]? "He's a cancer on Wikipedia" is so far outside collegiality, and this is a repeat offense, at AE, targeting Icewhiz in particular and admin generally. In light of what happened just a couple months ago, I'd ask you to consider picking up where Sandstein left off rather than issuing a warning. – Levivich 04:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I don't know how old you are or what part of the world you live in, but I think you overreacted wildly to what I wrote yesterday. Perhaps you're not aware that the phrase has been well-known in the U.S. for 45 years and is being used more and more these days.[2] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok this is getting out of hand

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

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

Overlinking by IP hopper

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

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

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

VM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016

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

2017

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

2018

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

---

No personal comments sanction applied for AP2 19 Aug 2018

• EE (suspected topic ban violation)

2019

• ARBPIA
• EE

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

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

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

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

Miki Filigranski

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

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

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

I'm not sure if this is what you mean: [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilipo25 (talk • contribs)

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

El_C, this is the same editor I warned you the other day for personal attacks on me ("like today to deal with lying and accusations by a user ([5], [6], [7], [8])"). I made an extensive reply [9] at the article's talk page. The editor is making false claims, the information is well and reliably sourced, not defamatory, and it was reverted back previously by confirmed editors for the exact reasoning. I really do not understand the editor's oppsession with this family members. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The thing is a good part of the information on the Frankopan family article, and all the information in individual member articles, were written by other editors. It is attributing to me "statements", "slanderous statements" and other when most of them I did not even write. That is my "biased opinion", that I am "bashing", or now again ([10]), talking about how I "disapprove" (instead of the sources) and that is "smacks of a personal vendetta".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi El C, please explain @Lilipo25: how consensus works. The editor failed to get a consensus, and instead to move on, decided to WP:STONEWALL - made an edit, which substantiated with a compromise, which had not previously been discussed and accepted, and then started to edit war and even accusing me for disruptive editing. You had a good reaction, the editor almost violated 3RR.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not oriented as to what's going on. But generally, I would recommend users to subscribe to the bold, revert, discuss cycle, where the onus is on the one introducing the edit to gain the consensus for it. El_C 18:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Miki reverted sourced content three times in a row, violating the three-revert rule, and instead of reverting it back, you locked the page on her 3rd revision.

We discussed at great length on the BLP:Noticeboard and were only able to get two people to comment - the first said the whole issue was too complicated for them to even understand it or comment, but the second said this about Miki's edits: "See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. We should definitely avoid language that implies something not directly said, such as "managed to get themselves". This is what is called editorializing. I still don't know what a name has to do with distorting history. We can't say, in Wikipedia's voice, that anyone intended to distort history, because that would be OR and a judgment call on our part. What we can do is quote or paraphrase experts in the field who may hold that opinion, but we'd need to attribute it to them, and then make an effort to find opposing views to maintain balance. We can definitely give the family's side too, but all of this needs very reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"

That was all the input we could get. So in order to end the edit war, I did a very, very careful edit that left in almost all of Miki's content (except one half of a sentence that wasn't sourced and that I could find no source for). I left all the rest in - just cleaned up the grammar and sentence structure to make it proper English, and then added properly sourced material from a British newspaper that gave the family's point of view. I put everything in a NPOV tone that took no sides at all. I then added "citation needed" templates to the History part of the article for everything that had no source.

Mikii reverted it all anyway - took out all the sourced content, put back the poor grammar and biased language that the only other editor who would look at said was wrong in the BLP noticeboard discussion, removed the "citation needed" tags, etc. Then reverted 3 times in violation of the rule and reported it in order to get it locked on her version. And all this is simply to keep an encyclopedia article about a controversy from being unbiased and showing both points of view. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, I don't really have time for walls of text. Just make use of your dispute resolution resources if you need outside input. BLPN is not your only avenue, unless there's a pressing BLP issue, in which case, feel free to relist. El_C 19:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to come across as apathetic, but my point is that you need to learn to condense if you wish for other editors —who, like you, are all volunteers— to involve themselves in the dispute. El_C 19:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The editor is intentionally misrepresnting what the editor said neither did follow his advice in the edit, continues to reject the fact there was no consensus, continues to put the responsibility and blame on me instead of himself, and even makes up accusations that I have been manipulating the administrator. This is insane. @Lilipo25, calm down and follow admin's advice.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Condensed version: I used the BLP noticeboard. Only 2 editors weighed in; 1 said 'too complicated to comment', the other said Miki's edits were biased, used OR and pushed a POV. I did a very careful edit that left in all of Miki's material but put it in NPOV tone, added sourced content from a UK newspaper, fixed grammar. Miki reverted it all, 3 times in violation of revert rule, then ran to you and reported to get you to lock page on her 3rd illegal revision. And it worked. There is no point in me continuing to waste time with DRRs when even when they agree with me, Miki ignores them and reverts Good Faith edits and sourced content, then gets you to lock the page to keep it on her biased POV. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't "misrepresent" what the other user said - I copied and pasted their exact comment, no editing. Not that it matters. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is manipulating me. I still don't know what this is about. Dispute resolution is all you have left. One comment from one editor —which I read and am not sure it says what you say it does— does not magically win the argument to your side. And you need four, not three, reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 19:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I imagine to be sure you would have to recognize that every one of the things that Zaereth called OR and editorializing, etc,. are Miki's language in the article, and you can't tell that without looking at the article and its history. I don't understand how one person agreeing with me doesn't count for anything but zero people agreeing with Miki means her edit is the one that gets to stay, especially when it deleted sourced content, but I give up. The article can stay biased and defamatory and in awful English. This is too much stress to make a Wikipedia article read like an encyclopedia Lilipo25 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You should ping Zaereth to the article talk page — have you attempted that? El_C 19:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I have officially given up. I am done. I spent months trying to make an article adhere to NPOV and read like an encyclopedia and it is too much stress. I don't know the Frankopans, I will never meet them, and I refuse to be this stressed any more over some total stranger half a world away trashing them on Wikipedia. Miki wins. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. It seems to me that I'm the next victim. Miki has managed to tell me that I am dishonest, I do not have basic knowledge, they are not going to talk to me and so on. Could you tell me how to continue the discussion like this: Talk:White_Croats#Big_mistification? When the moderated discussion on DRN began on a similar issue, they just disappeared.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It all began at Talk:Rusyns (still focused on White Croats & White Croatia). The editor really does not have a basic knoweldge about the topic and is constantly WP:NOTLISTENING (what's the point to talk anymore when is not listening at all), specifically those who are more experienced in the topic, or generally how are articles titled. The editor is dishonest because is constantly misinterepreting and lying about the content, sources and me, as if that is the way to reach a consensus or getting anyone's support. I am constantly warning it, but continues to push its POV anyway. I did not "disappear" (or "ignored" it, both lies) from dispute resolution (which I adviced to start, but did not start it even properly), I was not active after few days due to personal life (job, family, holidays). I already explained it to the editor and yet continues to provoke. It got advice from the moderator what to do, but does not have patience. What's worse, has a perspective that reaching a consensus (burden is not on me) makes anyone a "victim" or specificaly me as some kind of perpetrator. It is not in WP:FAITH. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

What fails to assume good faith is stating that the user is "lying." And what is uncivil is referring to another user as it (have you not heard of singular they?). Please don't do that again. Sorry, I don't know if I'm going to have time to investigate this further at this time. Please try to fall back on your dispute resolution resources. El_C 16:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. Do you have any way to force Miki to use these resources? Let them open the request for DRN correctly, since I did not please them. I've opened RFC, but it seems everyone is afraid to deal with them, not a single comment there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I am speechless to what kind of editors I dealing with. The editor is desperately trying to push the change of the scope, structure and title of the article which it had from the beginning (!), without any consensus, ignoring the majority of cited reliable sources, including those which is reffering to. They even ignore to understand how are articles titled. The burden to reach for consensus is not on me, but on them. Nobody is "afraid to deal with me", they don't want to be engag when see this convoluted mockery of common sense the editor is trying to push. From 26 June, over two weeks, the editor is refusing to get the point - "sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not want to come to this, but I did not have other choice - as the editor still refuses to get the point, is disruptively edit warring (ignoring the discussion, with no consensus), against moderators advice ([11]), they got reported at both noticeboard/incidents and noticeboard/edit warring.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is "afraid to deal with me", they don't want to be engag when see this convoluted mockery of common sense the editor is trying to push Can personally attest to both parts of this sentence not being true. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• El_C, you have the patience of a saint. There are now two threads, both opened by Miki, one at ANI and the other at ANEW. This provides an opportunity for the two editors to bicker in two places. As I stated at ANEW, my choice would be to block both editors, but I'm assuming you're more familiar with the two (could be wrong). Do you think blocks are appropriate?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• El_C, just revert the article to old revision ([12]), I won't and can't because of 3RR, and protect the article so it cannot be edited by editors until is reached a consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Bbb23, honestly, I'm having a difficult time following any of it. Both editors obviously take strong issues with one another's version — one of them is probably closer to what is the verifiable scholarly consensus than the other, but for the life of me, I'm not able to tell who. I'd maybe suggest they both give DRN another chance (this time with commitment from Miki Filigranski to make themselves available to the process), so hopefully, it's not too late for that. What we need is, indeed, to stop all bad faith bickering (otherwise, blocks may, indeed, be due) and for the two users to arm themselves with patience until someone with some knowledge into the subject can make themselves available to helping resolve their dispute. Setting up an RfC, as well as looking into 3rd opinion, are also important steps they both need to take, in good faith. El_C 01:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Miki Filigranski, sorry, that's not going to happen at this time. Anyway, taking this content dispute to ANI was the wrong call. Taking this also to AN3 was doubly the wrong call and constitutes forum shopping. I suggest making yourself available to resolving the dispute through the proper dispute resolution channels rather than continue to waste administrative resources on a content dispute. And more good faith wouldn't hurt, also. El_C 01:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

How is that a wrong call when the editor is diruptively and tediously edit warring for a new revision against the discussion and consensus? The editor is not even following moderator's advice, nor even your advice. They literally went to defend their disruptive behavior instead of calling for patience, following WP:BRD or any already mentioned process. Since when are admin's supporting such a behavior?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied that you've given dispute resolution a fair chance. In that context, wasting administrative resources on a content dispute is most definitely the wrong call. El_C 16:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You've blocked the wrong IP

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

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

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

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

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

Quick question

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

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

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

Please retract

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

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

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

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

Sure, but it was so much better if another editor did. No problem... --Mhhossein ^talk 06:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please, take a look

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

 Done. El_C 15:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahmedo Semsurî

First, I apologize because of my last inappropriate used phrases that you warned me later. User Ahmedo Semsurî recently had several edits that I beleive they are not constructive and good. For example he has redirected page Iraqi Lurs to page Feyli Lurs without any logic and reasonings. I asked hm in the talk page the reason for redirection but he failed to bring any reaonable testimony.[13] Now he has reverted several times my edits and every time he sladered me of vandalism and ..... Please have a look over these pages to see our communication and reasoning. I expect you to help to reach a simple solution. BestSHADEGAN (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I need your help in editing Israel Adesanya's page

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

References

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

Causes of transsexuality article

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

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

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

Excellent work at WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

IP you encountered at RW Emerson

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

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

Herodotus

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

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

George Tiller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration Amendment Request archived

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

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

Edit conflict

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

 Done. El_C 23:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Marcelo Caetano

Could you readd the categories "Portuguese fascists" and "Fascist rulers" in Marcelo Caetano's page? They were removed by JPratas and I can't readd it since it is protected. -- 177.135.49.132 (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kinda the point, to prevent further edit warring. Everyone should reengage the discussion about the definition, trying to arrive at consensus. In other words, use your dispute resolution options instead of constantly pestering me about unprotecting those articles early. El_C 16:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Dean Ambrose/Jon Moxley

If you take a look at the talk page of the Dean Ambrose article, there is a requested section. Basically, it has been requested that the article be moved back to Jon Moxley as that is his current ring name. Now, there are two editors, Wicka wicka and Moe Epsilon, who are have been going back and forth with each other. I have been thinking an admin should take a look at it. There have been some language used that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Wicka wicka has been blocked before because of his behavior. That was for edit warring. If you look on his talk page, you'll see that StaticVapor politely left him message about what he has been doing. His response was not civil or polite. The going back and forth between them two needs to stop before it goes any further. They should be focusing on the content not editors. Oh and I left messages on both Wicka wicka and Moe Epsilon's talk pages telling them they should step away from Dean Ambrose/Jon Moxley talk page. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I also said that much to them on the move discussion. That exchange, indeed, got out of hand, risking the stability and cohesiveness of the move request overall. Please keep me updated. El_C 04:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It has now been taken to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Wicka wicka is trying to make himself look as if he has done nothing wrong. His argument on the noticeboard is that this person is a troll and others are siding with him because we are not taking sides. That's how I interpret it. He even went as far as to bring up sealioning to try and back up his argument. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh and whoever brought it to the noticeboard did bother signing it. Edit: I see was GhostOfDanGurney who went to the noticeboard, but didn't sign it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Test of impartiality

Hello. A while ago, you blocked me for edit warring in an article. You did so, even though the reverts were not performed within a 24 hour period and the content being reverted was slightly different each time. We now have a similar situation except that the content being reverted is exactly the same. I figured I should let you know:

dif1

dif2

dif3

dif4

.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Come on Kazemita1, he was not blocked (or even warned) when he made six reverts in less than one day ( I call it a manual page protection, since he reverted most of the new changes!!!). In the article you mentioned, he had been edit warring against Pahlevun, me, you and Saff V. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, this section header is pleasant. You're really motivating me to act in a particular way — not! First, it's not exactly the same: you were blocked for the repeated gaming of 3RR, which you were initially warned about. I see no such warning having been issued, in this case, which I've just learned about now. Second, this is not AN3 — this is my user talk page. Why don't you find another admin to test. El_C 13:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Justice is a heavy load to carry.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense isn't. El_C 17:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Kazemita1 and El C: Let's "Cool it down". "Post truth is a load of nonsense", Hahahaha...! --Mhhossein ^talk 14:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• I was cool, and I remain so. But I (still) just don't appreciate being put to the test. Realize this: I am not obliged to do anything (there are other admins and noticeboards to alert them of issues) — but ask politely and I may look into whatever, time permitting. But essentially telling me that if you don't do the following you fail the test, is not cool. I'd rather fail that test, then. Yes, even if "justice" suffers. After all, these are editing disputes that will eventually see resolution, one way or the other — certainly, lives are not on the line. So let's avoid being hyperbolic for naught. El_C 17:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks for being cool. Yes, you're not obliged to do anything, and the user had to ask you politely to look into the case. I'm not defending the user, but Kazemita1 was blocked, and thought the other party was as guilty as him. Anyway, I liked your "lives are not on the line". Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Sometimes, the material on Wikipedia, to quote myself earlier today "could mean the difference between life and death" — but that is not the case here. Indeed, the other party may be guilty as well, but now, that will be up to another admin to determine. El_C 08:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

My explanation

Hey, did you see my explanation, which you had requested? Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Not yet. El_C 20:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, i leave you this little message in order to thank you with my own words. As an admin, you have been very active on numerous articles i watch and your actions are appreciated. Also, i inform you that from now on, i watch your page to fight vandalism on it, if this bothers you, please let me know and i will remove your talk from my watchlist. Again, thank you and keep up the good work. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! By all means, the more talk page watchers, the better. El_C 21:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow comment on talk

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=900390175 I would appreciate you taking a look at this diff. An anonymous editor made a comment that in my opinion is not a personal attack.Buffs asked the editor to take it to his talk page however editors that choose to remain anonymous are unable to do that because Buffs page is semi-protected (for good reason as I understand it). I am not sure if you were aware of that or not. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Asking someone if they considered taking a break from Wikipedia may be seen as hostile. Buffs read it — we don't need it for the record. El_C 21:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Schazjmd (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User Ahmedo Semosurî

Hi El C! I hope you're having a great day and that you're doing well. I noticed that you blocked the user Ahmedo Semosurî for abusing multiple accounts. I was suspicious that something was going on with this user, but I couldn't find anything from the spot checking that I did. What other users and accounts is this account connected to? Who is the master sock here? Any information you can point me to would be great; I'm just curious and want to take a look. Just ping me in your response here (else I won't receive a notification). Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, @Oshwah:. Master's unknown. Just someone's lame attempt to get the real Ahmedo Semsurî in trouble while they are blocked (by me, for 3RR), to make it seem like they evaded their block. Three attempts: first (Ahmetyall — AS' former username was Ahmetyal); two (Ahmedo_Samsurî); and three (Ahmedo_Semosurî). See my latest comment to 84.236.0.92, concerning their idée fixe. The whole thing is a massive time sink, involving me semiprotecting a dozen articles and blocking any IP that attempted similar edits (1.247.223.50, 121.124.13.174, 110.13.59.164) in sight. Other than that, indeed, a good day! El_C 10:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see... thank you for responding with the information and details. This is very helpful and I appreciate it very much! :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Whelp, that didn't take long! Thanks for being available and for handling it as soon as you noticed the issue continuing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Fer sure. Indeed, let's hope a 24-hour break will do the trick! El_C 03:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

We'll see. If it doesn't, we'll just keep applying longer and longer blocks until an indefinite block is what we think is next. One way or another, the WP:FOLLOWING will stop. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Amen to that! I've added some of those articles to my watchlist, so I'll be watching. El_C 04:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hallelujah! lol... I also declined SolarStorm1859's unblock request. I would've done so regardless, but that was just a silly proposal and he needs to get this through to himself that we're not negotiating or making compromises. He either follows the expectations we set, or he gets blocked if he doesn't. Keep me posted, and I'll do the same. I'll be keeping my eyes open (as you will be too, of course)... :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole I'm willing to stay away for 48 hours if you unblock me really took the cake! El_C 09:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

.Ethereum TLDs (WP:AN3)

Hmm ... I don't see that the disputed paragraph is particularly promotional, more factual - and it's not like there aren't decent sources for it, though. Vice DN Journal. I actually believe CoinDesk to be reliable as well, tbh - I can't see any reason why it isn't. Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, I wasn't sure to what extent the passage was promotional or the source constituting spam — but I did fine the source to be subpar. Unlike those sources, it simply does not come across as mainstream enough. Feel free to re-add the passage with a new source — I have no objection. But reinserting it three times with just that source was something I did find to be a problem. El_C 00:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

More specifically, CoinDesk seem to be dedicated to promoting cryptocurrency (as also seen by its owner). It is not the same like a crypto-disinterested news organisation like, say, Vice Media. El_C 00:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, but you could argue that any niche news source does that - to give an example that I'm familiar with, the main railway-related journals obviously have an interest in promoting rail over other transport, but that doesn't mean their news stories aren't reliable. In this case, it's not really promoting crypto, just reporting on it. Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but coindesk.com/information seem like it's promoting cryptocurrency — I'm not saying it's not useful as a guide, but as a newsource it seems too slanted. Niche sources that concern, say, rail or aviation are unlikely to feature such how-to instructions, so I'm not sure about that comparison. El_C 01:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

John from Idegon (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

thanks for your prompt action. I don't know what you hid, but I just reverted the part I wanted hidden. There isn't much there.... John from Idegon (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

And I'm out for the night. Date with the kiddo. Thanks again. John from Idegon (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

No sweat. I think I got it all. Enjoy! El_C 02:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Your close about RfA discretionary range was not a status quo outcome

In your close determining that RfA votes don't matter anymore you intone that RfA has always been a consensus building exercise as if the numbers had really nothing to do with it. This assertion is false. While RfA started as a rubber stamp from editors, this was causing heartburn by April of 2007. By that point there was already a discretionary range with attendant arguments of preventing bureaucrats pushing candidates many editors didn't accept versus letting bureaucrats promote admins that the minority of editors just want to derail. Discussion continued into July of 2007. This discussion in March 2008 questioned if the bottom end of discretionary range was 70 or 75%. This sad proposal in August of 2010 tried to weaken the application of the discretionary range. RfA has been a vote for ten years. Your close should have reflected this fact rather than portrayed the outcome as a continuation of the status quo. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

My close reflected the strength of the arguments and agreements as I perceived them at the time. It did not intimate that there is no threshold — clearly there is. Rather, the close largely attempted to address whether there was consensus for the proposal of turning RfA into a pure, anonymous vote which removes bureaucrats' discretion entirely. I evaluated there being no consensus for that proposal. At any rate, my focus was as much on what RfA is as it was on what participants thought it should be. In short, I evaluated the view that "it's a consensus building discussion" to have enjoyed consensus. I, however, note that I did find your own minority view at the time that "there are numbers involved, so it's a vote" to have been deemed overly simplistic. To quote another participant: "consensus on Wikipedia does have a numerical aspect," so the opinion that it is "both" was also one I attempted to encompass under the umbrella of a consensus-based discussion. To sum up, then, the proposal of turning RfA into a pure anonymous vote had some strong arguments, but ultimately it failed to gain consensus. For better or worse, the view that RfA remains (and should continue to be about) a consensus building discussion ultimately prevailed. El_C 16:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request: Gun control

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Gun control and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 17:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

More block evasion

Gristkenya is another block evading sock of User:Tharploki1. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 17:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Please explain to me why you deleted the sourced sentence and protected the site. I think Wikipedia is an accurate encyclopedia and not a storybook. I have not found the country on the map so I'm surprised. We should already write what corresponds to the reality. Thank you very much for an answer. Coron Arol (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Can you please tell me where is this country? [15][16] Coron Arol (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't be coy. You know it's not a country. And, as mentioned, unless you seriously shape up, you will be topic banned from the Kurdish set of articles (I've already effectively article-banned you by upping the protection to extended-confirmed — though you may still use the article talk page). You will not be allowed to edit tendentiously. Maybe go edit something non-contentious for a while, until you learn the ropes here? El_C 00:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If it is not a country then it should be written there that it is not a country or it should be completely removed there and replaced by West Asia. I think an encyclopedia should be neutral and not support pov. I am very disappointed. Coron Arol (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Projecting is not going to get you what you want. El_C 00:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust image vandal

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the Holocaust image vandal you blocked earlier (on 2 IPs) is evading his block again. This time, he's using the IP 2600:100a:b02f:9ea7:acfd:7695:f70e:e438 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can you please block that one as well? Incidentally, it seems that he has access to the entire /44 range, 2600:100a:b02f:0:0:0:0:0/44, so that range should probably be blocked for 2 weeks or so, given the recent pattern of persistent disruption. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bradv. El_C 15:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please reinstate indefinite semi-protection of the Homosexuality article

El C, with this edit, Liz changed the level of protection for this article two days after problematic edits were reverted. The rationale given by Liz was "Edit warring / content dispute." The indefinite semi-protection is now set to expire on June 11th. As we can see here and here, there was no content dispute. The edits were simply WP:Vandalism. Yes, I don't see any "we should assume good faith" with those edits. The Homosexuality article is one of those articles that should always be indefinitely semi-protected. It's that controversial of a topic, obviously. So will you please reinstate indefinite semi-protection of the article? I don't see that we should first wait and see how unprotection does. We know how it will do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Doc James took care of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away. Glad to hear this was sorted. El_C 05:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I’d like to apologize for some of my recent comments on the most recent mass shooting’s article. I was completely unaware that the last line of ONUS placed the burden on the including side. Sorry for casting aspersions and generally behaving cluelessly. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries. And thanks, a cookie sounds good, just about now! Anyway, what I tried to get across is that we have two competing arguments: one to include victims' lists (if prevails: consensus to include) and one to exclude it (if prevails: no consensus to include). We can also say consensus to exclude, but that would be redundant, because that's what we default to when the threshold for consensus (for inclusion) isn't met, anyway. That's because longstanding text is that default whenever a proposal to do anything fails. That is, then, why I said that had the original author included a victims' list, we would talking, in terms of longstanding text, of consensus for removal or no consensus for removal — those are the only two options available. Anyway, so it isn't about the addition or removal of material, rather it's, indeed, about longstanding text and the attempt to change it, by adding, removing, or modifying it in some way. An effort that requires the threshold of consensus, or no consensus if there is agreement to the contrary or if there is no agreement at all. El_C 05:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Continued BLP violations

Thank you for semi-protecting Hassan Jameel. Unfortunately the BLP violations are continuing, from a registered user, Fortune Mabena (that's not a ping), despite repeated warnings [17], [18], [19]. They have now repeated the BLP-vios for a third time despite a very clear article-talk explanation. They seem unable to accurately read or understand a source, or to know what a reliable source is. They are also refusing to discuss their edits. Can you please help? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I've placed the BLP DS alert on their talk page and will be monitoring closely. El_C 09:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The Sun Comes Out World Tour

Thanks for protecting Oral Fixation Tour. The same issue is with The Sun Comes Out World Tour, persistent long term vandalism by the same Shakira111 socks, they actually always do the same two edits on these two pages. Can you please give it the same protection? --Muhandes (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 10:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Thanks --Muhandes (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Your input please

Would you please let us know about your input here, please. I'm aware that the article is not locked, but would prefer to have a an outsider's view before anything else. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by here? Is there something specific you want me to look at? That talk page is pretty long! El_C 14:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops! In fact, I meant to ask you take a look at this. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Unprotect Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

Could you unprotect Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt? I requested it to be protected but the other editor said they have decided to stop editing the page (at WP:AE), so no dispute exists anymore. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 15:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that

I'm not fond of legal threats, appreciate the prompt action. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You bet. Anytime. El_C 16:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi El C! I just wanted to thank you for taking care of the continued issues with SolarStorm1859 while I was offline. I was busy with work and other things, and I'm just now getting myself all caught up. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Fer sure. I've been away myself for over 2 days (9-12 June) — but yeah, never a dull moment! El_C 20:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Back

This disruptive contributor is back. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. But until they do something destructive, it's perhaps best to neither protect all those articles nor play whack-a-mole with various random IPs. I'm open to suggestions, however. El_C 09:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think keeping an eye out for their reverts should be good enough for now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Basque mythology

Hello El C, why do you revert my last contribution of the Basque mythology article with the work and references added? I would appreciate reversions and leave the information.--85.84.35.57 (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Because, as mentioned in my edit summary, the tone is too informal ("grown up with the magic of mythology," etc.), sorry. El_C 10:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC).

Too casual? is a basic information, referenced on the sculptural art of Basque mythology with the only international artists: Néstor Basterretxea and Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier who have taken and deepened on the subject of the Basque mythology. Informal is a very subjective point of view and working a lot of time on the internet searching for Basque mythology artists are the only ones that exist. It is to add basic information about the article. I would be grateful if you could revert that information about the art and artists of the Basque mythology. Thank you..--85.84.35.57 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You cannot add sentences such as "grown up with the magic of mythology" — as it is simply too informal for an encyclopedia article, by any measure. El_C 12:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

To be fair

I don't think my original comment, which was necessary clarification in light of the somewhat canvas-y "Not saying you should close it this way, but..." message, needed to be blanked. It hardly seems fair to blame me for this.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Myself, I wasn't blaming anyone, only pointing out that ANRFC is not the place for threaded discussion, in the first place. El_C 12:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

True enough: had I not been pinged I probably wouldn't have responded more than once. Do you mind if I restore the first one? I've had bad experiences with BADNACs at ANI that appeared to just be counting !votes and I'm legitimately concerned that that'll happen here too. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather not, actually. But let me ask you this, after all that: what would your preferred close be? El_C 15:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Same one I !voted for. :P

In all seriousness, though, per my own second reply to Starship, closers at ANI, like everywhere else, are pretty free to ignore the "majority" if their !votes are clearly counter-policy or based on an ignorance (feigned or sincere) of the evidence. Any lone admin could have looked at the evidence prior to the last ANI thread two weeks ago and issued a warning to that effect without having already had a bunch of editors explicitly support it. Indeed, any uninvolved admin could issue such a warning even if an ANI thread had been open for days and received next to no outside input.[20] Granted, part of the abuse for which I requested the final warning was completely badgering closers about casting "supervotes", so I can understand why any uninvolved admin would be reluctant to make the otherwise-obvious call, but still.

(On a side-note I'd also like to see the editor who has devoted about half of his whole Wikipedia career to harassing me be either indeffed off the bat or told that if he doesn't leave me alone he will be indeffed at the next hint of disruption. But that's really peripheral to the main ANI thread.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I just don't think opening that ANRFC entry to any discussion or further comments (even one) is the best approach here. And anyway, a closer who knows about ANRFC, in the first place, probably doesn't needs guidance about weighing the arguments rather than tallying the preferences like an automaton. I'd close this myself, but I already tried once and it didn't work. El_C 15:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

a closer who knows about ANRFC, in the first place, probably doesn't needs guidance about weighing the arguments rather than tallying the preferences like an automaton You'd be surprised. Yeah, non-admins can't say There is no consensus for any community sanctions, but it's clear that Party B has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, while Party A has been repeatedly violating policy and is trying to stir up shit for Party B as revenge for Party B bringing this to the community consensus: I, using my administrative discretion, will personally block Party A if I see any more of this content policy violation or stirring up of shit., but that's why non-admins shouldn't be making such closures. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The TLDR is strong with that 2015 report, also. But I did especially enjoyed reading how that prompted the suggestion of just blocking both editors for 30 days and letting God sort em out! Ah, a different time... El_C 10:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Golanette

It looks like Golanette couldn't wait for the article's protection to expire to come back (as Intenst) and try to restore their previous edit, including through their usual edit warring. I opened a SPI, but I would really appreciate it if you could have a word with them in the meantime or if at at all possible semi protect the article. Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done and done. El_C 19:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That was amazingly quick. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Yeah, I recognized the edits right away. El_C 20:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

List of contemporary ethnic groups

As the only regular editor for the List of contemporary ethnic groups, can you tell me what the hell happen after my last edit? Rjrya395 (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Just some ethnonationalist nonsenseseses of the usual variety. El_C 10:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, anyway, thanks for semi-protecting that page. Rjrya395 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

So... that dude is back at it, again. Rjrya395 (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. El_C 09:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

ITER

I agree with your version about nuclear fusion. May be you present it better tha me.95.246.196.32 (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm just not an expert in the field, so I don't really feel qualified writing about it. El_C 04:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Self-imposed TBANs

I just wanted to let you know that your recent close here is not covered by policy. TBANs are only available via DS, GS, conditional unblocks, community sanctions and AC sanctions. While I agree with your TBAN, it does not have a consensus, what you want to do about that is up to you. This isn't some sort of complaint, just thought I'd let you know. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Its an WP:IBAN, not a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

IBAN yeah, I read that as a TBAN for no reason. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. No, I was, in fact, unaware. But I actually did think that the previous report had such consensus — but on closer read, it does not (not enough people wanted to get involved). Anyway, if they both agree to not interact with one another, then the whole issue becomes moot. On the other hand, if they wish to prolong the conflict, well, that would also be their prerogative. But true enough, policy-wise, they are free to do so. El_C 12:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

My instinct says both of these users are edging to a block anyway, which isn't a good thing. Given they previously didn't agree with IBANs, I do not think they will agree now, and as such, I will open a sanction discussion on the ANI thread to dispense of the matter. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Restoring removed data under IBAN

Hi, as You know an IBAN was imposed over myself. But now I'm in a bind as I don't know how to restore removed content on those 3 pages: Enzo Ferrari Special:Diff/901991464, Ferrari F50 Special:Diff/901990874, Maserati MC12 Special:Diff/901992160; and don't violate the IBAN. This content has to be retored, as chassis codes are on every italian car's page, especially Fiat-group, but not exclusive. Chassis code is as important as an engine code, but in the outcome of this dispute this content was removed. This question also applies to other pages that were jointly edited, but are important to me, I guess. Thank You for Your time. YBSOne (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

First, see above. In answer to your question, I don't think the content needs to be restored. Wikipedia can survive without it. Maybe note your concerns about it on the article talk page without referring to the other editor and then leave it alone? Same goes for the other party. Just go do something else without engaging the other user. Otherwise, I really don't have an an answer for you. El_C 12:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Logging TBAN

Hello EI_C, I noticed that you did not log the TBAN of the editors at Editing restrictions. That's all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 21:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

About the Absolute (philosophy) page

Because you decided to contact me about this: No, I didn't (and still don't) consider either the (very relatively speaking) old "mass list" or the "mess of a lead" to actually negatively affect the quality of the article. In fact, I considered them to be very detailed, and I like the articles I read to be very thorough and detailed. This is why I considered Joshua Jonathan's (and now your) edits to the page to have made it "anemic" in nature, plus inaccurate, as Para Brahman, a single conception of the Absolute (brought up as an example), is defined as essentially "beyond being", meaning that "the sum of all being, actual and potential" does not apply to it.

I also wanted to know which parts of the "old" article were considered "original research".

And I'm not deliberately altering my IP address. I don't know my computer does what it does, just that it (sometimes) does.

172.112.98.179 (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Just maybe register an account, so you don't come across as unaccountable. Sorry, but the length of that mass list is excessive and that mess of a lead is highly non-standard. I suggest you try to engage the article cleanup on the article talk page. I don't think there was ever consensus for your 23 May expansion. The article is in better shape now than it has been in many years, perhaps ever. El_C 08:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll go to the article's talk page about this. 172.112.98.179 (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

FedEx

use the FRIS report for up to the day for FedEx and many airlines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.83 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure. But it's the responsibility of the person who is adding the information to attribute their data to the relevant sources. El_C 15:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem

This is exactly the problem. I didn't threaten anyone, so why are you warning me? I'm being honest that and saying it wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere. I didn't say anything about doing anything, I except asking for help. So just to really clarify this. I ask for help, am clearly upset, clearly feeling harassed/abused/soemthing, and you give me a warning. Do you honestly not see that as a huge problem? ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You can't speak about lawsuits as pertaining to an editorial dispute, even by mere implication. That's not permitted on Wikipedia. El_C 17:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sir ñeed help

Sir I'm following fews television show and I'm updating the plot also, but the IP editor are removing it. And so an edit wars is starting due to my edit revert. And I can update the plot of the series with proof. But not in terms of reference and citation. It would be in the form of picture to prove the plot is actually the show script... I can give the proof in the form of the television electronic programming guide (EPG). Do help. AR.Dmg (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I suck at guessing: what articles is this about? El_C 15:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to decline your requests at RfPP, because the level of disruption just isn't high enough to require protection. Please feel free to let me know if it gets worse, though. El_C 17:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Viewratio vandal

Just so you know, user:2a02:8109:1fc0:2968:1855:5e92:3952:4e75 keeps copying user:Viewratio's talkpage and putting the content on her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Review!

Sir, please review my first ever created page named Baavle Utaavle. Kindly give your valuble feedback. Thanks. Edit2Text (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

As someone unfamiliar with the series, I found it a bit confusing. Especially, met under the table and it was called as "Chemical Locha" — what does that mean? Also, [a]fter very difficulties they married to each other and the story takes on — that needs to be rewritten for grammar. I'll give it a go, but I don't know what to do about the "Chemical Locha" confusion, because I just am uable to make sense of it. El_C 04:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I am going to fix. Kindly wait for my next reply Edit2Text (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see the page again,sir. Edit2Text (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have a look. El_C 13:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the page, It was a pleasure to me Edit2Text (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Anytime! Best wishes, El_C 15:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Indian Space Research Organisation

Could you please up the protection of Indian Space Research Organisation to full protection because some of the disruptive editors are extended-confirmed. CLCStudent (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Only recent problem account I see is Vivekshukla21, so I'd rather wait to see what happens next. Please keep me updated. El_C 13:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

DS

Hi El C, I wanted to ask you if you might be willing to modify some page-level sanctions that you placed on 6 articles.

• Immigration policy of Donald Trump
• List of executive actions by Donald Trump
• Michael Flynn
• Social policy of Donald Trump
• Stop Trump movement
• William Barr

The "Consensus Required" sanction used to be very popular, with User:Coffee alone adding it to over 80 pages around 2016. In December 2018 I removed it completely from 26 of those pages and on 55 other pages I replaced with a similar but less-strict "Enforced BRD" sanction. It has also been removed or replaced by a few other admins, so that the total count of articles under "consensus required" is down from about 120 in its heyday to about 20. I'm hoping I might convince you to also remove or replace it. I've written an essay at User:Awilley/Consensus Required vs Enforced_BRD with reasons I think "Enforced BRD" is better than "Consensus Required". Would you mind taking a look at that? If you decide you want to remove/replace the sanctions but don't feel like fiddling with the edit notice templates and stuff I'm happy to do the templates and logging on your behalf. ~Awilley (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know if I agree with that. For certain articles, I find that consensus required might be better than the back-and-fourth of forced brd. I recently decided to add it to People's Mujahedin of Iran over forced brd, which I also considered and brought up for discussion, exactly for that reason. I'm not sure about the state of those articles you list in that regard, but unless I'm shown case-by-case grounds to switch those, I'm actually not inclined to do that at this time. El_C 14:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I see you've already put some thought into this. I didn't realize you had written an essay as well. Could you clarify what it is you aren't sure you agree with? Are there specific points in my essay that you think are incorrect, or am I missing some points, or are you saying that the benefits Consensus Required has over Enforced BRD (like preventing back-and-forth) outweigh the 7 problems I listed? ~Awilley (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not write an essay. I wrote an explanatory supplement on Coffee's behalf. Yes, in some instances, where edit warring is too chronic, eliminating it altogether can be seen to be better than going back and fourth every 24 hours, seemingly indefinitely. I stand by that position. Despite the provision's other flaws, I'm not sure that removing it wholesale is the right call. Seeing how well it works or lack thereof in each individual article seems like a more sensible approach to me. El_C 17:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Eliminating it [back and forth] altogether can be seen to be better" I realize you may not have intended it that way, but that's one of the points I'm trying to make. The back-and-forth is the most visible symptom of the underlying problem of no consensus. Eliminating back-and-forth doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it to the talk page where it is less visible, and actually makes it more difficult for editors to find consensus by removing some of their best consensus-building procedures (i.e. the option of resolving disputes through a combination of discussion and creative editing or "partial reverts" that take into account the objections of the other side). As I hinted at in my essay, the problem of slow edit wars you're talking about is better resolved by warning and sanctioning the individual editors who are engaging in the edit wars, and from an admin perspective that's an easy problem to identify and sanction. I think Consensus Required could be a very good thing if it were applied to individual problematic editors instead of entire pages where it makes things more difficult for everybody. ~Awilley (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that careful monitoring of the discussion by admins can lead to similar results, but sparing multiple reverts on the article mainspace. Certainly, editors who abuse consensus required with baseless objections can be warned and sanctioned, too (or just safely ignored), so I'm not sure I agree with your line of reasoning there. My point remains: to what extent this actually works, again, should be examined on an article-by-article basis. Certainly, where it is shown not to be working, a different set of restrictions (such as forced brd) may be applied, instead. El_C 18:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Having had this exact same discussion when “Enforced BRD” was originally implemented I’m just going to say this: reasonable people can disagree in good faith, and the solution is to accept that and move on, not keep explaining to other reasonable people about how if they just saw things a slightly different way they’d change their position. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: "editors who abuse consensus required with baseless objections can be warned and sanctioned" Genuinely curious: have you ever actually sanctioned an editor for making baseless objections on a talk page? I know I've thought about it because it's really annoying for other editors, but I've never tried imposing sanctions because admins aren't supposed to get involved in content disputes. Personally, I'd love to be the logic police and block people who make bad arguments on talk pages, but that's not really how things work. The point is that CR eliminates a problem that is easy for admins to fix by sanctioning individual editors and exacerbates a problem that is nearly impossible for admins to fix. @Tony I'm fine agreeing to disagree, but I also like to have a clear understanding of where the disagreement is. ~Awilley (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, when an objection to an edit is determined to be clearly tendentious, then it ceases to be valid. El_C 21:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you there, but that wasn't the question. ~Awilley (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that spans the limits to administrative intervention. In answer to your question: I've never needed to, as my experience has been that objections tend to either be substantiated (eventually), or reach a compromise. I've never encountered a tendentious, unsubstantiated objection in an article under consensus required that effectively stonewalled participants. But again, that's just my experience, others' mileage may vary. El_C 21:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me be a bit more specific with the TE scenario: Suppose there is a user who, whenever a proposed edit squares with their POV, says "Support inclusion - this is RELIABLY SOURCED" but when an edit goes against their POV they say "Oppose - this is UNDUE WEIGHT and not NOTABLE enough for inclusion". The editor never backs down, always producing more WP:ALPHABET SOUP that ostensibly supports their POV, and fights each RfC to the bitter end. Now multiply that editor by 20 and put half of them on the other side of the political divide. Then sprinkle in 10 less-tendentious editors and 10 non-tendentous editors who change their positions based on criteria other than their own POV, but who have a hard time getting anything done in the article because they effectively have to get an explicit talkpage consensus for every change that one side of the Tendentious crowd might disagree with. As an admin, how do you go about dealing with the tendentious editors in this scenario?

This is a bit off topic, but I'm asking because this scenario is a real problem that I see every day. I don't know the solution to the problem, but I'm fairly certain that the Consensus Required rule is making the problem worse, not better. That, more than anything else, is at the root of what I'm trying to do with the BRD rule. ~Awilley (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, if something is clearly tendentious, then you treat that like you would tendentious editing anywhere else, if need be, by fiat. The editors in question always have ARCA to appeal to, to check that. In articles that involve complex historiography, there's no choice for an admin wishing to apply DS but to have a glancing familiarity with what's going on. But I don't see how forced brd eliminates impasses, either. It gets the same impasse, plus reverting back and fourth aimlessly on the mainspace, which consensus requires spares. El_C 22:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

In other words, I'm less concerned with two versions intermittently sharing the mainspace than I am at arriving at a long term, long lasting resolution. El_C 22:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification in your last sentence. I'm still a bit foggy on the "by fiat" solution you propose in the first sentence. I can name 20 editors who fit the "tendentious" profile I described above, and none of them have ever been sanctioned for tendentious editing (though many have been sanctioned for other infractions).

Forced BRD doesn't eliminate the impasse, it just makes it a little bit easier for editors to arrive at the eventual consensus (by allowing them the ability to perform partial reverts with discussion). Consensus Required makes the impasse a little harder to resolve by empowering the intransigent tendentious editors.

Last point, Re "long lasting resolution": I strongly believe that a consensus wording that is reached through a combination of collaborative editing plus discussion will be more stable than a consensus that is formed by one "side" getting more !votes for their desired wording in an RfC. I can provide specific examples of this if you like. Anyway, thank you for engaging with me on this. I'll stop bothering you for now :-) ~Awilley (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's no bother. But I still disagree. Any compromise that might happen first on the mainspace, is a compromise that, in turn, can be first reached through talk page proposals and discussion. El_C 23:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case why is it that article development invariably screeches to a halt when an article is full-protected? I rarely see disputes resolve themselves on talk when I full-protect an article. More often people just go do other things until the protection expires. If talk page proposals and discussion can do anything that collaborative editing can do we might as well just indefinitely protect all our controversial articles. ~Awilley (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a lot of development unrelated to a given dispute gets halted when an article is fully-protected, so I would account it to that, mainly. El_C 15:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The ARS code of conduct

The situation I did explain in the current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Editor_conduct. There was never any consensus to add that in it begin with, and no one has ever followed it once. No other Wikiprojects have a rule saying you have to tell people you saw an AFD listed on that Wikiproject if you comment in the AFD. Dream Focus 23:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The talk page of the template is blank! El_C 23:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought we should be able to discuss material before adding it. The fact that the addition was revdelled several times should be reason enough for the editor to get consensus prior. It also seems inappropriate for anyone to make no-consensus changes while there is an opened Mfd. The last thing I want is to be involved in more ANI and endless diff gathering activity. User:Lightburst 23:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You didn't provide any objection except that talk page consensus needs to be reached first. What is your actual objection? El_C 23:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on the multiple revdel of the additional material. I would not feel it is my right (or anyone's) to go to a WP group and change or add to the code of conduct. And if I had been revdelled several times, that is a good indication that approval or discussion is warranted. I think Tryptofish is likely a good editor and means well. But the behavior ATM is not conscientious IMO. Perhaps the material should be added, but not this way. User:Lightburst 23:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I went through the template — nothing has been revdel'd that I am able to see. Again, if you have an actual objection, please feel free to present it. El_C 23:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will not protract this. Have a great weekend! User:Lightburst 00:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you read the edit summaries and seen where it all started at here: [21] This was reverted by various editors then put back in by his friends and him after they had a conversation on a user talk page. An administrator removed the bit also [22] with the edit summary stating in part "no one else is required to state why they came to an AfD." He then added it back in yet again after that. One of the times I reverted its addition I used the edit summary "restoring version before adding in disputed nonsense. Do not edit war it back in. Form a consensus on the talk page addressing the problems". There was never any consensus to add that in, and also its nothing anyone can enforce. Dream Focus 00:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nothing was revdeled. I'm sure he meant reverted. If you look at the edit history starting with this edit of mine: [23] (you can just look at the edit history of the template, no need to go through each edit), you can follow the background of how the material got there. Some of the objections were that only a project member should be allowed to make the edit, and some were that the expectation of disclosure is unfair because no other project does that; obviously, I disagree. I am absolutely certain that I also remember discussing it in talk, but I cannot for the life of me find that now. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I take your point about it not being enforceable. Maybe I haven't fully thought this through. Let's continue the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list#Editor_conduct, where more people can see it. El_C 00:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I found that past discussion that I remembered: Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 59#Accusations of canvassing placed in code of conduct template. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

How did Jytdog get indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee? Can you give me the cliff notes? El_C 01:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:OUTING. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. El_C 01:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit Tag on Gaza Strip

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

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

GretLomborg

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

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

Inquisition

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

The issue is on the article Inquisition

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

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

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

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

What to do?

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

Regards, Pavel

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

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

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

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

thanks and update

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

You've got mail!

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

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

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

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

Wah Ching

Can I persuade you that it's time to block 2600:1012:b04b:2e4c/64 for a while? The edit you reverted was the 3rd IP in this block to make random edits to this article and several others in the past few days, so talk page warnings are having no effect. I've come to the conclusion that tying talk pages to IPv6/128 was a mistake; we should have tied them to IPv6/64. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is the actual range? Please wikilink. El_C 00:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the way this gets reported is Special:Contributions/2600:1012:b04b:2e4c::/64. Ah, yes, that shows the IP addresses. Although I was wrong, there was another range involved, too: Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B01E:4A46::/64. They're both Verizon wireless out of LA, so the same editor, but it's not purely within the same IP/64 range as I'd thought. Maybe I'll request page protection next time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarl N. (talk • contribs)

By all means, please feel free to list those here or at RfPP, if issues persist. El_C 03:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Houthi movement

@El C: I think SharabSalam (talk · contribs) is acting suspicious. After you blocked his account SharabSalam (talk · contribs) [[24]] for one week and warned him for his violation, The IP 5.237.208.153 (talk · contribs) restored all his deleted edits as you can see in ([25].

He has reverted this page many times as you can see in [[26]] [[27]] [[28]][[29]] [[30]]

I have opened new section in the talk page to discuss his view as in talk page, but it seems he want to enforce his opnion without reaching consensus for this . Also, SharabSalam (talk · contribs) is posting Antisemitism image containg the following "الموت لاسرائيل" death to israel" in his page. [31]]

Thank you --AliSami (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please use your dispute resolution resources to get outside input into your dispute, so that it isn't just the two of you going back and fourth on the talk page and the mainspace. As for File:Iran_ceremony_celebrating_the_40th_anniversary_of_the_Islamic_Revolution_2.jpg — I don't consider that as antisemitism but just anti-Israeli sentiment of the usual Islamic regime variety. Frankly, I'm bored rather than am offended by it. El_C 09:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Replying to AliSami, Nonsense. I haven't made any revert in any place since I was unblock (as the previous title of this talk section suggest I have made a revert). I have replied in the talk page and you are the one who started editwarring. When you introduce an edit and you get reverted you are the one who should go to the talk page and YOU seek consensus for your edit not me.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather this dispute not spillover onto my user talk page. I've semiprotected the article, so IPs are no longer a factor, and I reverted to the status quo ante. As mentioned on the article talk page, perhaps it's time you both took a break from the article for a while. El_C 10:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Invite to RfC (Request for Comment) at Reagan article on Iran-Contra

Hi,

You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?"

Talk:Ronald_Reagan#rfc_85A761C

Thanks,

FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I just reverted some vandalism, my familiarity with the article's editing history is virtually non-existent. I'm not sure a nearly 30 editors -sized mass-message was the right call here, but I guess what's done is done. El_C 16:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mail call

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | talk 20:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC).

Thanks, got it. El_C 03:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Protection of minors

El C, can I confirm, so to protect minors, they are not allowed to edit topics related to where they live? starship.paint (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a rule established in policy. We just have to use our common sense (which I hope, when it comes to minors, would include an abundance of caution), as defined by Wikipedia:Child protection as well as advised in WP:YOUNG and WP:AFP; especially the latter's statement that: the most useful piece of advice guardians can give to younger editors is to never divulge any personally identifiable information (name, age, location, school) on Wikipedia – or anywhere else publicly available on the Internet for that matter. So, it's always bad idea for a minor to disclose (accidentally or otherwise) where they are from, be it done explicitly, or by virtue of the focus of their edits (of course, Delhi and, say, the village of Lava, are not equal in that regard). You do, then, need to display a delicate touch when it comes to dealing with minors on Wikipedia, including but not limited to being strenuously vigilant about their health and safety, in every possible sense. El_C 03:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, at this point, we pretty much already have age, town, education level revealed unfortunately, maybe even a hint of a name from the offensively named account. starship.paint (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

True dat. What would you suggest? El_C 03:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking allowing of editing (expanding?) content based on related towns, buildings, etc (thought it would be a subject of interest). But now they've said they'd rather copyedit and that there are some sort of internet restriction (probably will affect ability to expand content). So I guess my point is moot, maybe just leave the editor to copyedit then. starship.paint (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, the hope, at any rate, is that they find a quiet corner of the wiki to contribute in, uneventfully. El_C 04:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

So, you jinxed it, El C. Here's an idea: topic ban for 6 months from editing comments of other editors. Also, why shouldn't we revdel (Redacted)? starship.paint (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I know, right? No, no topic ban — they should just not do it, full stop. Anyway, I've already offered to revdel that article talk page, more for their peace of mind than anything, but the user is fine with those messages just not being displayed, which I then implemented. City name redacted, as still the less attention we give it, the better. At any rate, there's nothing that would positively identify them, in this city of 100,000+, so I'm not overly concerned about their health and safety in that regard, or I would do it regardless of whether they had requested it or not. El_C 10:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

DRV

Hey! An IP user forgot to inform you that they're challenging your speedy deletion of Category:Evil here. --MrClog (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That again. Some further LTA nonsense, I suspect. El_C 14:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sexual fluidity article

El_C, to ensure that there is no more edit warring and to help aid discussion, will you full-protect the Sexual fluidity article for a few days? That should give me and the other editor time to work out matters if the other editor is willing to discuss. If it's not full-protected for at least a few days, I'm sure the edit warring (on my part as well) will continue. A few days is also all that I need to fix up the article via a draft offline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Whoa, are you aware you violated 3RR? I suggest you self-revert while you still can! El_C 15:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C, yes, I'm aware. The edit warring has, however, stopped. And if the editor restores the material, I won't revert again. So I don't see that there is a need for any block, as blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Given what I stated on the article's talk page, it is not in the best interest of the article that I revert to the other editor's edits. I'm not even sure if the other editor will return to actually debate. If the other editor does return, what I'm concerned about is future (not immediate) edit warring between me and that editor at that article. By this, I mean a slow edit war, which is why I asked you to full-protect the article, which will prevent disruption and aid discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

But if the user reverts to break 3RR themselves, then it won't be even-handed to block just one of you. You should keep that in mind. El_C 15:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You have a chance to rescind a 3RR violation — you need to just take it. El_C 15:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and revert, as I just got a ping from another editor about this saying that they will reinstate my edits. But if the editor I was in dispute with were to come along and revert again, I think it would be best to full-protect the article and give us a chance to work it out than to block either one of us. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for rescinding your 3RR violation. Now that I know further edit warring is imminent I have, indeed, protected the article for three days. El_C 16:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify General Ization reinstating my edits as further edit warring. I also think that the editor in question is likelier not to return and debate while the article is full-protected now that their edits are reinstated and will be that way for three days. I know that it's whiny to cite WP:The wrong version, but, hey, it is. And after the article's full protection expires, I and others should just let that version remain? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

My intention was to adopt Flyer's edits, as I believe they are correct, and to reinstate them if Flyer was required to revert because of a technical 3RR violation. Since I have not previously reverted content at this article, not sure how that would constitute continued edit warring. General Ization ^Talk 16:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, if the user does not respond in, say, a day, I will revert the protected version myself. Stonewalling is not an option. General Ization, I thought it was a tautology — it would be edit warning as it continues the edit war. El_C 16:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

QN

Hello El C. I have seen an editor[32] whose username (and articles he edited) is similar to an another editor's[33] on WP. Is this a WP:IMPERSONATOR case? The editor doesn't seem disruptive though. Puduḫepa (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know — whose the other editor? El_C 18:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the incompleted information—the link is above Puduḫepa (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I think they're fine. Just a fluke. I don't think it poses an issue at this time. El_C 18:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the answer. Puduḫepa (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Arjuni Morgaon

Dear Sir Please Update my home Town Arjuni Morgaon As City with Municipal Council and population of town is as 2011 census 11000. Harshalkumar Khawse (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear sir, please Guide me on Wikipedia for better advice with Editing nearby places. Harshalkumar Khawse (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Harshalkumar Khawse (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also Update Information about my town Dena Bank is now Converted as Bank of Baroda and Arjuni Morgaon Bus Station is also Available for Transportation. Harshalkumar Khawse (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also Update Information about my town Dena Bank is now Converted as Bank of Baroda and Arjuni Morgaon Bus Station is also Available for Transportation. Harshalkumar Khawse (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Edit requests are made on the article talk page — and at any rate, I can't make updates without access to the data. El_C 14:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Continue RFAR thoughts

I don't have a proposal. We've lost. I don't think anything ArbCom does, including resigning en masse, would make T&S budge on Fram's ban. The WMF have inertia, and the software, on their side. If the proposed RFC resulted in a unanimous opinion from the en.wiki community and ArbCom, WMFOffice would say "I speak for the entire T&S team when I say we thank you for your valuable input, it means a lot to us, gives us important perspectives to consider, and we look forward to working together more closely in the future", and then do nothing. They don't have to do anything. I'm not saying "they do not care about what the en.wiki community thinks" for dramatic effect; I say it because I think it is literally true. The only thing that would affect them would be if the WMF Board directed the WMF ED to direct them to do something. I believe that in spite of Doc James' good intentions, he's 1/11th of the board, and there is a 2% chance of that happening. There's maybe another 1% chance that some kind of outside publicity might embarrass them or make them worry about fundraising. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not that pessimistic, yet. True, organizational inertia is a powerful stuff of nightmares, but I think the combined weight of the community and the Arbitration Committee, as well as that of Jimbo and Doc James, can maybe make a difference. I say, let's give it a chance. If we're truly lost, what have we got to lose? El_C 21:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

True. If there is no God, what's the harm in praying? It's not like I particularly mind if ArbCom organizes an RFC. By all means, give it a try. As hard as it is to believe, I've been wrong before. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The WMF caved in the superprotect matter, but not in this one (unless the WMF Board decides to overturn things). Ultimately, superprotect was something that practically united the entire Wikimedia movement against WMF. The participants were on enwiki and dewiki, and well it happened during Wikimania too. With this situation, it's really just enwiki, and for all the cries about a silent majority, there is at least a significant minority on enwiki who support the WMF ban on Fram.

I'm not saying that it's impossible, but you've gotta make a lot more people care about this to get the sort of backlash that would make WMF cave. Superprotect was about software that got in editors' way, every day. This incident is about one admin on one wiki, so it's a lot harder of a sell. Even harder, Fram has not exactly made friends on Wikidata (and is unknown on Commons and Meta, the two other main hubs), and enwiki does have a reputation for being lax on civility - not to mention that a lot of the people already defending him do think that Fram is uncivil. The media has also not picked this up as they did superprotect, which does not help. So in short, we would have to work a whole lot harder. Maybe the next edition of the Signpost will help (it does go to some other wikis). I don't know.

Now, if they started banning more prominent editors left and right, it might get more attention. And if WMF really ran amuck - while the servers are still owned by WMF, the setup of the software does have some checks and balances, which I won't go into here. --Rschen7754 06:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and also: Participate in ArbCom elections. Participate in steward elections. Participate in the WMF board elections. All of those positions really do matter in things like this. --Rschen7754 06:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring IPs on Australian Independents

The deleter clearly has access to this IP as well, since they were also using it today: 49.199.107.229. You might want to block that one as well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, you might also want to Semi-Protect the article for a while. I just found a third IP scrolling down the revision history page, and I doubt that's the end of it. An effective rangeblock would be somewhere in the /17 network. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and semi'd for a week, just out of an abundance of caution. El_C 01:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Protecting CIS

Why would you protect the current version of the page, rather than the longstanding version before the current edit warring over the first sentence began? ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I simply protected the version I encountered at the time. El_C 02:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The version being protected, though, is the edit warred version that doesn’t (yet) have consensus. Could you instead protect the longstanding, neutral version before the current edit disputes began? Darryl.jensen (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless Mikayla doesn’t think there is a neutral version? Darryl.jensen (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with the article's editing history to make that determination at this time, but at any rate, that is the nature of protection — the version that gets protected is, ultimately, random. If going back to the status quo ante in the interim enjoys consensus, I'm happy to edit the protected page accordingly. Please feel free to propose this on the article talk page, and let me know. El_C 10:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Midwestern US page-blanking LTA

Hello. Can you please reblock this range for 1-3 months: 174.255.0.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? They recently came out of a 2-week block, and they've gone right back to large-scale page-blanking vandalism (on multiple IPs). The range is rife with large-scale vandalism, dating back to March 2019. I think that they might be related to the person on 174.255.128.0/21 (already rangeblocked on two smaller /22 ranges), given the behavior. It looks like their blocks have not dissuaded them from further disruption. They're still active right now on the unblocked range, and it's starting to wear me down. Thanks. (PS, AVi is suffering from a nightmare backlog right now. Would appreciate it if you could give it a look.) LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 11:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the List of the verified oldest people

When the protection ends, what's to stop Georgia Guy from attempting to return the article to his preferred version? I'm trying to seek consensus, but I'm not really sure where to go from here. I suppose I could do a RFC? Rockstonetalk to me! 18:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good option. Otherwise, please consult your dispute resolution resources. El_C 18:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I filed a request here. I'm also attempting to determine whether or not we can consider sources purporting otherwise to be reliable, here. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, if I don't hear anything back from User:Georgia guy, I'm going to revert it back to the older version once the protection expires. The user seems rather uninterested in engaging me in order to develop consensus; and I believe the default position should be to assume that her age is not in serious dispute by reliable sources. Could you try to contact him too? Rockstonetalk to me! 04:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No, and please don't follow him around to other articles! El_C 11:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not. I disagreed with his edit and so I reverted it.

On a different note, if the user won't engage with me on the talk page, I'm not really sure what to do. Rockstonetalk to me! 13:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not gonna argue about it — just don't do it again. In answer to your question, if the user fails to engage they effectively forfeit their position. But they still have time to do so, plus other editors may offer their input as well. So, we'll see. El_C 15:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I still personally feel like he was being rather hostile and uncivil with me. I'm doing my best to assume good faith, but he really isn't extending me the same courtesy. See this comment in particular: Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people#Question "This never would have happened if it weren't for Rockstone35's selfishness." If this continues I'll make a note on WP:AN. I'd rather he just stop being a jerk to me. Rockstonetalk to me! 04:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think enforcing civility is high on anyone's priority right about now — and also, I would leave ArbCom alone. They're busy and they probably don't want any. El_C 07:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No offense, but enforcing civility is literally part of the job of being an admin. Rockstonetalk to me! 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A job pays — this is a volunteer gig. And I'm usually not interested in enforcing lapses in civility. El_C 14:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right, job isn't the right descriptor. Sorry. Thanks for your help. :) Rockstonetalk to me! 15:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Where do I respond

Hi El C, where exactly do I respond to the complaint here? There are many threads. I believe that there is tremendous misunderstanding and incorrect information that was presented and I'd like to make my case. Thank you. --UberVegan🌾 18:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please respond on the respective article talk pages. Please also heed the warning that further edit warring, even if it falls short of violating the 3 revert rule, are likely to result in sanctions. Thanks and good luck. El_C 19:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to respond to the complaint itself. I don't believe that I was edit-warring and I'd like to make it clear. Do I write it below the first complaint against me? UberVegan🌾 19:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've already evaluated that you were, indeed, edit warring. I suppose you have the option to appeal that decision to other admins at ANI, but I would advise against it. El_C 19:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. There were only two reverts (not three or four) in a 24-hour period, and I'd just like to give my side, which I think is important. John purposely wrote things out of context. Maybe you'll change your mind, maybe not. Thanks again. UberVegan🌾 19:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if there were only two reverts instead of three in that one article (what about the other one?), I'm not sure what you aim to accomplish. I suggest devoting your time to trying to reach consensus for your changes, instead. El_C 19:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"Other one," meaning the Moore article?

I do get consensus... see here. --UberVegan🌾 19:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to argue that on the article talk page, then. El_C 19:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi El C, per this revert and this warning, is merging/bundling several sources on a page considered "disruptive editing" or does it have to do with content dispute? He warned me that I "need to establish a consensus prior to re-adding anything on [the Michael Moore page]. we will be going back to ANEW if you change this again prior to a consensus being achieved."

I understand gaining consensus once I am reverted, but what happened to WP:BOLD? Do I need to get consensus on that page alone to fix typos or add new sourced content? Thanks for your feedback. UberVegan🌾 23:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The best thing is to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. The onus is on you to get consensus, because you're the one introducing the edit. El_C 23:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I get that. But in this case, he wrote that I need consensus for things that I "re-add" to the page. Those sources were already there, so how exactly am I "re-adding"? Thank you! --UberVegan🌾 23:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not following you. Clearly, you're (also) adding prose that is being objected to. El_C 00:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly I didn't. I ONLY merged/bundled sources. This seems to border on harassment. --UberVegan🌾 00:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's not at all clear to me. But any rate, merging material is an edit that's being introduced as well, so the onus is still on you to gain consensus for the edit's inclusion. El_C 00:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Selena+simmer sock

Can you please indef Hazuki fujiwara 333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This is a sock of Selena+simmer (also known as the Ojamajo Doremi vandal). They'll probably be back later today. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for attending to this, Tony. El_C 01:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Kaelin

Hello can you assist me in applying page protection to this article? I have an editor with a personal preference for content - that has reverted multiple times. Now another editor seems to have joined, and their opinions are not policy. The opinion involves a properly referenced primary sourced block-quote. User:Lightburst 14:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: Lightburst now blocked for 36 hours for edit warring borderline copyvio and promotional material. El_C 15:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sanctions

I went ahead and put that piece from the Intercept back to the article per your confirmation. Little did I know that it will be reverted. I believe the matter needs your attention.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that objection is not substantive? Because, otherwise, I'm not sure what there is for me to do at this time. I commented on the BLP component of the edit, but that objection is about something else. El_C 19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The user is saying there is not enough evidence to link Heshmat Alavi to MEK, while the edit included at least 5 secondary independent reliable sources (BBC, Intercept, Washington Post, Al-Jazeera and Forbes) saying the exact opposite.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

/Investigating. El_C 19:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Trust and safety

You didn't block a user for what is the most abominable suggestion I can imagine. Your warning got a disingenuous reply, a po-faced 'block me for adding a citation?'. That user is still active here, another one that gets a pass, which makes this a more unsafe environment in perception and actuality. If you had stayed out of it, another admin could have made the block without shouldering you aside. cygnis insignis 02:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, it didn't look like that was going to happen. It didn't look like anything was going to happen. Certainly, another admin is free to indef them if they feel my strong warning was insufficient — I have no objection to that. But I am still hopeful the user will rethink their very wrongheaded and bizarre approach. If this proves not to be the case, please let me know. El_C 02:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether it was going to happen, or might still, is not the point I wish to convey. Ask someone in the real world, a dear aunt or such, what they think about that comment; I think you have lost perspective. The circumstances ought to be placing greater restraint on the incendiary statements, there are already repercussions being experienced by real people. I wont let you know if I notice anything else, I don't trust you. cygnis insignis 02:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It's moot as I just indeffed them for having linked the video in the past on Wikipedia, which was the last straw for me. El_C 03:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I struck the last sentence. cygnis insignis 03:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. It is difficult to know what to do , or even say, when there is a mood such as this but I think you got this right and I'm grateful to you. Thincat (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Reason for blocking Wnt

Hello. I've been living under a rock, and I just found out about the banning of Fram (and all related events). Anyways, while perusing through Wnt's talk page, I realized that you blocked the user a day or two ago for something related to the New Zealand shooting video and Fram. I tried to understand what Wnt did, but some links led to deleted pages/edits, so I could not find any information (or maybe I'm just a bad researcher). Can you tell me what Wnt did that let you to block the user? I do not have any opinion on the block; I'm just asking because usually, when I see someone blocked, I want to know the reason, so I do not make the same mistake. Now, if this is something private, and if I should mind my own business, please let me know. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 04:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Briefly: as a form of protest, Wnt suggested we include a link to the New Zealand shooting video to scare of corporate donors and the like away from Wikipedia. I strongly warned him about that. Then I found out that a month ago they actually linked to the New Zealand shooting video on Wikipedia, which was the last straw for me. El_C 04:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you for the reply. I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but in general, is posting graphic videos prohibited on Wikipedia (assuming no copyright violations), or is this a special case as I think there was consensus not to post the video? Thanks. William2001^(talk) 04:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to ping me on my own talk page. Anyway, no, it's not a special case. We don't display or link to videos of graphic executions on Wikipedia — although there could be (iconic) exceptions. El_C 04:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

New user editing disruptively

Please take a look at this new user's actions. It seems to be another disruptive editor regarding the Kurdish language(s) [34] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive how? At any event, I've added those articles to the overall ec protection I applied to the Kurdish set of articles. El_C 15:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Unknown IP user

We all half-expected this, and it's of little bother. I also don't know whether it's worth your time and thus whether you have the inclination to do owt. Were I in your position I'm not sure I would see the value in blocking one IP when another can be created without a huge amount of effort. Nevertheless, do what you think is necessary Talk:Douma_chemical_attack#Background Cambial Yellowing(❧) 21:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 21:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Urgent!

user:107.77.194.39 made a threat of violenve against me here [[35]]. CLCStudent (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 21:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

AustrianFreedom

Hi El C. Thank you for your high quality work. I ran into a very strange situation. AustrianFreedom (talk · contribs) has recently been posting crazy edit summaries and nonsense. Earlier contributions seem lucid (or maybe they are just copyvios). Could you take a look for a second opinion and let me know what you think is going on and what additional steps should be taken. Jehochman ^Talk 02:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Jehochman. Looks like Bishonen took care of it. But thank you for the kind words — much appreciated! El_C 02:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! She blocked the account and then I deleted a bunch of nasty edit summaries and rolled back their wild contributions. At this point it looks like a good user's account was hacked by somebody bad, or it's one person who snapped in a major way. I've emailed them to ask -- maybe not the best idea, but it's what I did. Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

picture of the day

Today's WP:POTD reminded me of you. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That squirrel needs another peanut! El_C 14:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

lol. I hope you are doing well :) See you around L
—usernamekiran(talk) 20:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Block log

I hope you won't be insulted on this, El_C. For a time, I was sad that I had lost my clean block log. Then, I checked some editors' block logs, and saw some prominent editors got blocked too before, so I got over mine. I found yours to be the funniest. starship.paint (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I just had a look, too. Feeling nostalgic. We were much more wild, back in the old days. Is it even possible to un/block oneself anymore? (I had to look it up and the answer is no). But, yeah, it's true, my block log has it all: comedy, tragedy, farce, coupled with a good dose of stupidity (not least by yours truly!). El_C 16:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, it is possible to unblock yourself, just don't expect to keep your admin bit for much longer after doing so...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru: that seems to have revoked in November 2018, perhaps related to that incident (?). El_C 23:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, how right you are. Thanks. And indeed it probably was spurred on by that incident, along with its IAR "emergency" desysop by a crat, and subsequent Arbcom shenanigans.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Accusation

Just curious, is it normal to be accused someone of sockpuppeting like here [36]? I know for a fact I don't but I'm starting to get uneasy about this because being a known sockpuppeter or suspicion of one can really destroy someone's reputation and change the way people think about you.--Vauxford (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I deleted it as an attack page. They are free to launch a proper SPI, but a subpage like that is, indeed, excessive. El_C 21:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The guy is still following me

My edits this morning -

• [37]
• [38]
• [39]

As you can see, aside from a minor edit, I corrected a language issue and sourced it and removed unsourced material. I had intended to add more sources this afternoon. Then -

• [40]

I will leave this article alone in the future because I do not want to be seen as disruptive or anything of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigenous girl (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

And again

• [41] Indigenous girl (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Buffs blocked for 24 hours. El_C 21:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, I do not want to be seen as disruptive or hounding so could you El_C or somebody else please fix something on [42] Under External Links there is a link below Girl Scout Council Websites for the Greater Minneapolis Council. It needs to be removed. The site is no longer controlled by the Girl Scouts and it is full of potty language. I had it on my todo list until the state-by-state editing began and it was missed by the editor. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You are free to continue editing the scouts by states articles. They've clearly only started editing those articles because you did first. El_C 23:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi El_C. I am very confused by the following - [43] I don't understand why this editor reconfigured the talk page to collapse my comment. I did not suggest that anything I wrote be used as content in the article. I was very clear as to why I added my comment. I also stated it should probably go in the David Zeisberger article, which I will do at some point if no one else takes the initiative before I can get to it. OR policy states, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." (I know you know what it states, including for clarity). I don't understand why the conversation was closed when he asked me a question. I also do not know if I am expected to reply to the long post and footnotes, I am not sure if he is addressing Corbie or myself. I am not comfortable in tit for tat on the talk page, I just want to collaborate on the gosh darn quotes and I stated that. I feel terribly asking you to be the playground monitor once again but I am not sure how to proceed. Thank you in advance. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean "for the record"? What record? What type of responses were you hoping to elicit? How does your (OR) comment relate to improving the article to which the talk page belongs? El_C 22:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The OA founders relied on Zeisberger as their source for the Lenape/Delaware words that they used. Zeisberger has been noted to have created words, to have been inaccurate and later translations of his work are noted to be inaccurately transcribed. I feel that it is important to note on the talk page that he was/is not reliable which I acknowledge(d) is OR. With this information being noted it is there as back up should a reliable source be found that is better than this [44] "This European concept did not exist in the Lënape tradition, thus there was no word, so the Moravians had to invent one. But at least it’s grammatically correct." which is not considered a reliable source. I have not made any edits regarding language to the article since 26 June when I undid an edit by Buffs and GMG explained why my revert was inappropriate (I agree in retrospect after his explanation). I have tried to carefully temper my responses so that it is clear that I am trying to collaborate. If the content should not be there I am happy to strike it. Where should I respond to Buffs question if not where he asked it? Thanks. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just having a difficult time following any of this. What question did Buffs ask of you and in what way do you see your (OR) comment constituting an answer to this? This entire topic is one I am not finding easy to parse. El_C 23:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

He asked, "Might I suggest moving this to Zeisberger's article?" [45] Yes of course it should be added to Zeisberger. I had said that in my comment.

For well over a month we have been discussing the word Wimachtendienk. On 3 June Buffs said,"Well, let's not just limit ourselves to websites run by the Lenape people. Languages change some over time. It would be more appropriate to look at texts/resources that were present at the time and not on incomplete web listings. For example, perhaps a published English-Lenape dictionary? Historical context and reliability mean everything." [46] which is what I have been trying to do all along. I posted this [47] Buffs felt it was not straightforward (the source specifically states "This European concept did not exist in the Lënape tradition, thus there was no word, so the Moravians had to invent one." clarifying that the word was not Lenape but that it was created. Buffs staed this was OR and I am still not clear how it is, it is a Scouting site that discusses the word. Buffs then commented [48] that cannot I cannot complain about a group's reliability in one breath and then use the same group's newsletter as an ironclad fact because it is WP:CHERRYPICKING. I cannot use a Scouting site that states the word was created by Moravians and I cannot use other sites to show that Zeisberger in fact created words. I had sourced and added to the article that the OA had changed their policy regarding their outfits. I have made other edits regarding the OA and scouts on other pages that had nothing to do with cultural appropriation or language, I've sourced Scouting articles that were in desperate need of sources that had zero to do with Native peoples or language. My contributions are not entirely one sided. Today Buffs posted this [49] I don't know where he is addressing me or Corbie. He reconfigured the talk page to hide my contribution which was specifically addressing the month long conversation about language use and closed the conversation even though he was not an uninvolved user, effectively punishing me for being transparent about the sources being OR (which could later support other sources that address the historical context and reliability he feels mean everything). I hope this helps to clarify things. If not I can try again but I need to attend to some things so it wouldn't likely be until morning. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

All I can say is try to fall back on reliable sources. And try to fall back on your dispute resolution resources, by getting outside input, while focusing on narrow, digestible items of the dispute. Because this is still a lot to take in. El_C 01:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous girl, don't get pulled into re-arguing the linguistics. It already went to the boards. It's fine. It's sourced; it's stable in the article; the guy who was blocked is just trying to upset you.

El C, The continued behavioral issues as I see it are that Buffs came back from his block for harassing her and immediately hid her comments on talk. As an involved editor, he "closed" the "discussion." In addition to violating WP:TPO and WP:CLOSE I think this goes to the broader issue of his attempts to intimidate and silence her. I have unhidden her comments:[50]. I don't think this is appropriate behavior on his part, especially given recent events. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it's better that Buffs doesn't alter the comment fields of other users' comments. In fact, I already warned him about that once already. At any case, now that comment is in a place that I don't know where it is, so I'm not sure reopening it and moving it actually helped its overall exposure, but oh well. I couldn't really follow it anyway, so what do I know? It was probably worth another warning, at least. Even though the prospect of that sounded too exhausting for me to bother with at the time, sorry. (I'm just a bit pressed with time, and have to prioritize and ration it accordingly.) El_C 21:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

After now also having read Mark Ironie warning to Buffs, I'm starting to feel like I failed to act decisively and proportionately — which is to say, at all. The more I think about it, I don't really need to understand the nuances of the content to understand the underhanded nature of the conduct. With that out of the way, a remedy that goes beyond a warning is probably due. Let me consider this for a few minutes. El_C 00:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies; I'm only just seeing this now. I realize now I didn't help matters by moving the translation note to the translation section. I've apologized to IG and explained why I did it. I'm sorry this has been so exasperating. You have my gratitude. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone Fani

Can you please re-instate the Semi-Protection on this article? Vandalism resumed right after the last 1-month Semi-Protection period, so apparently, it wasn't enough to dissuade the vandals. You might also want to consider doing something similar for Cyclone Vayu as well. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Michael

Can you please re-instate the Semi-Protection for this article? This article experienced a spike in vandalism in just the past month (a while after earlier periods of Semi-Protection expired), and almost every new/unregistered edit to the article since then has been just plain disruptive. Additionally, the article is highly visible (comparable to the level of readership at Hurricane Katrina), so this makes any disruption there all the worse. I will understand if you choose not to, but the recent spate of socking/vandalism on the article in just the past month alone is not encouraging. BTW, hope you're doing well. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, doing well, thank you for asking. Ah, hurricane articles — the gift that keeps on giving! El_C 01:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

How you doing EL C ? ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Doing good, still! El_C 01:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandal attack at 1991 Atlantic hurricane season

Hello again. Can you please re-instate the Semi-Protection on this article for a month? This is a Featured Article, and the vandalism activity spiked right after this article became "Featured Article of the Day" (though vandalism was already ramping up before then). The Revision History is a mess. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The gift that keeps-keeps on giving! El_C 23:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. I should have included Hurricane Bob as well. Can you please Semi-Protect this article as well? (I should have known better - anything linked at the Main Page is bound to be a vandal target.) LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You might want to block this vandal as well: 2600:1007:B119:89C2:0:20:3A8A:EA01. They're using vulgar attacks, in additional to the vandalism. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 23:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please Semi the article for a week or so? My head is starting to spin from all that vandalism. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to my world! El_C 00:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, again

An editor added opinion pieces and blogs as sources on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article, another editor reverted this edit on the grounds that these were blogs and opinion pieces, and then user:Kazemita1 added back the blogs to the article again. Isn't this a breach of the article's recent restrictions, and didn't you previously warn Kazemita1 about this? You also previously warned Kazemita1 about edit warring, and previously blocked Kazemita1 for edit warring. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm on it. El_C 23:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Is The National Interest considered a blog?--Kazemita1 (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Read the sources you're trying to include: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/mek-and-bankrupt-us-policy-iran-35982 (it's in the URL, blog). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you should carefully read this Stefka. From WP:RSOPINION:

A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria, Kazemita1 makes a fair point that is worthy of a substantive reply. Please, both of you, continue this on the article talk page (feel free to refactor the above). El_C 16:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

That vandal you blocked...

You might want to expand the block to 68.184.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log). As they've demonstrated in the past, they're able to hop IPs across the range. Their last rangeblock was for 3 months (incidentally, there's a lot of disruption from those IPs dating back at least to November 2018). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Research Interview Request

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

Etchubykalo (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary too long

Hi. Regarding WP:ANI#Edit-summary removed, would you consider posting the contents of the edit summary in the ANI thread? That would help make clear what the problem was. I agree with your decision. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Done. El_C 16:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

Lightburst (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Hopefully we will work together soon! To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you, Lightburst. I appreciate the gesture of goodwill. El_C 22:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

So that's over

Are you ever going to address the WP:BLP and civility issues I brought to you? Buffs (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you please specify with a brief summary and a diff? El_C

I've done this at least a dozen times. Your criticism of me started with that diff. And still you do nothing. Why will this be any different? Buffs (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please just explain plainly: it was a BLP violation because... X + [diff]. El_C 23:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope this is okay. Here is my original edit on the Vermont page -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting_in_Vermont&diff=prev&oldid=904252768

I admittedly left out two very important words in that the article stated that an individual mentioned in the article had not consulted with any Native people that summer. It was not intentional. I would like to hope that I would have caught it eventually however I cannot be certain that I would have. Honestly, I probably would not have because I would have been looking for grammatical or spelling errors. While it's a good thing that the two very important words were added, the fact remains that I edited the Vermont article before Buffs started editing the state articles. His edit of the Vermont article was not consecutive. You asked Buffs not to follow me. Buffs said that he would bring it to his talk page if he intended to edit an article I or Corbie had worked on. He began to edit consecutively. He had not gotten to Massachusetts so yes, I made one out of character edit following his lead, corrected and sourced a language inaccuracy and blanked unsourced material. I figured Buffs would see my edits and leave the page alone temporarily so that I could continue working on the article (sources are seriously lacking). He did not, nor did he mention it on his talk page as he said he would. I absolutely own that I messed up leaving those words out and it is clearly a huge issue. I intend to be far more diligent going forward. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get it now. Please try to be more careful in the future when editing about living persons. This is very important. Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that Buffs suddenly started editing various Scouting by State articles right after you made an edit to Scouting in Vermont, then ignored my warning about following you and edited Scouting in Massachusetts right after you did. For which they were blocked. El_C 01:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Huge lesson learned. I will make every attempt to be as thorough as possible in the future. Indigenous girl (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

So, regardless of WP:BLP concerns, I still get warned for something that shouldn't have been a warning; WP:BLP issues are explicitly excluded. I object to the continued mischaracterization of my editing as "following [IG] and edited Scouting in Massachusetts right after [IG] did" WP:IUC 1d,2e. I was editing a series of articles in the exact same manner. If I were "following" her, I would have started editing that series of articles AFTER her, not before. At absolute best, this is a coincidence where I was unjustly blocked. At worst (and more likely), I was set up. When IG saw I was editing more of these articles, she edited one she knew I was going to be working on (an article she'd NEVER edited before) and then claimed I was following her when the opposite was true.

In summary, the "warning" never should have happened. Then she edited an article I said I'd be working on and you blocked me for following despite the fact that I was working on that series of articles first. Now you continue to take opportunity to malign me.

Given your apparently leftist advocacy (your talk page header with Che), it's impossible to take your input as unbiased. Buffs (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Your personal attack about it being impossible to take my input as unbiased has been noted. El_C 01:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Observations of apparent political bias and [[involvement are not attacks. I'm just telling you what I'm seeing: differing treatment for different political views. If that's wrong, please explain. Buffs (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It is an attack and I'm not going to respond to it. El_C 09:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Sydney Tramway Museum vandal

Hello. Can you please re-block 2001:8003:C54A:9B00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)? He's gone right back to vandalizing after his last rangeblock expired. He's been doing this since April, and he also targets other related articles as well. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 00:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice: Gun Control clarification request archived

Hi El_C, the Gun Control arbitration clarification or amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Clarification request: Gun control (June 2019). If you have any questions please let me know or reach out to the committee directly. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 13:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. El_C 15:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Commercial spam

Hi El_C. Mike.Smith appears to have created their account for the sole purpose of spamming for a commercial site. I have removed all links. Could you please take a look? Thanks! Indigenous girl (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Will do. El_C 15:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Indigenous girl (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Abbycarroll

Hi El C. Perhaps you might have better luck trying to reach this editor and explain why she's heading in the wrong direction. I've tired, and others have tried (even other admins), and she still seems to not be listening. Posting things like this and this will only make things worse, and this edit sum is disingenuous at best. She's a new editor and still learning, but she's slowly and surely moving beyond the point where anyone is going to cut her any slack for those things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

She's well past that with me, obviously. Look a couple more edits forward on that high school article MJ diffed above. Rope is gone. Sorry MJ. John from Idegon (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried to be direct. El_C 05:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

OK...That really pisses me off. not at you, at her. I reverted the message on my talk that you mentioned to her on her talk unread. I read your diff on her talk. How is that anything but harassment? I've reverted her a lot, yes, but she is adding complete BLP violations (one on Mel B that had to be oversighted), she's misrepresenting sources, I'm almost certain she is lying about a copyright violation, although Commons ORTS is in the loop on that now. In the draft that she was pushing (she finally G7'sd it), a BLP also, she stated that the subject met Bill Murray, based on a citation to a website that perpetuates hoaxes as a meme about people meeting Bill Murray. The only thing she properly sourced in that whole draft was his attendance at the school in that diff. I looked at that article and it was an uncited train wreck of a fan page, so I cleaned it up with an ax. If that is stalking her, then there are several people with Wikipedia articles that should be making police reports on me, cause that sure isn't a first. I stumble across a page as a link on another page, follow it, and find a crapfest, which I address. I get she is new, but we've blocked many more competent new editors for less. Another editor notified me off-wiki that he may be taking her to ANI. If she thinks I'm an asshole, wait tell she meets the sharks at ANI. John from Idegon (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the editing history of the dispute (and beyond) and am having a difficult time following you. I only noticed the comment on your talk page and her inappropriate user page, which I deleted. El_C 05:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see the userpage but I'm curious about whether it had an edit history. If it was more or less created as the page you deleted, someone should speak to the brand new NPP patroller that approved it an hour before you deleted it. I'd be happy to do it, and politely, but without being able to see the history, I don't know if it's needed. John from Idegon (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I was just contacted off wiki and that person verified it was. John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologize to me John. I tried to help the editor avoid problems, but at some point WP:PACT does kick in when things continue to on as before. Perhaps, EL C's suggestion to move on will convince her to move and at least stick to commenting on content and not you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading Kafka

Thank you for watching over Franz Kafka. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

But of course! El_C 15:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Redaction

Thanks for your recent redactions of trolling comments. You may also want to look at this diff – WanderingWanda (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Anytime.  Done. El_C 18:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editing on Drew Barrymore

Greetings! There's an IP that keeps changing the infobox image of Drew Barrymore's article despite being warned and reverted multiple times by several users. Can you please do something about this? Thanks, QuestFour (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, this is my alternative account. The IP is back, can you please do something? Thanks. DanWarpp (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 05:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hindi BLP LTA

Can you please reblock this LTA for another 1-3 months: 223.187.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? They've resumed their Hindi BLP vandalism. They've been doing this since May, and they also have a history of posting nasty BLP attacks on some of those biographical articles as well. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

About the page Libya and Yunnan

For Libya. The population for 2018 data is wrong. According to https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/libya-population/ and http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/libya-population/, the population of Libya are not even reached 7 million yet. Can you change the 2018 population census please?

For Yunnan. The ethnic group percentage is wrong. According to https://www.gokunming.com/en/blog/item/3769/yunnans-population-by-the-numbers,Ethnic ， ethnic minorities make up about 33.6% of Yunnan province total population. Can you change the right bar where shows han people are 67% to 66.4 please? Can you also scroll down to demographics and change that 38% to 33.6% please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.118.50 (talk • contribs)

I don't understand — why can't you apply those edits yourself? Those articles are not protected. El_C 22:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm still try to learn how to cite. Can you do it for now if you don't mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.118.50 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, at least try. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Be bold! I'm happy to correct you if you make any mistakes. El_C 03:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

On the page for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, you upped the protection level for the reason that "I would rather new users (or dormant accounts) limit themselves to the article talk page, for now ". The guide to extended confirmed protection specifically says "Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered users in valid content disputes on articles not covered by Arbitration Committee 30/500 rulings." You did this after I made an edit that I described in the summary, thoroughly described on the person who undid it's talk page, and even more thoroughly described and sourced in the talk page. The admin who undid my edit has not replied to my post on his talk page regarding the subject (which was requested by him on my talk page). Is this really what editing on Wikipedia is all about? The personal opinions of the admins overriding, ignoring and cutting of those with properly sourced information that can help make Wikipedia a better and more accurate resource? Before I started editing I did a great amount of reading into the pillars of Wikipedia and related documents, but my actual experience on the platform in no way reflects that information. Please change the protection level back, as there was little justification for the change in the first place, and it appears to go against the very idea of Wikipedia being an open and unbiased platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoonLuv (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not intend to modify the protection settings at this time. I do not wish for new or dormant accounts to be editing that (and other similar) articles due to illegitimate socking. Please just make edit requets and we'll go from there. But please try not to delete the talk page comments of other users when you use the talk page! Please sign your username using four tiles (~~~~), so it's obvious who is saying what. Thank you. El_C 20:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't edit the comments of other users. I did edit my own though. I really don't know what you're talking about there. What legitimate socking are you talking about? All I see is that you're censoring legitimate changes. I feel as though some editors have been manipulating the page to use it to form narrative by posting unrelated information in order to back up their narrative. I have thoroughly explained and sourced on the talk page why that information is irrelevent. The response from the editor has been accusations of disruptive behavior and vandalism. At no point did he attempt to back up the relevance of including the information in the article, or dispute my reasoning for wanting it removed. If I take the time to research and properly source my information and reasoning, should it not also be appropriate for the admin to counter that by spending a little time actually countering that, instead of just throwing accusations? I am attempting to get consensus through discussion, but the admin seems unwilling to participate.SpoonLuv (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I now see why it looked like I deleted somebody else's post. That was under an older user name that I immaturely made some time ago when I was less serious about contributing to Wikipedia. I had that user name changed, so I was really just editing my own post. Thank you for the information about the tilde thing, I will do my best to make sure I use it from now on. SpoonLuv (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a broken record on this talk page, but you have dispute resolution resources at your disposal. Please feel free to make use of them, especially in order to bring outside input to the dispute. El_C 16:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this constructive info. Regarding what you've seen so far, which route would you choose to go down? It appears as though there's other complaints about that admin simply accusing people of edit warring, and not attempting to discuss or reach consensus. 3rd opinion looks great, but I'm concerned the admin will just simply ignore the findings. I don't want to create a huge stink over this but I, like many others, view Wikipedia as close to truth as you can get, and this whole process has severely shaken that belief. I'm in no way saying there's no other side and I'm 100% right, but I would at least like to feel as though my researched and sourced information has actually been considered. I attempted to discuss it on the admins talk page (at their request) and they deleted my comments without answer. I have given so many chances for a meaningful discussion and a road to consensus. An admin, somebody who should be responsible ensuring this impartiality, seems to be making every attempt to stop either of those things. (the last part of this comment is 90% venting, and can be ignored) SpoonLuv (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I appreciate your addressing of my comments. I still disagree with your choice to leave the page protected, but recognize and respect your position on the matter. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The content dispute can be resolved, but only with outside input is that likely to happen. You can launch a Request for Comment directly on the talk page, or go the route of the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. Nothing wrong with seeking a 3rd Opinion, in the meantime. El_C 21:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Please delete revision history

Please delete the revision history for revisions 905013866, 905013155, and 905014002 in the English WP page for Moon jae-in. They are 2 edits by a new user and 1 revert, and those edits are clearly false and of no encyclopedic value (fitting category for Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material), so I am requesting that you delete them. They are also a serious violation of the biography of living persons policy. [51] [52] [53] Bukjintongil (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Special rules

Unless I'm missing something, it does not appear that you have logged the sanctions, and it does not appear that Buffs was given the super special warning template. GMG^talk 10:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but his objection to the DS at the time implies he knows they are in effect. El_C 10:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I've pretty well expressed my personal distaste with esoteric rules in about every forum possible. But since ArbCom is often a exercise in violating WP:NOTBURO, that would likely invalidate the topic ban. Sorry for not being more specific at the time. I was/have been fairly busy. GMG^talk 21:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

JA617

Reaching out to you rather than bringing it to ANI directly if you wanted to handle this, if not I will bring to ANI. As you may or may not remember you blocked the user for various reasons, including WP:ENGAGE and disruptive editing. A couple days I reached out to them again [54] for continuing this same style of editing. Today they again made two edits [55] and [56] that I reverted and went to their talk page about [57]. However rather than responding they went back and redid the same edits again [58], the same issue as why I took them to ANI in the first place. Let me know and if you prefer I can take it to ANI directly. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the matter with those edits? It looks like they're just trying to avoid a redirect. El_C 16:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Well the issue is that they don't respond or try and talk. I have explained to them before that they do not need to fix those per WP:NOPIPE. The issue is with WP:ENGAGE, that no matter what their edit is that gets reversed the readd it without commenting. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but it's better to pipe than to redirect, wouldn't you say? El_C 18:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. Professional wrestlers often change their names. In this case it was just a removal of the periods, going from A.J. Styles to AJ Styles. But recently Dean Ambrose became Jon Moxley. There are hundred of articles that previously linked to [[Dean Ambrose]] that now redirect. There is no reason to go through and update all of those links simply to avoid the redirect. If every page was updated after he started using the Moxley name, until the page was moved with [[Dean Ambrose|Jon Moxley]], once it was moved all of those pipes would need to be fixed based on piping over a redirect. Similarly for the last couple of years Rockstar Spud started going by Drake Maverick, but his page was only moved this week. Why force [[Rockstar Spud|Drake Maverick]] over the course of 2 years, when [[Drake Maverick]] is easier to follow when reading wikitext and would now have been piping to a redirect. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Understood. El_C 20:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk page protection

The IP user you blocked over Douma chemical attack has taken to using a sock puppet ip to edit my talk page. The teahouse suggested I request an admin to prevent it. Is it possible to block all ip users without blocking logged-in users on a user talk page? If so I will be grateful if you can do this for my talk and user page. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 11:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just for the record, since I was the one who said the IP was a sock: here is where they self-identify as a sock puppet of Sayerslle. --bonadea contributions talk 11:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is my user talk page, not RfPP. But sure, IP sock blocked, again. El_C 15:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

IBAN violation

This user still arbitrary deletes chassis codes from italian cars that were uploaded by me:
Special:Diff/905790969
Special:Diff/538038099 and Special:Diff/883957905
There already was a discussion about how important they are and are also in Automobiles WikiProject guidelines.
Please react. YBSOne (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is my user talk page, not ANI. Anyway, I don't see how removing something you added back in February counts as an interaction. El_C 15:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was: "Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". YBSOne (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but how can they tell it was you? You added it back in February. El_C 15:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Majority of the chassis types were added by me on Maserati/Ferrari/Lancia/Alfa pages. It all comes down to proving wheather it was deliberate or not. But it still meets the definition does it not? YBSOne (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but I, at least, am not going to do anything further about it. El_C 16:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)~

Fine, I'm ok with it at the moment. Thank You for Your time. YBSOne (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Fascism in Europe

Some time ago, a user removed the Estado Novo from the list of Fascist regimes, despite the fact that it was decided that Wikipedia will go with the status quo ante until consensus is formed (which it wasn't), the user said that the Estado Novo should not be presented as Fascist alongside unambiguosly Fascist regimes, even though the same thing can be said about almost every other regime on the list, the only regimes considered unambiguosly Fascist are Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany (and even Nazi Germany sometimes is not considered Fascist), also 4-3 is a very narrow result to be considered a consensus (and that is counting a user that didn't even vote, I don't know if this actually counts), so I was wondering if you could revert his edits. -- 177.158.171.198 (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

That user is the one who closed the RfC accordingly, so you should probably direct the question to them. El_C 01:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Curious then, when the page is unprotected, will I be able to revert his edit, or no? -- 177.158.171.198 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but it is likely to be reverted back, citing the RfC as representative of consensus. Again, if you found faults with the manner in which the RfC was closed, you should take that up with the editor who closed it. I didn't review the RfC closely, so I am probably not the editor who can offer any further insights into it at this time. El_C 02:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Why did you not attempt to contact the closer of the RfC, as I suggested? On closer examination, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with dispute resolution having been followed, consensus reached by virtue of the RfC (which, again, you have yet to challenge) — but you continuing to edit war against this consensus without further discussion. El_C 21:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to, should I revert while this isn't solved? -- 177.159.223.177 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You won't be able to, because I just semiprotected all those articles for a year. I'm just not comfortable with editing against a closed RfC. If you're able to reverse the RfC by changing the mind of the closer, or by further review, I'll be happy to unprotect so you could edit directly. El_C 21:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for this incident BTW, personally I just hope this dispute will be solved soon enough. -- 177.159.223.177 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Yes, let's move forward. My advise to you would be to address your concerns with the closer of the RfC 1st, and if you fail to change their mind, challenge the RfC with a new section on the article talk page and see what other editors say. El_C 21:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The closer has overturned the RfC as no consensus. I have, therefore, unprotected the articles as promised. El_C 04:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

Can you semi-protect Born to Be Yours, Bad Liar (Imagine Dragons song), Zero (Imagine Dragons song), Whatever It Takes (Imagine Dragons song), Walking the Wire (song), On Top of the World (Imagine Dragons song) and Next to Me (Imagine Dragons song). The 95.83.xx.xx range involved genre warring on [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]. 2402:1980:246:3ACA:DF36:7ACC:96FF:8337 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, as I already told another user today, this is my user talk page, not RfPP. Please list it there, instead. El_C 03:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Interlinear

Hi and thanks for protecting Template:Interlinear. Is there any way you could change the level to semi-protection, which was the one I requested at RFPP [71]? I should definitely take the blame for possibly having expressed the rationale in a misleading way, but the idea was to prevent IPs from vandalising the template, not to exclude almost all editors from editing it. – Uanfala (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think TP is actually appropriate for this type of template. But feel free to bring back to RfPP for review. I'm happy to go with the consensus there. El_C 16:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:Interlinear. – Uanfala (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, I wish we could have found the middle way. Anyway, I'm surprised to be walking away from this with an extra user right. Of course I don't mind it, but given that the unusual situation that led to it seems to be over, I wouldn't feel slighted if you removed it. – Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit distracted — that's on me. In regards to the user right: happy editing! El_C 22:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Further accusation

[72] Charles01 has further accuse me of sockpuppeting over a IP that been doing similar edits then me. He also reinstated the paragraph that was previously deleted [73]. --Vauxford (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm spread a bit thin lately, so am not sure I'll have time to investigate this in the near future. El_C 16:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Repeated driveby tagging with no discussion

A newbie (165 edits) who hasn't been active in years is repeatedly tagging Hassan Jameel with {{advert}} without any explanation or discussion, even though I opened up a thread on the talkpage of the article. This is in violation of WP:DRIVEBY and WP:WTRMT. Can you please look at this? Asking you because you previously helped prevent the BLP violations on the article. This article gets 5,000 pageviews per day. Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I agree that this is inappropriate. I've reverted and up'd my original semi to ec. They're welcome to argue for the tag on the article talk page, but that argument has to exist. El_C 01:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election

Please explain why you have protected a version of the page that is not supported by consensus at talk, and which has been re-instituted by editors unwilling to engage at talk. You are rewarding those who editwar over those who present reasoned argument. Apply consensus, THEN freeze it if necessary. Kevin McE (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not how protection works. I responded to a request at RfPP. The current version gets protected and there is no preference, by design. That is to say, the version that gets protected is, ultimately, random. El_C 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

User DavidManchester44

Thanks for blocking user:DavidManchester44, but he is back at Chandrayaan-2 article as sock puppet user:ManchesterDawah. I reported it for inverstigation but I think it is pretty obvious. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock and reblocked the master indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That lunar mission is being launched today and we expect a lot of traffic. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Back again as user:AmazonEternal. Thank you so much for the support. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the account. If it had been filed at SPI, my finding would have been  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). I've also semi-protected the article for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23, for doing all the heavy lifting. El_C 20:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Block-evading vandal

Can you please re-block 100.1.235.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 1-3 months? This is the latest IP sock of User:Kendall2232, who was indeffed for vandalism months ago. He resumed using his IP after the last block recently expired, and he's gone back to vandalizing. This person has been using this IP for close to 2 months now. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information and personal attack(s)

Hi El C

I must admit even though I've edited for quite some years I never did learn to use the Wikipedia system properly, which is why I am here. Could you take a look at this issue? This user is very keen on removing sourced information [74] and making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND. [75]. Thanks in advance. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you both violated 3RR, so that's not a promising start. El_C 17:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Information Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks, baseless insulting accusations, treating Wikipedia as a battleground and removal of sourced information. Just for information, as you're mentioned since you weighed in on the dispute. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

McMuffin serial vandalism

Good afternoon. Can you please raise the protection on McMuffin to Extended-Protection for about a year? The article was recently targeted by the LTA WhenDatHotlingBling, using rapid-fire serial vandalism and page-move vandalism (I couldn't even keep up with their junk). Their favorite target, McGriddles, is already Extended-Protected, and I have the feeling that since he no longer has access to his favorite target, he's going to move on to McMuffin and other related articles. Given the recent spate of vandalism, I doubt that anything less than an extensive Extended Protection will be sufficient for containing their vandalism. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I probably shouldn't up the protection preemptively. El_C 02:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: I just had to report another one to SRG just a few minutes ago. Plus the McMuffin page is now EC protected for a year. --IanDBeacon (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

That showed me! El_C 01:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

AN discussion

I've started a discussion at AN in which you are involved. Just a courtesy note. GoldenRing (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Chicago-style pizza

Hey El C ~ can you glance over here and here for me please ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

you know....Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fer sure. Softer approach did not work — well, partially due to my own incompetence! El_C 19:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No ~ you did perfect ~ knew something was about to be stepped into ~ and I ain't talking about something in L.A. ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much El C ~ it was very impressively, quickly and properly done ~ at least in my respects ~ I bow (お辞儀) to the master ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't know you were a rocket scientist EL C ~ Skid row ~ today's date ~ <trying to learn how to be a bot ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• It sure took me a little while before I figured out how to disable that pesky bot! *get off my lawn, bot!* /shakes fist at air El_C 17:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

don't hit me ~ El C/generic sub-page12 at IMDb ~mitch~ (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I just saw that ~ just peachy ~mitch~ (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting here I couldn't do it myself because one of the links are blacklisted. 85.199.71.123 (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Anytime. I didn't notice anything of the sort, though. El_C 19:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

User keeps pestering everything I do

I'm losing my paitence with Charles01. He already accused me of sockpuppeting twice, created a awful hate page about how much a terrible user I am and now he reverted a edit based off RfC. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong, I tried to solve the edit dispute, opened a RfC got enough comments of which is better and from the looks of it they prefer the one I proposed to be used on the infobox yet Charles01 still insist of changing back because it just my "Vauxford vanity project edit wars" when I haven't even edit warring in the first place! --Vauxford (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have. I've just protected the article due to that very edit warring. If there are behavioral issues, I suggest you take it to AN/I, as I am unable to devote my full attention to the dispute between you two at this time. El_C 19:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't edit warring, I thought I was doing the right thing based off the RfC. I didn't get into a edit war with constant reverts. I tried everything, I did discussions, done two ANI, did a RfC based on your advice and nothing is working. --Vauxford (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm at my wits with this user constantly belittling me of what I do, he accused me of sockpuppeting for goodness sake, I thought any form of sockpuppeting accusation are taken seriously, this person is seriously putting all effort to make me look like a bad, disruptive editor when I'm not, I had no intention. --Vauxford (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That RfC has not been closed yet. I would be patient and wait for that before invoking it as an authority. El_C 19:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

[76] But it been expired, I thought that mean it ended due to a lack of activity. On top of that Charles01 already recovered the hate page which you deleted [77] and adding more stuff to it. --Vauxford (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I have already made 2 ANI as it is and none of seem to be taken seriously and just gone stale. What difference it gonna make if I create another one. He insist of labelling me as some sockpuppeting, edit warring and disruptive user, the amount of evidences, diffs and new fresh evidence of all this all seem to be going in vain and the fact you class what I'm trying to do is edit warring even though I haven't reverted more then 3 times and the 3rd one [78] was just to restore the last revision is just proving his point. --Vauxford (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, I am unable to devote my full attention to this dispute at this time. That's just a fact. I don't know what else to advise you both. You can re/list the RfC on WP:ANRFC. Anyway, I have deleted the subpage and left a note to him about that. I also note that edit warring —which you were engaged in— does not need to involve a violation of 3RR to be considered so. El_C 20:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

How do you do a Requests for closure anyway? --Vauxford (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Just follow any of the entries listed there as an example. El_C 20:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Closure

Requiring uninvolved admin to close this merge discussion Talk:Holy_See#Merger_proposal.Manabimasu (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 22:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Missing thread

Sorry for my ignorance, but when a thread disappears from this page but doesn't appear in the last archived page, does that mean it's just been deleted? Or is it somewhere else? Lilipo25 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add the latest archive. The discussion is here. El_C 01:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. I appeal to you, because you seem to think that there is no problem to negotiate with Miki. What is the meaning of this war of edits: [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]? They've posted a comment in the clearly wrong section, and then they fight for the right to leave it there. This is in addition to the fact that they constantly call my actions "pathetic", "stupid", "provocative" and "lying".--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow. From edit warring on the article, you've now both taken to edit warring on the talk page? Had I caught it earlier, I would have blocked you both. El_C 06:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So what's the point of shoving this comment in the RFC section?--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You really think you are the one who should decide where it goes? El_C 07:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Listen, you and Miki seem to see the point. So what is it? I did not see this point and acted on the basis of my understanding of the situation. Subject "RfC", as it seemed to me, is for comments on request. But Miki crammed his comment in there, although I replied it in another topic. Now my answer hangs in the section "Big mystification?" in the air and it is not clear what this applies to. Do you enjoy this situation? Me not. So, It was "Fixing layout errors" exception, in my opinion.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

All this innuendo reflects poorly on you. You should not be modifying the comment fields of other users, especially ones you are in dispute with. Please don't do that again. If there are issues, bring that to the attention of someone else. El_C 17:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I still do not understand what is the "innuendo" in this case. I did not modify the "comment field" of another editor, but transferred it entirely. But well, I realized that trying to do something useful here is not approved. Okay, so I brought it to you. And what about "pathetic", "stupid", "provocative" and "lying"? --Nicoljaus (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you enjoy this situation? What is that about? Neither one of you should be edit warring on the talk page. Repeated incivility is, of course, ill-advised and may be subject to sanctions. El_C 20:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This is about a situation (that I tried to fix) in which a comment to my edit for some reason sticks out in the RFC section, and my answer is in another section ([85]).--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You should not have edit warred your "fix" on the talk page. Full stop. El_C 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I stopped a long time ago and turned to you. That was the question Do you enjoy this situation?.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you want from me. El_C 21:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I want the comments to be placed correctly on the talk page. I "brought it to the attention" of you, since I have no right to do something myself.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to do so at this time. El_C 21:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, why am I not surprised.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't much appreciate your tone. El_C 21:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You Know ~ this is just something I heard in the grapevine ~ All the other reindeer didn't let poor Rudolph play any reindeer games ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Miki has called me "ignorant" three times in the last half hour on the Frankopan family talk page, despite my asking her repeatedly to stop the personal attacks (she says "no", she won't, because it's a "Fact" that I am ignorant). I haven't called her any names and have in fact stayed away from her for nearly a month due to her aggression and personal attacks and threats to report anyone who objects to any of it to you. She claimed to someone else in a thread I had been in last month that a consensus was reached for her edits on the page, so I stated that it was not, and she's back to attacking me. I don't know how she's somehow allowed to call multiple people 'ignorant' and 'liars' over and over while edit warring on every page she's on. In every edit war she's in, it seems to me that her comments are by far the more hostile and in violation of WP:PERSONAL Lilipo25 (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

These are not personal attacks, the editor continues saying the same ignorant remarks, pushing the same story over and over again. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilipo25.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I had no idea that Miki had falsely reported me as a sockpuppet or I would have defended myself. I don't know how to prove it, but I can give you my absolute word that I have no other account on Wikipedia but this one. I have the Frankopan Family page on my Watchlist and have been interested to see someone revert Miki's edits repeatedly without even bothering to give a reason, since they must know this can only get their edits immediately reverted and them blocked. I would never be so dumb, nor would I waste the effort of creating multiple accounts. This is the only one I have, and if there is some way for me to prove it that you know of, I will be more than happy to go through that process. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My guess is that Lilipo25 is not actually socking with those accounts. El_C 23:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

To me? The admin who blocked them? Interesting. Anyway, I tend to agree that their tone is problematic, although calling their edits "defamatory" is something that requires evidence on BLPN, rather than being used on an article talk page to support an argument. I suggest you both treat each other in a more collegial manner, emphasizing on substance over innuendo. El_C 22:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I honestly don't know how Miki does this. She is extremely aggressive to multiple people over and over, calling everyone "liars", "ignorant", "pathetic", etc. - all personal attacks on other editors, not criticism of edits. And yet somehow, every time she's reported, the response is just "you BOTH need to behave better". I didn't call her anything personal at all (and I HAVE provided evidence that her edits are defamatory to the subjects of the article, repeatedly). Now I find out she's falsely reporting me as a sockpuppet, trying to get me banned. And it'll probably work. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, if the edits are defamatory, you need to demonstrate that at BLPN. Have you attempted that? El_C 23:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I spent over a month on that. Only two people commented; one said the page was too complicated for them to understand at all and one listed things Miki had said that were not NPOV. I then did a very, very careful edit, making sure to leave in almost every bit of information that Miki wanted in there (except one completely unsourced claim I couldn't verify) and putting it in a neutral voice, and adding another source that gave an alternate viewpoint as well, also in a neutral voice. I sourced the whole article (much of it wasn't sourced) and fixed all the grammar. Miki reverted it repeatedly and then got you to lock it on her edit. That's when I took the break from Miki.

Honestly, though, how is she allowed to constantly call multiple people obvious personal insults like "ignorant" and "pathetic", and somehow someone pointing out that her article content contains defamatory statements about living persons is treated exactly the same? Aren't we supposed to call out defamatory content in articles? Lilipo25 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The versions I protect are almost always random. Anyway, can you link to that BLPN discussion? El_C 23:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it. I'm afraid you're going to need someone more specialized to help with that. Have you considered trying to find help on other-language Wikipedias? El_C 23:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Or better yet, try to seek assistance from members of WikiProject Croatia. El_C 16:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I jumped through hoops for months just trying to give that article WP:NPOV, one of the three major rules of editing Wikipedia, only to have Miki call me ignorant, pathetic, etc., revert it repeatedly, be permitted to do so, and get it locked on her version. Just removing the obviously slanted language or including other reliable sources which give another point of view - which requires no knowledge of Croatia - is absolutely impossible with her determined to keep it biased.

She actually posted this on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilipo25 where she's falsely accused me of sockpuppeting last night - not only have I never, not one time, ever brought up her gender or implied anything about it, but I am a woman myself. And now she's declared me a 'misogynist' because I object to her calling me an ignorant, pathetic liar. And I'm sure she'll be allowed to do that, too (I have no idea what her "nickname" is, btw):

"as a woman, I don't like when my gender is constantly brought up by these two editors, or played with my nickname to sound as male ([13]), it is starting to feel uncomfortable as if they have something against me because of my gender. It stinks of Gender bias on Wikipedia#Causes, from misogyny" Lilipo25 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You have not cited a diff, Lilipo25. Please do so and please make it a habit to do so in the future. We are all volunteers here. Thanks. El_C 17:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you make me dig for the info myself, which displeases me (I like to be spoonfed the evidence, if one is seeking my input). I'm not sure what is up with the Mikola thing, but I also don't see what it has to do with you, either. Might I suggest just sticking to singular they in the future? Also, you did not address my suggestion that you seek assistance from WikiProject Croatia. Why is that? El_C 17:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to figure out how to cite a diff but it took me a couple of minutes to get it right and you had already re-edited and I got the edit conflict. Here's the diff: [86]. As I am aware Miki is female (she says so), it seems obviously polite to refer to her as "she" and I don't know why in the world this could possibly be considered "misogyny" or "gender bias".

I thought I did address your point about going to WikiProject Croatia - removing the biased and negative tone and allowing sourced content that gives an alternate viewpoint requires no special knowledge of Croatia at all, and I have learned by now that jumping through hoops for months to get that article to adhere to stated Wikipedia policy is pointless. Miki will ignore anything anyone says and revert it completely while calling me ignorant and pathetic and being permitted to do so. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Lilipo25, if you do not require specialized help, such as from WikiProject Croatia, might I suggest you give your normal dispute resolution resources a try? As for any future conduct issues, feel free to bring those possible violations to my attention or to the attention of other admins. I have already warned Miki yesterday about sticking to the issues at hand and would appreciate if all of you can move forward now. As an aside, Miki is both a male and female name where I come from. El_C 18:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

As I have said, I am done trying to fix that article as I already used dispute resolution resources and it is pointless when Miki ignores them. I came to you yesterday specifically because Miki had called me personal insults three times on a Talk page, and then I responded to your comments. Whether Miki is a male and female name where you come from seems irrelevant - Miki says she is female and so I must assume that is true. I don't appreciate being called a "misogynist" for using the correct pronoun when referring to someone, but apparently that's just fine as long as Miki is doing it. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll look further into it when I get a chance, but if you would like a more immediate response, maybe take it to ANI. El_C 18:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Lilipo25, /investigating. El_C 21:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski blocked for one week. But I'd like you, Lilipo25, to stay away from commenting about her from now on, especially if you do not intend to engage content any longer. Thanks. El_C 21:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for investigating and taking action. I will avoid Miki in the future. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is up with the Mikola thing --Greetings, I will try to explain the situation. I didn’t call Miki Fikigranski "Mikola". I had a long (and fruitless) discussion with an anonymous editor who signed "mikola" ([87]). Then at some point, Miki began to answer in the same tread, with accusations that I was offering some kind of nonsense [88]. I got confused in this situation and I no longer understand who accuses me (and what), so I answered both of them: Miki (or Mikola, I'm confused) - it is not my suggestion at all. ([89]) That's the story.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying, Nicoljaus. El_C 07:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Politics BLP LTA

You remember this person? Well, he's back, and he's currently operating out of this range: 104.4.65.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), which he has been abusing since February. You can reference this range if you need a refresher: 2600:1015:b100::/40. Can you please apply a similar block on that range? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, someone blocked while I was writing this message. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Pacifism in Islam

Hello and sorry about writing at your talk page and taking your time. I didnt started any edit war and I dont put my content. editor Maestro2016 is his user name I think, who made changes, on 15 of july. Can be checked in article history, didnt discussed anything at talk page, he just made content, big enough, mostly not connected even with pacifism or topic to blank previous sources what stayed there, sources what was there seems quality totally. He removed all sources what stayed there previous, so he started stuff about edits etc probably in a way of his personal views, and put cherrypicked content. I opened talk page disscusion, and wish more editors to join about to make quality content.109.93.186.50 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, fair enough. And perhaps your (the status quo ante) version will prevail, in the end. But, for now, you need to stop edit warring (especially to the point that you violate the 3 revert rule) until the discussion about the status of that expansion is concluded. Please take advantage of your dispute resolution resources. El_C 19:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Well I was suprised, I was looking at some references for personal further reading and consulted wikipedia page and then after some days, when came again today I saw all different content, totally changed and then saw no any explanation at all about changes in the history of the article, also nothing in talk page. Thank you very much for your time. Sorry for disturbing you at talk page here. 109.93.186.50 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Not at all, that's exactly what it's there for. As mentioned, on 2nd thought, I have reverted back to your version while the discussion takes its course. El_C 19:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

John Roberts Pending Changes settings....

Since the article is indef Semi Protected now, could you disable pending changes on the John Roberts page?? --IanDBeacon (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 01:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for the quick response to the LTA rampage on those three articles! :) IanDBeacon (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Fer sure. And thank you, Ian, for the recognition. Much appreciated! El_C 01:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I second this barnstar. (I'd tag another one, but then it would dilute the significance of the award.) Great work! LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind of you, LightandDark2000! But you're doing a lot of the heavy lifting, too, I should add. El_C 06:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

UnderArmourKid sock

Hello. Can you please indef Underarmourminecraft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It's an obvious sock of the LTA UnderArmourKid, given the behavior and the username pattern. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 05:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Template page beset by vandalism

Can you please Semi-Protect Template:Redirect category shell/doc indefinitely? It has been vandalized over and over again by a bunch of anon vandals, and it's not going away. I also don't see any reason why new or unregistered users need to edit that page at all. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 15:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Classful network page revert query

Hello El_C, I was wondering why you chose to revert the edit made by user 5.186.75.53. The column headings indicate that values should reflect start and end addresses. In its current form, the start and end addresses for class A, B and C reflect the last usable network. From what I can see, user 5.186.75.53 rightfully corrected this. What do you think? nasvks (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't immediately recall. Nothing's coming to mind, sorry. Maybe a misclick? El_C 15:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reverting the change and for the warm welcome. Happy editing! nasvks (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia

Why is this article locked onto Bosniak nationalistic version? --Čeha (razgovor) 18:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The version that gets protected is, ultimately, random. El_C 18:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Irony shoudln't be part of serious conversation. Please do read talk page of the article, that should be enough to protect the other version. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hardly. Your participation there appears minimal at best. I suggest you employ dispute resolution rather than try to have your version restored by fiat. El_C 16:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Are non-admins allow to do this edit:

Hello @El C:,

I noticed that you are a big member of RPP. I noticed that an editor who is not an administrator added a lock to an article with little to no vandalism. Here is the edit: [90] Is that allowed?

Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that edit is fine — they're just adding a protection template to a protected article, which is helpful (looks like the protecting admin just forgot to add it). El_C 22:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi protection of UK MoJ and MoD articles

For my own information, can you explain the rationale for semi-protecting these articles (Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom) and Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom))? I can see that they were vandalised, but they're not very frequently edited anyway, and I'm not sure they'd come under BLP. It doesn't affect me, but I just wanted to understand the logic. Farleysmaster (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

That sock seem to methodically returns to any articles that are not protected. I tried protecting a few tens of them for a week, and a week later, they returned to BLP-vandalize every single one of them. That said, my intent has been to unprotect a select few early as a test, but I didn't want to spill the beans about it. El_C 17:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you (and a question)

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for closing the ANI thread without throwing the blockhammer at me (I know it may still be incoming but I hope not). I promise not to make any further NACs in the near future and I won't mark users as banned until I get clarification about a particular question (which I also asked on Abecedare's page), namely, are non-admins allowed to tag users who are banned by the community? I have done that many times before with no one saying anything (in fact, I updated most of the users in the banned user categories with links to their ban discussions), so it came as quite a shock to me that my edit was reverted by Bbb23 and I was quite upset. That's why I brought it to WP:ANI in the first place, which I suppose was inappropriate (but it was better than my initial reaction which was to start acting uncivil) -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just think that ANI reports (and IBAN propositions) are intended for far more protracted disputes. El_C 22:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

In retrospect, I agree 100%. But like I said, I really took his statements personally and it was the best thing I could think of. I really shouldn't have posted it on ANI, but at least I just got hit by a trout instead of something more serious. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Reversion on talk page

Hi El C. Excuse me for not being logged in, but I am currently blocked. Why did you revert my request to be unblocked? [91]. Regards, Freelion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.166.234 (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just some unsolicited, but intended to be friendly advice. If you read the message left by EL C here you should understand. Your user talk page access for the Freelion account has been revoked by an administrator; so, anytime you log in using an IP to edit that page (or any other page for that matter) it's going to be considered WP:EVADE. The more you use IPs to edit, the harder it's going to be for you to get your main account unblocked. What you need to do now is file an unblock request using WP:UTRS. Please don't respond to this post here because that will only be considered more WP:EVADE behavior. Just go to the UTRS page and follow the instructions there; before you do so though, you might want to read WP:INDEF because being indefinitely blocked doesn't have to mean forever, but if you keep logging using IPs it will make most adminstrators less likely to want to unblock you, at least not any time soon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly, for providing Freelion with a thorough explanation. El_C 05:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Fun fact about IPv6!

Just block the /64. With a very few exceptions an IPv6 /64 is roughly equivalent to an IPv4 single IP address. Blocking a single IPv6 is roughly equivalent to protecting the page for 5 minutes :) As an example, see our friend here TonyBallioni (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no guideline for me to follow that I can see and I don't really understand any of that. I would probably just semi the page for a day if they returned. El_C 06:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean there's mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6, but it's far too technical for me to make sense of. El_C 06:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, it's not great. So, here's the quick guide to deal with IPv6 disruption:

1. Click on the individual IP address to bring up the contributions
2. Type /64 on the end of the IP in the contributions box to bring up all the contributions for the range. You can generally assume this is one person/one physical location.
3. Click block and treat it like you would one individual IP address.

Maybe I should make it a userspace essay? I try to pass on the info whenever I can because not many admins seem to know about it. Anyway, as always, you're free to ignore my ramblings :) TonyBallioni (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, that's really helpful! I was unaware of any of that. This is common knowledge that I'm the only one that didn't know about, I presume. El_C 06:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

[B]ecause not many admins seem to know about it — okay, that's a relief. I always get the sense that everyone understands these technical matters but me! Yes, an essay on the user —or better yet, project— space is a good idea. El_C 06:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, AIV admins/others block individual IPv6 addresses all the time without realizing that the three day block they just made might not make much difference in 20 minutes. You are far from the only one Anyway, User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64 exists now. You inspired me! TonyBallioni (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Inspiration — the silver lining to my ineptitude! Nice, good step-by-step essay. You should definitely link it in project space guides to admins. El_C 07:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Maybe I should make it a userspace essay? Why not? I'm not an admin but remember explaining CIDR and subnets at the village pump a few times. El_C: thanks for your excellent work, I've noticed you're very active in the portion of WP I patrol. —PaleoNeonate – 07:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, PaleoNeonate! That means a lot. I have a hilarious watchlist of +75,000 articles, so I am like the all seeing eye — practically everywhere. El_C 07:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I try to keep mine below 7k. I like the reference to the all seeing eye and have one on my user page (but not about me, more about how public pages and history help to make WP processes transparent). —PaleoNeonate – 07:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Edit warring#User:Libhye reported by User:Jayjg (Result: ). Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hooray? El_C 20:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

For knowing how to cut mustard properly ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hooray! El_C 21:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just a quick one, thanks for your quick action on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case and blocking the vandal - - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Fer sure. I left them a link to WP:911 in case they are, in fact, in acute distress. El_C 22:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)