It still bothers me that it bothered you, so by way of explanation, I quote Illeism#In everyday speech: Illeism in everyday speech can have a variety of intentions depending on context ... third person self-referral can be associated with self-irony and not taking oneself too seriously (since the excessive use of pronoun "I" is often seen as a sign of narcissism and egocentrism), as well as with eccentricity in general. Psychological studies show that thinking and speaking of oneself in the third person increases wisdom and has a positive effect on one's mental state because an individual who does so is more intellectually humble, more capable of empathy and understanding the perspectives of others, and is able to distance emotionally from one's own problems. Levivich hopes El C comes around to the third person :-D Levivichharass/hound05:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C will not! No, it didn't bother me, it just seemed like somewhat of a non-sequitur, hence, a bit weird. Maybe that was the original intent...?¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I also support an ArbCom Case on the general Kurdish issue. Could you look at User:Paradise Chronicle/ArbComCase and tell me what you think? I'll file a case right away, if you approve it. I opened the page upon advice of Levivich. As to my count, it has 440 words so far. I'll add some more diffs if requested, but they can also be provided during the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paradise Chronicle, I'll try to at least give it a cursory glance soon, but beyond that, I'm not sure whether the Committee will take a favourable view toward filing an additional case while the current one remains pending (and/or shortly thereafter). I think, at the present moment, the effort to seek for the Committee to institute a wide Kurdish-centred sanctions regime, probably ought to be exclusively undertaken via the current pending case. El_C01:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please take a look at this. This user has some strong feelings about Brazil and they think that WP is a good place to express that. They've written things like "brazil sucks" and "brazil stinks". Thank you. - Daveout(talk)02:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout the two months of discussion at the bantustans article, I have suspected a particular editor of being a sockpuppet of a well known banned user. I think I now have enough evidence to go to SPI, but the editor is the same one who opened the AE and I feel it would look like an inappropriate motivation. And to be honest there is obviously some related motivation. We see suspected socks all the time, but I rarely bother to do anything because it is a huge amount of effort to build a case and I would rather spend time elsewhere. So I am a bit torn and would appreciate any sage advice. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to advise. Obviously, the optics are what they are. I suppose much would depend on the strength of the evidence. In any case, if you do end up filing an SPI report, please make sure to also note of having done so at the AE report. An AE report which I would still think ought to be your top priority at the present moment. El_C13:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. I am going to focus on the AE report for now (albeit I am not allowed to add any more comments there unless asked). When I file the SPI I will then make it clear there there was an AE against me so that the SPI clerks can choose to apply healthy skepticism when assessing my evidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realize what you're trying to say, Onceinawhile, but in the interest of precision, let me preface that I was never "un/happy," I just gave you my impression about the risk of bad optics working to your detriment. Are the optics better now, noting also the exchange you've had with Awilley (which I just now noticed, sorry)? Yes, they are. Certainly, waiting till all is said and done (and logged), would be the safer bet. I suppose the user facing the SPI complaint (courtesy ping: 11Fox11; no need to comment, though) could still go on to say: 'this is retaliatory, I have filed an AE complaint against the filing editor which is still pending and where they are facing sanctions.' Would that carry much weight at this point? Who knows. Probably not, though. El_C18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Onceinawhile, maybe I'll just ask you about it here: earlier, Bearian voiced support for the title change by saying: Neutral and non-racist, as to opposed the current name — to which you responded with: I consider that an unacceptable attack. Please retract it or explain yourself (diff). Now, my read of that exchange is that they do not actually owe you an explanation, because how is that even an attack (not to mention an "unacceptable" one)? They are allowed to advance the viewpoint that the current title is racist. While I struggle to see how it is racist (at least in the classical sense of the word), that is not a comment on your person to be construed as an attack. They may be in error (in thinking that it's racist), you may be in error (in thinking that it isn't), but either way, holding those competing views is allowed. See, there's a difference between saying "you are a racist" or "you are being racist," or even "you possess some (any) racist views." [You'd be like "no, I'm an anti-racist!"] But it's another thing entirely to say (by implication): "as a construct, the position you hold has the (inadvertent) effect of being racist." Maybe at first glance, it seems like a minor distinction, but they're actually worlds apart. One attacks the person, while the other attacks the idea. El_C10:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, thanks for this. The good news is that I think you can tell from my comment at the time that I did consider it to be a comment on my person, even if I was wrong to do so. The exchange helps me understand your sentiment on the other specific exchange we discussed at the AE; i.e. what I wrote I did not consider to be a comment on the editor themself, and did not intend it to be so, but the analogy here is a good reminder that when things are close to the line they can be easily extrapolated in the minds of reasonable people.
To answer your specific questions here, the logic in my mind at the time was "the editor is claiming that I chose to write something racist". The language used "Neutral and non-racist, as to opposed the current name" is the same as I would use if I was proposing to change the name of article about an African-American person whose article has been created with the n-word in brackets after the subject's name. In the scenario, I think we would all agree that the original author of such an article, would, in fact, be racist. The truth is, when we judge these questions, we cannot help but be influenced by our own judgements as to whether we think the actual decision to write something is in-and-of-itself a racist action.
Onceinawhile, the AGF imperative should drive one to consider that when someone else says: "this title is racist," they, as the author of that title, should actually read it as basically saying: "this title is racist, but I of course acknowledge that the title's author did not purposefully construct it with racist intent." This, of course, is in contradistinction to racist titles that are actually correct as such (in an encyclopedic sense), like with the alternate title for And Then There Were None. In other words, the editor making the "racist title" argument is not actually required to add such a lengthy qualification in that instance. Rather, per AGF (within reason), this notion of attacking the idea rather than the person is an intent which is automatically assumed, unless there's something (anything) to indicate otherwise. Hope that makes sense. El_C18:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, thanks for helping me think through this. OK I agree that AGF requires that conclusion, in both directions. I think the slight nuance, which equally applies to my characterization of certain statements made by other editors as anti-Palestinian, is (1) AGF applies to us as Wikipedians but does not apply to the world at large who can read our discussions freely, and (2) racism is a charge of such great magnitude that reducing ambiguity is often warranted.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I agree that, to take the specific example above, I should not have assumed the comment applied to me personally, but it is also reasonable for me to have hoped for or asked for a clarification given the magnitude of the potential charge in the eyes of those who do not need to AGF. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Onceinawhile, happy to help! To your point: unless you mean it as a matter of principle, I think you're greatly overestimating the readership of article talk pages, even top-tier ones, which West Bank bantustans clearly isn't. Granted, when one says that this or that thing is "racist," it isn't to their credit when they fail to substantiate that (whatsoever, even with a "per X" reference point). So, indeed, certainly not ideal. But, at the same time, not an attack, either. El_C21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, sorry to keep going here but I am conscious of this late comment; should you wish to act on it please could I respond to it formally at the AE (I am currently over my limit)[1]? It misrepresents the discussion, and the steam has run out of the thread so I doubt others will reply now. Of the 53 editors who commented at the article, many were drive-by comments who did not follow up and brought no sources; the alleging editor themself made 56 comments [2][3] but only in their final comment on 8 Jan [4], two days after the start of this AE, did they refer to source material. The RfC and RM that I started were done so thoughtfully and neutrally, made an effort to encourage discussion by painstakingly pinging everyone both times, and successfully allowed us to reach an emerging consensus, unlike the prior discussions. The editor admits this (removing the negative framing): Onceinawhile started the... RFC... which... had a clear result... and then they closed that RFC themselves and started the RM, which again has a clear result. Re my use of the done template, I in fact wrote proper explanations for each tick, to which, still a month later, the user has chosen not to respond in any constructive manner. If you look at my comments you will not see a single sentiment of anything close to WP:OWN; I have been here far too long to misunderstand how consensus works. The overall difference of opinion on talk page style between me and this other editor is described neatly in WP:ALLARGUMENTS. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I now note a further post from Drsmoo. Its speculations are entirely incorrect, and lay bare the failure to WP:AGF which plagued some of the discussion at the article (I am pleased to note that since this comment the statement has been toned down a little). I can provide a response to each of the charges made, but I have probably already overstayed my invitation at your talk page, so will only do so if you wish me to do so. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Onceinawhile, you seem to have slipped through the cracks (though thankfully not for too long). I'll review your comments momentarily, but it may take me a little while (I've yet to have had the opportunity to even read them). El_C23:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Onceinawhile, I think I'm up to speed now. Honestly, I'm sorta hoping to wrap this AE complaint up. Neither side is probably going to be fully satisfied, but hopefully, it is an outcome everyone could still live with. Consequently, I don't really want to get into the content or editing history weeds of the entire thing. You crossed the line a number of times in the dispute over this article, which you created, and I don't think it's particularly useful to argue whether your use of the {{done}} template, for example, did or did not constitute OWN behaviour. The point is that it was inappropriate, and yes, presumptuous. And you also edited inside of Levivich's comment field (a no-no), which ended up fragmenting it. As for Drsmoo, I think they have legitimate grievances, though it is indeed better that they moderated their tone. Anyway, wouldn't it be best for all concerned if we were to just move on? El_C00:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, thanks for this. Yes none of this is a particularly good use of time. Opposing editors have the ability to repackage even the best of behaviors into some nefarious conspiracy. I work hard to build on two messy, unconstructive and no consensus discussions, by creating two well-structured discussions that result in an emerging consensus => this is sold as disruptive. I respond to an editor's constructive comments in what I consider to be the gold standard manner (using the done template, and editing inside others' comments is how I frequently respond to bulleted comments, for example it is how I have done it at multiple GA and FA reviews, e.g. here, here and here) => this is sold to be own and presumptuous.
Unfortunately Drsmoo's latest comments, although duly toned down, still misrepresented the situation. The context is as follows:
After the failure of Shrike's RM, I opened the RfC, which Drsmoo then did this to: [7][8][9][10]. All this came from a failure to AGF; I worked hard to create a table to make the discussion easy, but Drsmoo believed I had an underlying motive which I still struggle to comprehend. As I explained there were many names where the proposer had not "spelt out every word in a searchable format". The list was supposed to be fulsome, Drsmoo seemed to be proposing a painstaking verification exercise to confirm whether every single proposed name was a reasonable extrapolation, but ultimately did not follow through. The way the RfC discussion ultimately went showed that Drsmoo had nothing to worry about, and that my table was helpful after all. Given the absence of good faith being assumed, if I had put no proposed names, I would have been criticized for creating chaos and making no progress on the prior discussions. If I had put some but not all, I would have been criticized for cherry picking.
All of this is showing the truth behind Brandolini's law (an article which I revived...); I don't enjoy being on the receiving end of these misleading attacks on my character and behavior. It is a massive waste of time.
You will have seen other editors under the AE spotlight use the "fight fire with fire" tactic instead, in which I would turn around and make equivalent cases of poor behavior against Shrike, Levivich and Drsmoo. Which I am sure you can imagine I have strong views on. I have seen others use that very successfully, but I don't think it is conducive to lowering the temperature, which I think is the real goal here, so I do not propose to go in that direction unless you tell me otherwise. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Onceinawhile, I don't feel I've really signed up for this to be a daily thing. Frankly, it's taking too long and I just don't want to keep doing this anymore. So, I'm going to let another admin handle the AE complaint and related disputes therein. I believe I've positively contributed more than enough —far beyond the call of duty— to the overall matter. I'll also note this to 11Fox11, who below is complaining that the SPI report you filed about them is "retaliatory" (User_talk:El_C#Onceinawhile). Anyway, I'd appreciate if both of you were to air your grievances about each other (and others) somewhere else other than my talk page. Oh, and about comment fragmentation, WP:TPO is rather clear on the matter: Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points. This confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. Finally, I realize you've hit the word limit at AE, but I suppose you could ask for a word extension of reasonable length (for my part, I have no immediate objections). Anyway, I hope it all works out okay. Best wishes, El_C13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, would you consider striking or toning down this, since it was made before you heard or evaluated my explanation? I respect your decision to step aside; I am simply concerned that a quick-on-the-draw new admin may act on your initial comment without realizing. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Onceinawhile, I'm not actually inclined to amend anything at this time, largely because I do feel I have largely addressed your explanation (a few comments up). If you still feel I fell short in that, you are of course welcome to explain away why it is otherwise. Hope that makes sense. Good luck! El_C00:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The comment you are referring to was then addressed by me but I think you had checked out by then (if you can face reading it, surely you see that the way I edited does not breach the intent of the section of TPO that you quoted as it did not “... confuse[ ] who said what...” and that it was consistent which what I had learned as best practice from FA and GA discussions. And the bludgeon claim is just the other side of the coin of the fact that the accusing editor and many others did not engage in the discussion as they should have done - surely our goal here is to encourage not quash such engagement). I respect that you are checking out, but leaving that comment hanging without a full assessment leaves me in a very unfair situation. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, FA/GA processes do not represent normal article talk page practices. I'm surprised that isn't something you've picked up on already. Anyway, that's quite besides the point. Frankly, I don't see why attaining precision at such a high level of magnification ought to really matter to you that much. I, for one, was ready to offer you a boon by closing the complaint with a logged warning only (accompanied by no other sanction). But since you're objecting, that obviously makes it difficult for me to proceed with that. Perhaps the admin who will evaluate the complaint next will see it different — in your favour or against, who knows. In any case, you are welcome to reference this very response if you wish to highlight any possible inaccuracies with my last assessment at the AE complaint. I still think it's probably close enough to a correct description of some of the misconduct exhibited on your part, and moreover, one which paints quite a positive impression of you, all considered. Extra positive in light of all the progress we've made here on my talk page, which honestly, you're kinda squandering right now. El_C00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because I deeply believe that the greatest thing about this project is the ability to achieve real balance through discussion between those with opposing views. Unemotional, source-based discussion. In the wider discussion I made the mistake of getting emotional and I accept it, even though I was but one of many. But the misrepresentative Levivich claims are so diametrically opposed to the efforts I put into the project to consistently engage in real discussion, that I think upholding them has the potential to stifle the type of hard-earned collaboration that this project desperately needs more of. It can be really damaging as a precedent. Anyway, enough is enough. Please don’t reply to this; you are a volunteer too and it is your absolute right to disengage. I will remove this page from from watchlist. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, really? Wow. That sucks. No, I never doubted that their intent was to be anything but helpful —nor at any time did I intimate that it was meant to be underhanded— I just wanted to emphasize that this was a violation. That arguments to the contrary are simply not sound. And that is also why I stressed in the AE report's closing summary that I did not intend for the warning to serve as a "blemish" on their record. I guess there was just no way to get this point across meaningfully without inflicting considerable damage...(?) That makes me sad. Anyway, thanks for updating me, Awilley. I'll take a look at your request at ARCA presently. Regards, El_C02:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a closer read of WP:EW. You quoted part of the following passage, leaving out the part that appears to show there was no vio on my part.
The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.
I did two reverts, not "more than three". I'd like to know where you see a vio, please. Note that 1RR is suspended there. ―Mandruss☎03:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, respectfully, seeing as the matter is now before the Committee at ARCA, I would rather not split the discussion further and prefer to address any concerns at that venue. El_C03:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire AE report is now under Committee review at ARCA, so that is where I prefer to discuss any of its components (whatsoever) at this time. El_C03:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The heading is Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000. Information about amendment request: Remove the warning to Objective3000 (leaving only a warning for Mandruss). My warning does not appear to be under discussion there at all. So I can't discuss this there, and I can't discuss it here, either, and it looks for all appearances that I was completely innocent. I'd say that sorta sucks, wouldn't you? How about I fucking retire from this place too? ―Mandruss☎03:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be most unfortunate. I still disagree about your interpretation of the actual scope of the ARCA review, but okay, I'll try to sum up my position for you here, as well. When you had explicitly refused to self-revert, you in effect acknowledged that 1RR was in effect. Then, when you self-reverted after Objective3000 offered to revert the edit back, that was the violation. Hope that makes sense. El_C04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not make sense. I just noted above that 1RR is suspended at that article, and I noted same in the AE complaint. Given that 1RR is suspended, how could I have in effect acknowledged that 1RR was in effect? One of us is seriously confused here. ―Mandruss☎04:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, two things. First, you made no mention of this suspension when you refused to self-revert. Then, when you did actually self-revert following Objective3000's offer to revert the edit back, I count that as an acknowledgment of it being in effect. Secondly, I don't see how any such suspension can be seen to be in place, in the first place. Both Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump on the article and Template:Editnotices/Group/Talk:Donald Trump on the article talk page are quite unambiguous about that. El_C04:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never acknowledged any 1RR, and I never would have done so knowing full well that 1RR was suspended. I don't see how any such suspension can be seen to be in effect - Then you may follow either the wikilink that I provided in the AE complaint, or the identical one that I provided near the bottom of this subsection. Or you could just have a higher level of awareness of what's going on at an article where you propose to issue logged warnings. ―Mandruss☎04:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I realize you may not have acknowledged it explicitly, but in my view, your actions speak to it. Also, this is now the second time where I have asked you to cut down on the snark. I realize this is upsetting, but unless you are able to keep it in check, maybe it's better to just table this for another day. El_C04:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yer damn right I'm upset. Under these entirely unacceptable conditions I consider it a show of restraint to limit myself to mere snark. Tabled indefinitely. ―Mandruss☎04:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you feel that way. It's too bad, because I was hoping this can be discussed in a purely matter-of-fact way. But if not, then not. Anyway, not to be unduly repetitive, but the matter is still pending at ARCA, so if you believe that I have faltered, you are free to seek any remedy from the Committee that would see me censured or admonished. El_C05:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 5) I thought of coming here first but I didn't want it to come off as "reconsider or else I'll file an ARCA" because I hate it when people use that as a (usually empty) threat. For what it's worth, I'm still not clear on why you think the edit restriction was circumvented. The edit restriction is clear: one revert per editor per 24 hours. That leaves open the possibility of tag-teaming. Was there tag teaming? Yes. Was the tag teaming disruptive? Not really. It removed recently-added contentious material restoring the Status Quo in the Lead of a highly visible article. Did it break any Wikipedia policies? No. Did it violate any discretionary sanctions? No. Did it circumvent any sanctions? So far as I can see, no, and I'm struggling to understand why you say yes. Perhaps you could help me by specifying which sanction was circumvented?Nevermind, given the above~Awilley (talk)03:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing there about "one revert per editor per 24 hours," which sounds a lot like 1RR to me, and 1RR is suspended by Awilley. If what IS there is equivalent to 1RR, what did it mean to suspend 1RR if we are still limited to one revert per 24 hours? This is supposedly "clear"? ―Mandruss☎04:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Mandruss, I was a bit too terse in my summary of the sanction above. It's linked to the content, so it should be "each editor can only revert the same content once per 24 hours". With a discussion requirement. You get up to three reverts every day, but you can't make the same revert twice. ~Awilley (talk)04:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El_C: It's pretty simple. Don't add or remove the same content more than one time per 24 hours. Mandruss removed the same content twice: that's a violation. Objective removed the content once: no violation. The other two users each added the content once: no violation. @PackMecEng, that is the effect of the following sanction: "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours." ~Awilley (talk)04:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay I was confused by your use of quotation marks, made me think it was actually written down somewhere. So the AE log says one thing, the edit notice says another, the talk page yet another, and you use wording not found in any. I think there might be an issue somewhere. PackMecEng (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think PackMecEng's observation pretty much nails it, Awilley. Beyond that, I echo what others have argued before: that you tend to overrely on sanction customization, which, at times, appears to be somewhat esoteric in nature and unclear, or otherwise less than consistent. El_C05:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since this page has been unaltered for months, can you please remove the unlock for this page as it's been over a year since you placed this lock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP, the problem with that line of reasoning (which I encounter often enough) is that the fact that this page hasn't experienced any disruption for months may well be attributed to the very protection which you are seeking to lift. More pointedly, no, I don't really conceive of the protection being lifted any time soon. Probably not for years. I might be persuaded to test the waters by downgrading it, but I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future, either. El_C00:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps the disruption ended due to whatever parties privy to vandalism, no longer exist on wikipedia. Time does make people move on to the next thing. May I suggest first downgrading it to [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] and then perhaps taking it down further a month from now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the global lock request for me and two other editors has been closed (section was removed) and dismissed. I will be going back to my normal edits of interest (with more caution of course). Thanks EdDakhla16:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, what do you know? Well, good for you. I would emphasize a few things to you: I'd stress that you need to respect and observe the spirit of WP:ONUS in your edits, overall; that you need to engage other editors in good faith as a basic imperative; and finally, that if you are going to file any sort of a report (about anything), it should be relatively brief — since this is a volunteer project, you are unlikely to see much if any volunteer resources expended otherwise (generally, a good rule of thumb could be seen in the word limit stipulated at WP:AE). Anyway, good luck! El_C16:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: for the record, EdDakhla's indef has been reinstated and I also learned something new about global locks. El_C22:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO's NPA vio has been on the page at ARCA for 28 hours. I posted a request to strike 27 hours ago at ARCA, including a ping, and posted another request to strike 21 hours ago at his UTP. He has neither stricken nor even responded to my requests despite having edited four times after the first request. Can you please strike the accusation? If so, perhaps we can avoid the need to pursue a sanction for his bad faith behavior. Thank you. ―Mandruss☎22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly, Mandruss. But, regardless, not only am I party to the appeal itself, but I am also not an Arbitration Committee clerk (full list here). El_C22:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into contacting a clerk. If you're interested, the vio and my first request are the only two occurrences of "wp:own" on the page. ―Mandruss☎22:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Mandruss, I read it now. I agree that as far as criticisms go, it is rather scathing, and that it may possibly even be deemed an WP:ASPERSION — but my sense is that it does not rise to the level of a personal attack outright. El_C23:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy explicitly prohibits serious accusations without serious evidence. OWN is a serious accusation. There is no evidence presented, let alone serious evidence. Some people see that kind of thing, lack the critical thinking skills to completely dismiss it absent serious evidence, and can't help making a mental note that the target (I) might have issues with article ownership. Surely that can't be allowed in a context like that clarification request. ―Mandruss☎23:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, fair enough. You may well be right that, unless substantiated further, the accusation ought to be stricken. I guess we'll wait and see what the investigating clerk says. But it wouldn't surprise me if that will also end up being their conclusion. El_C23:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The investigating clerk said they probably can't get to it until tomorrow. Meanwhile the unsubstantiated accusation remains unstricken on the page, 29 hours and counting. ―Mandruss☎23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I wouldn't really stress over it being displayed for a day or two if I were you. That's unlikely to have a lasting impact. El_C23:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem at WP, IMO, is that one of the five pillars, WP:5P4, is long lost. This has also corrupted the drama boards, and even ARCA, where "enemies" come to attack one another. I realize the world, at least the corner in which I reside, has gone nuts. But, we are here to document the world -- not emulate it. (Always liked the chipmunk and Che quote at the top of this page.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Objective3000, for dropping by and sharing your perspective. Here's hoping there's a light at the end of that tunnel. For my part, I hope you know that I really did try to be both accommodating and gentle with my action. Which still remains very much my intent. Glad you like the Chippies & Che quote!El_C01:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I wouldn't really stress over it being displayed for a day or two if I were you. That's unlikely to have a lasting impact. If you say so. If the ARCA request is closed before the unsubstantiated accusation is stricken, thereby enshrining it in the permanent record, may I be more "stressed" then? ―Mandruss☎10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Mandruss. I already pinged you my response to that at the ARCA page, but I'd still like to take the opportinity to also thank you for that most poignant Shakespeare quote. I am quoting it in full here for any passing reader:
Hey, you thought of it, which counts for plenty. Yup, that is indeed a risk — gotta resist the urge to overuse! El_C23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
long-term IP disruption, more users expressed as well in the talk not having consensus for the edits pushed. Since almost 1,5 half months, but recently very extensively: ([12]), ([13]), ([14]), ([15]), ([16]), ([17]), ([18]), ([19]), with impossible edit logs. Already blocked recently for this (10 days ago), but no change. Unfortunately fails WP:LISTEN, extensively, please handle it. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry everyone above, I'm halfway out the door, but I'm hoping to be able to get to your requests later in the day. But before I go, I believe there's some urgency in me responding to the criticism with the manner in which I conducted myself in the discussion I link to above.
I'll preface by saying that, I suppose, when one is pissed, there is a tendency not to bother reading anything too closely (Floquenbeam, Bishonen). And that seems as good a time as any to highlight (which to say, self-aggrandize) my lengthy email excerpts post (see, I can use boldface, too!), with thanks to Guy Macon and Valjean who did actually read it and even liked it!
Where to begin? First, Floquenbeam's assertion that I threatened to block anyone who criticizes [ Atsme's ] bad faith debating techniques, is just plainly untrue. A substantive argument against someone's reliance on misleading debating techniques is absolutely allowed. Would I prefer for good faith to still be presumed in that instance? Of course. But, if one feels all evidence is to the contrary about it not being expressed in good faith, I believe that they are absolutely allowed to say that, too. Maybe some will view it as a somewhat subtle distinction, but to me, that's a world of difference from engaging in personal attacks outright. It is even different from an aspersion, since presumably, such an argument substantiates its bad faith claims. In short, sad, but one has to do what they must.
And look, I realize all of this is easier to grasp intellectually than it is to apply in practice, but my position is that, on the project, if one (say, MastCell) deems another editor's (say, Atsme) words to be, well, just so terrible that the immediate impulse is to insult them (and I mean in an especially hurtful way), that actually does the opposite of helping anything (well, beyond whatever immediate emotional satisfaction is derived from that). Because, if the offending statements really are that terrible, then efforts to ban or block the offending editor may as well commence (dispassionately), and/or the offending comments may as well be redacted and expunged from the record.
Above, Objective3000 bemoans how one of the five pillars, WP:5P4, is long lost, to which I respond with here's hoping there's a light at the end of that tunnel. I still have faith that, ultimately, light will peer through the dark clouds. How could I go on otherwise? Not sure what else I can say or do at this point except to make an emphatic plea that appeals to everyone's better nature. So, to that: please treat each other with kindness, even and especially against all odds. A friendly gesture, even when it offers a potent critique, will almost always produce a better outcome than a response that is driven by anger and therefore expressed with venom.
Don't presume to instruct me to treat everyone with kindness when you're snarking at me in the exact same post. Now, in isolation, I wouldn't care that you're snarking at me, but it sticks in my craw that you're lecturing me about kindness at the same time. I'm aware of the mote in my eye; are you aware of the one in yours? WP:CHEERS, --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam, briefly: you're absolutely right. That "boldface" comment was pure snark (I have stricken it). I stumbled, hypocritically, there, so I apologize to you for that. While I was earnest about my plea, obviously, I need to do better and to be better, myself. I promise to work on that. El_C19:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you got this weird "apologize and try to do better" habit, but this is the INTERNET, so don't try that shit on me. I expect to be treated in the standard way; accused of being a Nazi Pedophile Bedwetter Science Denier. I mean, what would happen if we all started being nice to each other? Get off my lawn, you damn kids! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, hey, "safe space!" Kinda sucks, though, when one moment I was writing something that, at the time, felt like a gentle poke in jest, but on closer read is, indeed, a remark that serves to diminish someone else's pain, for what? To make myself feel better? I hate to be that person. I don't want to be that person. El_C23:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Onceinawhile's many offensive Holocaust comparisons and personal attacks against more than 5 editors (in the original report) are not sufficient, they are continuing their battleground conduct while this request is open and in parallel with their conciliatory discussions with you on user talk:
filing a fake retaliatory report against me. This also contains a blatant falsehood, I have made over 1,000 mainspace edits yet Onceinwhile says I only made 186. This false statement is a personal attack.
Onceinawhile did not apologise for calling editors who disagree with him racist. Onceinawhile did not apologise for making offensive Holocaust comparisons. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, 11Fox11, but, as I also just told Onceinawhile elsewhere on this talk page (User_talk:El_C#Advice), this dispute is taking too much of my time, like pretty much daily, so at this point I'm inclined to just let another admin deal with it. I note that I did tell them about the risk that filing the SPI may be perceived as "retaliatory" so long as the AE report remains open. Mind you, I also told them that if their evidence was strong, it would be probably fine to file it beforehand. But in fairness, when I said that to them, the AE report seemed just about done. Now I'm not so sure anymore. Anyway, too much attrition for me at this time. I will point out, however, that WP:CANVASS is about advertising something to like-minded users, which their notice did not (though I don't think I've ever seen an SPI report advertised on a Wikiproject before). I'd also point out the general lack of utility in seeking an WP:APOLOGY. I'll end this by repeating what I also just said to Onceinawhile above: I hope it all works out okay. Regards, El_C13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Aza24. Doing alright, thanks for asking. Sorry, though, this isn't an area of the project with which I am familiar. Regards, El_C13:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I got you beat, Gerda! Take that — enjoy that #6 spot! You can maybe take comfort in knowing that six is actually my lucky number (for real, since childhood). El_C22:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do know! Kinda funny how most of the thanks each of us got not only involved separate topics, but even separate areas of the project... El_C22:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following good advice (Bish?), I only click serious thanks, not when someone did something revealing stupidity - but I like when it goes to user's I normally don't associate with good deeds. You seem to know all, so probably also that a user saw major deterioration of Wikipedia because I thanked a certain user ;) - the edit I had thanked for was an apology. (A diff would be hard because she vanished.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same. I'm pretty selective about the thanks I hand out, too. No, sorry, I don't know who you mean, actually. El_C22:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, will listen! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival. Look for his name in my 2016 archive for another bitter-sweet story which involved BWV 56, given in the same concert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Handled, I think. Cool, I like that pic. That's an interesting-looking church, with nice stained glass windows. Thanks for sharing! El_C18:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
go to my talk, look at the credit, - it tells you that you need 5k to make the stats, and then check views (available also there) - I decorated my talk today for the birthday of a friend who was born in China, therefore Innisfree Garden is my topic to expand (where we went together in 1996, - I didn't get far with the expansion yet), and we are both pictured with a Christmas tree in 2019, - you can still listen to the radio broadcast ;) - a popular station, so nothing too serious, playlist here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fram moved it to draft, explained on User talk:LouisAlain, Grimes2 and I added refs and expanded, I believe it's ready for Main space but would prefer someone else did it. It wasn't made a mock AfC, so there's no button to push, just a move or not. It doesn't take an admin even ;) - I came to share Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice. The Glory you gave me is exceptionally clever and sadly sooo true. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now mainspaced. And you did need an admin to move it, unless you were to copy-paste move. Anyway, congrats! El_C15:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Again, thanks for letting me be part of it. A bitter-sweet milestone that cuts deep. I liked your heartfelt note very much. As for me, as per usual, trawling YouTube for near-forgotten performances that sooth the soul — listening to this at present (worthwhile featuring here, methinks). Congrats again! El_C15:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
flowers for flowers, and another bitter-sweet story: when Werner Bardenhewer turned 90 on 30 Jan 2019, I had a DYK for him as a surprise gift. He spent the day in seclusion in Africa. End of Feb he held a mass of thanksgiving at Mariä Heimsuchung, and scheduled a song I didn't know yet, Herr, unser Herr. After mass, he said we should talk some day about the WP entry, and smiled. - It was the last time I talked to him, memorial service pictured (by me, from the choir singing position, as the flowers, and he). As it happens, a DYK about strength for courage today, and the garden. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great story! I read the biography about him with great interest. Sounds like he was an exceptionally outstanding man, truly. Also, wow, Gerda, you are a champ! Not to get soppy, but you humble me. El_C21:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... what's that, "soppy"? - the next one died, not that I knew him, but looks like I should do something about Wilhelm Knabe --- don't say that again about humbling, - that was so great about Jerome, that he never made you feel like he was any superior, - just doing equally what we can do for the articles. ... and someone passed the source about him that was needed for the holy "notability", and turned out to be a professor at M.I.T. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case my opinion is that you were thoughtful and well considered here [[20]]. I honestly feel like that was a very thorny issue and it could have been very easy for someone to leave that feeling like the closer picked a side or didn't listen to either side. I think you showed a degree of consideration of all views which allowed all to feel they were heard even if they didn't get the overall outcome they may have wanted. It's a degree of care that more should exercise these days. Even those who are "wrong" may have some level of legitimate grievance and it helps a great deal when they know that their grievance has been understood. But, as the heading says, this is just my opinion. Someone around here will think I'm wrong. :) Springee (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks, Springee. I appreciate you saying that. I confess to have been aiming at a 'dose of reality with a soft touch' kind of close (also with respect to the author of that ANI complaint, see: User_talk:PailSimon#Time_to_decelerate). Anyway, I encounter AN/ANI reports that feature !votes for and against the censure of an admin with a certain regularity. And I always find it a bit curious to see such efforts, at least in part, also being undertaken by editors and admins who really ought to know better — perhaps many of them just tend to forget...?
Because what can a closing admin actually do when they deem the result of such discussions to lean toward admin censure (which of course wasn't the prevailing view in this discussion, but I mean, in general). Pretty much nothing at all. They won't get anywhere at WP:BNB, declaring, for example, that: 'there has been a community decision to suspend the sysop flag of this or that admin for x length.' The bureaucrats would just summarily decline that. The only time they would take any action of the sort (which is to say, the only time they are allowed to) is when instructed by the Committee. And that's it. There isn't any other avenue on the English Wikipedia for admin censure outside of that. None whatsoever. So, my stance is that if one is going to propose anything along those lines, they may as well do so before a body which possesses the authority to act. Nice to see you. Thanks for dropping by. El_C16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting you mention it, El C. The community can't revoke an individual admin's sysop flag, but it can implement implement social prohibitions ("bans") on any editor's editing, right? For example, here is a case where the community placed arbitrary limits on a then-admin's editing to privileged tools. And this is an ArbCom decision limiting an admin from using their tools in certain areas. Would it be within the realm of possibility for the community to implement a social prohibition on a sysop's use of tools, without being able to revoke their technical access to them? I don't know if there's any past case of something similar? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as sanctioning admins goes otherwise, generally speaking, Wikipedia:Super Mario effect is a bit unfortunate. There seems to be a gap, at least felt, between the cases ANI will accept, and the cases ArbCom will accept, where no venue can do anything about admin-caused disruption not rising to the level of blatant TOOLMISUSE. Not that the Drmies case was an example of it, but there are others. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it gets hazy. I recently topic banned admin Mzajac from a topic area, citing WP:ARBEE. What if he were to use admin tools in that same banned topic area (which I'm sure he wouldn't), would I block him for that? I'm not actually sure. But I definitely would right away let the Committee know that it happened. In answer to your question about community mandate, specifically about admin tool restriction, my read is that it is still something which the Committee would need to give its final approval to in order for the remedy to take effect. El_C15:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more like enforced by blocks or indeed by the Committee taking a dim view. Though the former is probably also of questionable possibility. Interesting to contemplate the legitimacy (and enforceability) of such a remedy, though! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There have been discussions in the past where there was consensus that a community sanction forbidding an admin from using administrative privileges was equivalent to removing the privileges, and so this was not within the scope of the community to enact. More recently this was discussed.... somewhere that I can't remember now. Some of the upset participants were in favour of being able to sanction admins in this way; I argued for the community's previously held position. Not sure what the current arbitration committee would think. isaacl (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isaacl, right, my understanding of WP:DESYSOP2019 (of which I have a cursory familiarity only) is that there was support for having a community WP:DESYSOP procedure outside of Committee purview, but that failure to agree on what such a procedure would look like, meant that nothing happened, with ArbCom remaining the only game in town. El_C20:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, being unable to agree on a mechanism is the perennial stumbling block . I believe the conversation I am thinking of took place after that one (I could be misremembering, though). Personally I think the community should officially enact an additional procedure for removing administrative privileges if that's what it wants, rather than look for a workaround. I appreciate, though, that others think that the community should be able to impose whatever restrictions it reaches by its usual consensus process. isaacl (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000 closed and archived
The Amendment request, Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000, has been closed and archived. A permalink to the now closed amendment request can be viewed here.
Revolving Personality Construct is back at it again. He just deleted all sourced materials from the last edit, including references from multiple sources.
IP, you are free to engage the article talk page, including by proposing edit requests, but it is disruption on your part, in fact, which prompted me to protect those pages. Also, you are mistaken, the protection cannot be altered by Revolving Personality Construct due to them not being a sysop. Finally, please do not continue to term good faith edits as vandalism —see what vandalism is not— because that counts as a personal attack, which is not allowed. El_C23:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admin. I tried to "reason" with him on the talk page per his request. I provided many sources and he deleted all the referenced materials including the sources themselves. How does this not constitute to vandalism and disruptive editing? He never made any constructive edits on those pages.
Finally, he can not win an argument and he accused me of being a sock puppet. Is this personal attack and false accusation?
Because that is not how vandalism is defined on Wikipedia —see WP:VANDALISM for the actual definition— that is a content dispute. I doubt your claim that "he never made any constructive edits on those pages" is true, but even if it was, it's probably not helpful to exclaim that in passing, anyway. You need to follow dispute resolution if there's a valid point you wish to get across, and it should come with proof (evidence in the form of diffs). And, no, WP:SPI is very much the place to request such investigations, so them filing a report there about you isn't a personal attack. Whether it is "confirmed" or is proven to be a "false accusation" or simply "indeterminate" remains to be seen. El_C01:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, thanks for your feedback on my request for enforcement. As you pointed out, I modified the formatting, but I did so because I'm not complaining about a particular user. I made as minimal changes to the formatting as possible, just taking out any parts that referred to a complaint about another user. Does that satisfy? If not, how would you recommend proceeding. Benevolent human (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally a bad idea to revert an admin on an admin noticeboard. The point is that it is your responsibility to ensure the correct formatting (it's alright to keep unneeded parameters blank, but in this case, you had entire sections missing) and to follow noticeboard procedure (like no threaded discussion, for example). I'll see what I can do, though. El_C02:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, will keep that in mind going forward. You admonished me "no threaded discussion on the noticeboard", and I'm happy to oblige - but what does that mean? Benevolent human (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It just means keep comments to your own section of the report — where I moved your previous comments to. El_C03:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't know about the user page convention. To give context, you had earlier said "It's generally a bad idea to revert an admin on an admin noticeboard", but I didn't know that you were an admin. That was the intention of the edits. Searching around, I now see I could have checked Wikipedia:List of administrators, but a lot of new users don't know about that. Anyway, consider whether the changes I suggested might benefit you in the way I'm describing, and in the future I'll suggest such things on a user talk page like this instead of directly editing user pages. Thanks for the wiki-etiquette tip. Benevolent human (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's all good. I'm just saying, I'd have preferred it if you were to assume that I already know what I'm doing —if only to ask if that's a change I'd like— which would have been the courteous thing to do. For future reference, the user rights button will tell you everything you need to know about any user's permissions: like Special:UserRights/El_C or Special:UserRights/Benevolent human. El_C02:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dont want to start another discussion about this topic, but is this alowed?. Since he is requesting another admin opinion and filling an unblock request, could him errase your responce and mine?.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I don't know if these edits: [21] cross the line or not, but it seems like they're really pushing it. They were made right in the middle of the discussion you were having at User talk:Reinhearted#Notice about prohibited WP:ARBPIA editing. I can't tell exactly what the purpose of them is, but it sure looks like they want to establish that kebabs are exclusively an Arab food in origin (see also e.g. [22]), and that somehow Jews stole them... Reinhearted seems somewhat fixated on that general idea. --IamNotU (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IamNotU, that isn't my read of those edits. I don't see how they go on to imply that "somehow Jews stole them," nor beyond that, how these edits are actually of an ARBPIA nature (as in pertaining to or serving to exacerbate components of the conflict in any way). As well, them claiming the preeminence of Iraq and Arabs — I just don't see why that ought to be viewed in contradistinction to Israel necessarily (as opposed to, say, Iran or India, and so on). El_C17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well fair enough, that's why I asked. I was trying to understand why they would have made that change to the Israel section, and it seemed like it was to imply that kebabs were not traditionally part of Jewish cuisine in Arab countries prior to migration. But I guess it's too subtle to complain, so AGF. I do still have the impression from their other edits that there's a serious problem with their ability to edit neutrally regarding this topic. I hang out a lot in Middle Eastern food topics, and I'm finding it a bit exhausting dealing with them. --IamNotU (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IamNotU, hey, no harm in asking. I, too, found it quite taxing just going about explaining to them that: 1. WP:ARBPIA edits are subject to the WP:500-30 tenure; and 2. that some of their edits crossed a line there. I think I was able to get my point across, though, eventually. Anyway, perhaps you're right about impending problems. I suppose time will tell the extent of it and therefore the appropriate response (if any). But as for their not of Israeli origin addition: that edit seems both accurate as well an unrelated to ARBPIA in any meaningful way. El_C19:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to them, the related content provisions of ARBPIA are slightly confusing and can feel arbitrary to people even when understood. I mean, the difference between that editor being authorised and unauthorised to make such edits is spending 1 day doing anti-vandalism reverting, or being naturally very edit inefficient. But rules are rules, I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I think the 500-30 tenure, when explained according to the "primary articles" and "related content" concepts, isn't actually that difficult to grasp. Compare that to the Manning naming dispute, for example, which I noted yesterday (having encountered it for the first time then) to have found rather incomprehensible (diff). I guess what I'm trying to say is that ARBPIA has seen extensive refinement over the years. I was encouraged that a lot of my complaints were addressed by the then-outgoing Committee in WP:ARBPIA4, whom I therefore commended (diff). They did good work there, I think. El_C19:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I agree the not of Israeli origin edit is accurate, I guess it seems like they're dancing on the edge of the volcano. I suppose that's allowed. I also agree that ARBPIA has been handled pretty well, but I do find it a bit difficult to judge, being mainly involved via food articles, what's under it and what isn't. For example, there's an edit notice on hummus, that says the article is under 1RR/500/30. But autoconfirmed users can edit it (which is ok with me). So is it? Can I make another revert there today, that's nothing to do with Israel? Same with za'atar, though the notice looks different, and falafel has another slightly different one that talks about a portion of the article, but there's no indication which. It seems like everyone just ignores these. When you tell people they can't edit about (or engage in) Arab-Israeli disputes over food, they tend not to believe it, as happened with both the editors who got warnings yesterday. --IamNotU (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IamNotU, haha — ask GizzyCatBella what's it like to dance at the edge of a volcano! She's probably the preeminent expert when it comes to that sort of perilous acrobatics (she's free and clear now, btw). Anyway, you just need to use your judgment about whether an edit meaningfully connect to or has sufficient connotations with the conflict. Granted, there's no surefire way to do this that I know of. In answer to your WP:1RR question: yes, those pages are subject to 1RR, always: Template:Editnotices/Page/Falafel and Template:Editnotices/Page/Za'atara make it abundantly clear, as does the older Template:Editnotices/Page/Hummus, which says essentially the same thing. As for the WP:ECP question: not being rigid about protection was one of the positive outcome of WP:ARBPIA4, although unfortunately, the pertinent templates didn't undergo any suitable customization to align with that development. El_C22:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped going to restaurants last winter. The one thing I broke down and got from takeout was a shawarma. It was the highlight of my summer. Or maybe it was a doner kebab. Aren't they the same thing? Wait... --IamNotU (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the latter is sorta the template for the former...? I just wish I could get some decent shakshuka around here, like even during non-pandemic times. Mind you, I guess it isn't that hard to make it home. El_C00:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! Yes!! I was dancing at the very, very, very top of the volcano for two years! (or more) Not fun years but a good lesson, actually... Yeah, use your judgment about whether an edit meaningfully connects to or has sufficient connotations with the conflict, but if not %100 sure, don't make an edit...don't revert... etc. :) - GizzyCatBella🍁00:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I asked about making a second revert in e.g. the hummus article if it's nothing to do with Israel. When you answered: yes, those pages are subject to 1RR, always, do you mean the whole page is subject to it, or just the related content? The edit notice on hummus seems to indicate that it's the entire page, as though it's a "primary article", while the one on falafel says only a portion has related content. My take has been that hummus isn't a primary article, but just has an outdated template, and should instead have the same one as falafel. In other words, users with less than 500 edits aren't prohibited from editing hummus, and we don't have to stick to 1RR, as long as the edits or reverts aren't conflict-related. Is that about right? What would be the procedure to get an edit notice updated? Make an edit request on the article's talk page? It seems like not a great idea to have an edit notice telling people they're not allowed to edit when they actually should be, and people becoming accustomed to just ignoring those edit notices. PS, regardless of all that, it looks to me like Reinhearted has taken a dive into the volcano: [24]. --IamNotU (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cool — we get "related content" in the mainspace edit notices now? Good stuff. Anyway, I am authorizing you to modify the edit notice/s accordingly. As for Reinhearted, indeed, they have flown too close to the sun this time. Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. El_C21:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I changed the talk page notices for hummus and za'atar by adding the "relatedcontent=yes" parameter. I'd need template editor permission to change the edit notices, so I just made edit requests for them. The za'atar edit notice was mistakenly redirected to the one for za'atara, it should get straightened out now... --IamNotU (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry if it wasn't clear in the edit request, but the edit notice for za'atar (a plant/spice) is mistakenly redirected to the edit notice for za'atara, a town near Bethlehem. Direct link here: [25]. You changed the latter, but it should have been the former. As far as I can tell, both are meant to have ARBPIA edit notices. For za'atar the plant/spice, I don't think it would be considered a primary article, but it has some related content and disruption because there has been a lot of controversy about it. See: [26]. I don't know whether towns are usually considered primary articles or not... --IamNotU (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the edit notices. So it looks like Reinhearted remains unclear on the concept of ARBPIA after the block expired; their first action after complaining about harassment by you was to edit the same sentence they were blocked for: [27]. I dunno. I thought about trying to explain it to them, but am doubtful that they're open to hearing it... --IamNotU (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C. I made another comment at AE, but when I hit submit, I saw that you had just closed the request. Can you please take a look at it? ― Tartan357Talk20:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Tartan357, as I just noted in that RfD (diff), AnonQuixote has every right to their views. I'm at a bit at a loss of why you expect them to tow the line as far as their opinion (as opposed to their mainspace editing) is concerned. El_C20:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tartan357, I'm afraid I do not subscribe to that logic. It's an open discussion. They have every right to reiterate a viewpoint, even if another forum deemed it to have been outside consensus. El_C20:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for collapsing the RfD thread. Unfortunately, AnonQuixote has continued to insist I've made personal attacks, adding a comment in the collapsed section. I don't wish to comment there further. ― Tartan357Talk03:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can I ask why you reverted this diff? I think Tartan357 made a valid point which is now in the collapsed discussion. If you prefer I can reword the comment to not mention the other user, but just state it as a potential counterargument to my prior comment. AnonQuixote (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you are asking, even though I think my edit summary was pretty unambiguous. I'll state the obvious, then: you need to leave that exchange alone. I collapsed it for a reason. El_C07:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you think it's better to not bring up that point at all, that's fine by me. I was just trying to be fair to the other editor whose comment was quashed. Cheers, AnonQuixote (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Sedition article currently states: "Following the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, president Donald Trump was impeached for seditious acts." which is why I started the RfC there. AnonQuixote (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it does — in a breath. But such a query, if anything, belongs on the more focused Trump impeachment page/s. Anyway, regardless, I do construe it as such, which is why I removed it. The BLPN discussion wasn't just about the piping, it also confirmed sedition as the target link. You claimed that it was "not supported by reliable sources and is potentially libelous" — other participants disagreed. Now you are free to participate in related discussions pertaining to this (like the RfD, for example), but launching a new dispute resolution request to circumvent the BLPN decision is inappropriate. Because what you're taking exception to is still "sedition." You're just trying to get at it from a different angle. But, no, if you think that closure was problematic, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE ought to be your next step. El_C09:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the BLP/N discussion settled the question of what wording to use on Wikipedia. The close statement was that "There is a clear consensus that the piping of "Incitement of insurrection" to the Sedition article is supported." What is the correct process to dispute your removal of the RfC? AnonQuixote (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think retroactively changing your decision in order to silence me would be a clear abuse of your position as an administrator. However, I really don't want to antagonize you or turn this into a slap fight that I'm certain to lose, since you have all the power and I have just my words. Allow me to clarify further why I think the RfC should be reinstated.
Thinking about how the BLP/N discussion went, I believe that the problem was that the question I wanted to ask was not the question that was discussed and resolved. In reality, before asking "Should we link from 'incitement of insurrection' to Sedition?", I think we should have established a clear consensus on the question "Can Wikipedia explicitly state that Trump was impeached for sedition?"
If the answer to that question is "yes" then there is clearly no point in challenging the BLP/N decision.
If the answer to that question is "no" then I believe there is a strong case for challenging the BLP/N consensus and I intend to do so.
So I believe this RfC is necessary before proceeding to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. If you think aspects of the RfC should be changed on procedural grounds (like which article it belongs on), let's discuss that. However, I do not think it is fair to completely shut down the RfC as this effectively makes it impossible to challenge the BLP/N decision, while leaving the central point of contention (the question asked by the RfC) unresolved. Respectfully, AnonQuixote (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add, I appreciate your fair and levelheaded contributions to this whole dispute so far, which is why I'm dismayed to see what appears to be less and less of a presumption of good faith with each subsequent interaction. My initial actions were borderline edit warring, however I'm sincerely trying to find a way to fix what I see as a significant issue through appropriate consensus-making channels. AnonQuixote (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you would have the right of appeal. And if you were to prove persuasive in that endeavor, I would be powerless to do anything about it. Anyway, you can think that I'm abusing my position —you can think whatever you wish— but I amend closed AE requests often enough as a matter of course (to indicate that sanctions have been added or lifted or adjusted or whatever). For the last few years, I've probably been the admin most active in the area of Arbitration enforcement, and I don't recall that practice ever facing a serious challenge before. Also, what you call me trying to "silence" you, I call me trying to stop you from bludgeoning. Look, I'm sorry you feel that you may have missed your mark at BLPN, but I'm afraid that's really on you. You are free to raise the issue of "sedition" at Talk:Second impeachment of Donald Trump, for example, but not by launching an RfC right now. I'd rather that there would be a general sense of what other editors think about that question before jumping to launch a new dispute resolution request. This is a volunteer project and I am trying to prevent a timesink from occurring for naught, which is what I'm fairly certain such an RfC would be at this time. While I get the impulse to tilt at windmills (pun intended), when it comes to this topic, I'd rather if you were to test the waters through normal discussion first. Depending how that goes, we can maybe revisit soon. El_C10:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My goal with creating the RfC was to determine consensus, I didn't think it was necessary to have a dispute first! As I understand it, the benefit of the RfC process is that it can bring in a larger pool of uninvolved, experienced editors than a talk page discussion. I have a feeling that the question about wording will need to be answered sooner or later, regardless. In any case, I'll raise the issue about the specific sentence in the sedition article on Talk:Sedition first. AnonQuixote (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, works for me. A good place to start as any, I suppose. Anyway, the dispute pretty much already exists, as can be seen in the aforementioned BLPN and RfD and AE (direct links) discussions. Pretending otherwise is naïve, at best. El_C16:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I supported AQ's proposal in part at Talk:Sedition, and they immediately implemented their preferred text (including the part I objected to), claiming a talk page consensus. Shortly after, an oppose !vote came in. I reverted the edit as being without consensus; I think a temporary topic ban on Trump's impeachment might be warranted at this point. ― Tartan357Talk06:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, Tartan357, first you partially support, then you seem to change your mind and go on to fully support...? Now AnonQuixote's edit (which was premature, on that I agree) seemingly prompted by that very same support somehow becomes, in your mind, a problem worthy of a topic ban? What is going on here? It almost looks like you're trying to trip up AnonQuixote, which I take a rather dim view of.El_C07:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, not trying to trip them up, but it seemed like the whole point of the above conversation is that they need to engage in discussion before they make edits. ― Tartan357Talk07:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think it warrants any action, I defer to your judgement. It seemed to me, though, that they were agreeing to hold off on changing "sedition" to "incitement of insurrection" until after they'd had a significant amount of discussion and gotten a clear talk page consensus. ― Tartan357Talk07:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well I was actually prepared to topic ban, had the template ready and everything — then, on closer look, I've seen your article talk page partial support -cum- full support, and was like: nope. Anyway, possibly there's nothing in the above where I tell them, explicitly, that they should not to be WP:BOLD on the mainspace regarding this matter...? Didn't think I needed to say that outright, yet here we are. So, I am now telling you, straight up, AnonQuixote: don't be WP:BOLD on the mainspace regarding this matter. But, as for you, Tartan357, unwittingly or otherwise, you've turned the whole exchange into something quite murky, so what would have been pretty much a straight-forward topic ban, got turned into a pass for AnonQuixote. But this is a last chance saloon for you, AnonQuixote. The notion that you'd jump to change key text on the basis of one, single comment in support — that is questionable, at best. Please take note. El_C07:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page, I was trying to be open to their ideas and nurture some discussion, but got annoyed when I saw that they'd changed the article already. As for coming back here, I think the previous bludgeoning and false accusations of personal attacks made me overreactive. I apologize to AQ if they read this. I hadn't even thought that it could look like I were trying to trip them up, and reading that honestly made me feel pretty bad. This is my first time dealing with this particular kind of disruption. ― Tartan357Talk07:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, it doesn't look like AnonQuixote is taking it anywhere good, in any case... Anyway, one final chance, I guess. El_C07:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was clearly constructive and I went above and beyond normal WP:BRR practice by discussing first and getting tentative support before even making the edit. I'm not how I was supposed to foresee that another editor would disagree after my edit. It seems like I'm being unfairly discriminated against at this point. AnonQuixote (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teehee. Don't be sorry. Stuff like that simply does not phase me. Anyway, I've blocked almost 8,000 users, protected almost 6,000 pages and deleted over 3,500 revisions. I've seen everything under the sun, including highly illegal and disturbing material — which is where one's mettle is actually tested. So, name calling and such, it's really as impactful as it is juvenile. In other words, easy to WP:DENY and move on without much of a fleeting thought. Best wishes, El_C05:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I mean I've only done RCP before for stretches of like a day or two at a time (to avoid burnout) and I've seen some stuff, but if you're truly seen that much, you'll be a candidate for oversighter in no time. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬📋｠ 05:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not to boast, but I think I'm a viable candidate right now. In fact, I think I've been one for years. I just never wanted any additional permissions. Revdeletion works well enough for me. I'm not really interested in having to weigh the nuances of what should be revdeleted versus what should be suppressed. And I am likewise disinterested in acquiring CU. I don't want that available to me as an option, either, having to weigh when and when not to use it. Would just rather not have either of those in my toolset from the outset. Anyway, there isn't anything further that I need in order to do what I do on the project which the sysop flag doesn't already enable. That has been true since I acquired it in 2005, and I doubt it's gonna change. El_C05:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to edit a closed discussion there, but I can't help but notice his comment from the diffs linked there: If my edits were so bad, I would have been blocked already. You'd think people would know better than to goad the universe, but... - The BushrangerOne ping only19:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C. I noticed that Talk:Joe Biden has an FAQ banner that appears when you are editing. I don't know how this works but was wondering if you could make the FAQs at Talk:Elon Musk do the same thing. I didn't really know who to ask about this. Thanks! ~ HAL33300:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was the page notice template, which I just deleted because it has been blank for a while now by virtue of Talk:Joe Biden/FAQ having been blanked. What a weird, malformed distraction to have for the talk page of such a key biography.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Anyway, gone, for now. As for having a page notice template that featured a FAQ show up upon editing Talk:Elon Musk or other talk pages, I've never heard of that ever being a thing on Wikipedia. Seems highly unorthodox, at the very least, so, sorry, I'm not really inclined to facilitate anything like that at this time. Best, El_C00:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Flynn is under "consensus required" restriction. The page sanction was originally applied by Coffee to Michael T. Flynn, but it seems that, after a page move, you added an edit notice that matches the current title. I'm assuming that makes you the enforcing administrator.
I would ask you to either enforce the "consensus required" sanction or – if possible – remove the sanction altogether because it is just a pain in the ass.
Here's a recent example (all edits involve the same content):
I think that NorthBySouthBaranof is the only editor who was specifically aware of discretionary sanctions (per DS alert) and hence the only one who can be sanctioned for the violation. I tried to send DS alerts to everyone involved who was not already aware. In their last revert NorthBySouthBaranof also used rollback.
Uh, I don't really intend to do so at this time, although I did just indef semi the page as an AE action — hopefully, that will help in some way...? Also, I'm not sure where you get the notion of someone being the enforcing administrator (italics is my emphasis), but I assure that this isn't actually a thing on the project. Anyway, not sure how an edit I made in 2017 is pertinent to anything. I am not familiar with the editing history of this article, nor to be honest, am I that interested to investigate it further at this time. If you wish to see a sanction lifted or modified, the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard is at your disposal. El_C01:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, semi-protection helps a bit, but I am generally not a fan of indefinite protections unless there are specific reasons. Thanks anyway. This edit-war was started by one IP editor, but the editors who were pushing unverifiable material were autoconfirmed editors who should have known better. All things considered, a temporary semi-protection could be justified.Page sanctions may be appealed to "the enforcing administrator", before taking a trip to AE or AN (second step), or ARCA (final step) and per WP:AC/DS#Definitions:
The enforcing administrator is the administrator who places sanctions authorised in this procedure.
It could be argued that as an administrator who created the edit notice (an action that did not reverse previous AE action out of process) you placed a sanction, thus becoming the enforcing administrator. But perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that adding an edit notice was clerical in nature – similar to labelling a sanction – and hence you were not "placing a sanction". The latter interpretation would be obvious had you moved the notice page rather than creating a fork.If Coffee is still the enforcing administrator – who cannot enforce their sanctions due to being desysoped in April 2018 – it means that any administrator can unilateraly modify sanctions placed by Coffee. In which case I would prefer discussing removing the sanction with another administrator. Much of my reasoning for removing "consensus required" restriction from Flynn's bio would consist of examples of disruptive edits. I would like to focus on discussing sub-par edits, not editors. I see in my crystal ball that similar conversation at AE or AN could be easily derailed to discussion about editors. Anyway, this is just my thinking and I will not ask you, or perhaps anyone, to reconsider. Politrukki (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your article talk page comment looks excellent. Many thanks.I'm not sure I understand how you interpreted my "have fun" comment. I have tried, believe me. Perhaps we are communicating at cross purposes. I simply said that as an attempt to lighten the mood. It was not meant to be taken as any kind of personal comment. Politrukki (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Politrukki. Yeah, I get that you were trying to say 'brace yourself,' and so on in jest, but what I meant is that you presumed I was obliged to look at it, which I was not. But, no, nothing amiss about saying that otherwise. But, anyway, it isn't just because it could be seen as a clerical action or whatever, but also because an admin doesn't necessarily gets wedded to an AE sanction they impose. If another admin wishes to reverse a sanction of theirs, that's different, but in so far as the sanction itself being in effect, it isn't an obligation on the admin who imposed it. An AE sanction is recorded in the log — all admins are encouraged to enforce the sanctions recorded therein. Hope that makes sense. As for the indefinite semi, I stand by it. Of course, indefinite isn't infinite, but for the foreseeable future, I doubt I'm gonna lift it. At this moment in time, I'm just not convinced it makes sense in setting it to expire. Regards, El_C22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I received an alert/message that my TALK page has recently been "pp-protected". I have no idea what that means. The message about it said "stop being a nuisance" and something about IPs. I am not aware of having behaved like a nuisance to anyone! Do I need to fix something or apologize to anyone? If yes, what do I need to fix, and to whom do I need to apologize, and for what? What does being "pp-protected" mean and will it affect my ability to edit articles? Please explain in simple, non-technical language, as if you were talking to a six-year-old child. That way I MIGHT be able to understand the answer (although my sixth birthday was a long long time ago). Does it have anything to do with the fact that an unregistered weirdo has lately been leaving messages on my TALK page? Well, please advise, preferably on my TALK page.
(watching:) HandsomeMrToad, nothing wrong with you, just this IP dropped you the same rather nonsense message 3 times, reverted 3 times (twice by me), and will no longer be able because the page is protected against such attacks. If you say that you want to deal with such messages, the protection can end, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HandsomeMrToad, that's right, Gerda asked me to intervene (diff). The message (well, messages) said: stop being a nuisance, IPs (diff, diff), which I thought was pretty clearly addressed to them.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Anyway, certainly, if you want the semiprotrection to be lifted (or extended, for that matter), that's easy enough to do. Whatever works for you. Let me know. El_C15:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance
Why am I being warned about "unsubstantiated reports"? The ANI was hijacked by the whole 'lab leak' discussion as I was cocerned about and warned about. The original complaint stands and is substantiated by their own words in making this accusation.
I have been accused of sockpuppeting multiple times now for no reason on pages with sanctions. No action is being taken? This line of reasoning can be applied in the future to discredit accounts that any editor disgrees with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dinglelingy, you are being warned about unsubstantiated reports, because you submitted an unsubstantiated report. I don't do allegations that are absent actual proof. And I like my evidence in the form of diffs, with clear summaries and quotes attached. If you're gonna do it, do it right. El_C22:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was clear until the page was hijacked under pretense of wp:boomerang and I could have made it more clear if any admin needed clarification or better links/diffs/whatever. What did I do wrong? My account reputation was unfairly and inaccurately smeared in talk discussion on sanctioned pages. The procedure for sockpuppet accusations was not followed and the smear continued on my ANI. This is wrong. Dinglelingy (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"huh Dinglelingy, that's an odd response. Are you ScrupulousScribe (now blocked)? Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)"
I am not and I do not appreciate the completely unfounded and inaccurate accusation. Seems my suggestions were ignored. A reminder of the rules: Assume good faith, Be polite and avoid personal attacks, Be welcoming to newcomers. I suggest you follow them. Dinglelingy (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
"Your link to an obvious conspiracy theory website shows that NinjaRobotPirate's earlier concern at your unblock request that you should be topic banned is well-founded. I am concerned that if NinjaRobotPirate checks Dinglelingy, who has been pushing the same material on Wuhan Institute of Virology, that more substantive action may be appropriate. You now have consumed large amounts of editing time constantly pushing theories regarding COVID lab leaks on Wikipedia (i.e. WP:NOTHERE territory). Britishfinance (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)"
Wow, unbelievable! I have had enough of these type of attacks. Admins, this is the second editor who has blatantly violated the fundamental rules of Assume good faith, Be polite, and avoid personal attacks in reference to my account. As this page is sanctioned I request immediate action to discourage others from using this means of discrediting my account as well as other editors to facilitate their point of view. This is totally unacceptable behavior. NinjaRobotPirate,Boing! said Zebedee The only thing I have been 'pushing' is for adherence to Wikipedia standards of behaviour and consistency in the editorial process. I do not agree with all of ScrupulousScribe's arguments/sources, but I do agree with his concerns about consistency in sourcing requirements and maintaining a NPOV on the topic. Too many of you are piling on to dismiss him out of hand rather than working with him on acceptable updates. I have tried to facilitate consensus on those points in the most appropriate place as anyone with a NPOV will agree with if they read my comments. The whole reason I got involved in this discussion was because of inappropriate behavior on this page, inappropriate behavior that unfortunately has continued with editor's like Britishfinance throwing around threats, and personal attacks. Everyone should be ashamed by this behavior and in allowing it to continue. Dinglelingy (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
"Yes indeed. The problem here is that we seem to have some WP:PROFRINGE types, and possible socks,[13] who have a POV and are casting around to try to find sources to support that POV, rather than more disinterestedly looking for good sources as an initial step. Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)"
Unbelievable you are resorting to this tactic again after I spend all this time trying to walk you through an argument that's over your head. What a waste. Thucydides411 It's peer reviewed and I have not seen anyone attack it's integrity. If you want to attack their credibility, that's your prerogative. What am I going to do, I got nothing.Dinglelingy (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Dinglelingy, I'm not seeing personal attacks in the lengthy segment of text that I collapsed directly above. Everything said there seems to be within the bounds of a spirited debate. If you wish to challenge my close, you are welcome to pursue WP:CLOSECHALLENGE further. But, otherwise — sorry, I'm not really interested in relitigating the closed report at this time. El_C23:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing my account of sockpuppeting is not a personal attack and within the bounds of spirited dabate? There never was litigation of the closed report, you closed it asserting it was unsubstantiated, which it is not. I will follow procedure. Dinglelingy (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view it as an accusation, outright, on Britishfinance's part, not to mention having it rise to the level of a personal attack. Also, I thought it was clear that the word "relitigate" was used to convey rehashing the contents of the closed complaint. Oh well. Anyway, for sure, do as you see fit. El_C00:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." WP:NPA#WHATIS If you are not going to do anything about the closure of my complaint then I have no choice. I have done nothing wrong in my edits and I am surprised you take the view that this type of behavior is conducive to within the bounds of 'spirited debate' contrary to well established policy and common sense. Dinglelingy (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you do as you see fit. The point is that there is a balance that editors must strike, between WP:AGF and WP:PACT, a balance which I have found was not exceeded in any serious way so as to merit further action. El_C01:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, Dinglelingy, I didn't say it was conducive to 'spirited debate', I said it was within the bounds of a spirited debate (italics is my emphasis). Sometime, one just has to quote. El_C01:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that they might not have understood the particular sensitivity, rollback use being something that was brought up in the case. I agree with you that it would have been unnecessary regardless of any specifics; it seems to be something they think needs doing when a user dies - an odd area to decide to gnome in, but presumably they thought the were being helpful. GirthSummit (blether)12:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I don't disagree with you. I guess I was trying to frame the same message in a way they might be able to take on board. Believe me, I'm deeply upset about what has happened, and I was gobsmacked when I saw that proposal. Looking at those diffs though, it looks like people have acted on their requests like that in the past - someone really ought to have suggested to them before now that it's unnecessary, but they haven't, so now they're in the position of believing that they're doing something useful. GirthSummit (blether)12:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Girth Summit, I understand what you're saying, but I still very much disagree. As far as interests (or should I say, fixations?) go, it's already super-weird enough. So, to then have GZWDer act like an outright ghoul about it, my immediate impulse is most definitely to strongly chastise them, unequivocally and in no uncertain terms. That's why I still think your softly-softly approach was a mistake. Possibly, it was what prompted GZWDer's following up with that bizarre VPP post (diff), for which I was very, very close to blocking them over. In short, there's a time for niceties and a time to be firm — to me, this brainmelter clearly belonged to the latter category. El_C14:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I expressed myself in such a way as to suggest that I was disagreeing with your position, or with your approach - what I said was intended to supplement your comments, certainly not to contradict them. When I said they should leave it where it was, I was trying to tell them that they should not attempt to start an RfC on the matter, or take any further steps at all with regard to the matter. Perhaps I need to take a more direct approach with my communication. GirthSummit (blether)15:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sadko, doesn't look like much has happened so far to require immediate attention. That said, I don't understand why you fail to respect the spirit of WP:ONUS. I'm sorry to say, but that is not a good look. El_C16:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One editor wants to add content on the destruction but at the same time removes content on the renovation [28]. They are free to seek consensus via DRN or a RfC. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right actually. The WP:DRN page says that It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards.lol Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Never noticed that. Someone is lacking in confidence, methinks. Sorry, DRN volunteers, all in good fun! But seriously, your forum sucks! (Guess I just can't help myself.) El_C17:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, El C. Hope you're well. I started the discussion on 19/01 but I haven't placed the article on my watchlist and I didn't know about the very bad discussion that has emerged. WEBDuB has accused Ktrimi of hounding[29], Ahmet Q. and others of writing articles about evil Serbs (removed) and then accused me of paranoid accusations. Not the first time this happens since they have repeated even worse accusations against other editors[30] without any of the substantial evidence which was required in that discussion. I'm open to listening to other editors and producing a new synthesis (not the Bob Avakian one :P ), but productive discussions operate under certain rules.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He received some minor hype among students who are just now getting into the Maoist theory sphere and then got a lot of criticism because he supported Biden (popular vs. united front, democracy vs. fascism etc. etc.) It's interesting from an anthropological perspective how theoretical currents go in and out of fashion and then resurge. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But why? Do you see what is going on in recent months? There is a rising trend of hatred towards the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian, simultaneous pressure to change many articles, but also long-term abuse, disclosure of personal information, off-wiki harassment, threats... I have the impression that a group of editors is constantly following me. They always appear in articles with a similar topic, unconditionally supporting each other. This time, three editors came to the article after me even though they had never contributed or participated in the discussion before. Where did they come from in that article at that very moment? And again with identical changes and arguments. It happens literally day by day. Furthermore, I've noticed a strange form of WP:HOUNDING, which included some kind of “countermoves”. More precisely, similar changes to the articles that the user seems to have perceived as a kind of parallel events. I’ve even seen editors literally copy my sentences, just enter other personalities or states.
Many times, I was labeled both as a neoliberal anti-Serbian editor and as a Serbian nationalist POV pusher and propagandist. Has any of the admins ever reacted? Maleschreiber has already put a target on my back here, but it is easy to check what kind of labels he put on me. I just don't want to be a plaintiff. I'm always preferred dialogue. In every Balkan topic, several editors have been labeled as Serbian ultranationalists, are accused of canvassing, etc. Has any of the admins ever reacted? I have personally reported about five times for various forms of harassment (some example: [31][32][33]), but without any response. Sometimes, I don't feel safe here, especially since the admins on Balkan topics show less and less impartiality and timeliness. However, I wrote the most negative and critical articles about politics and leaders in Serbia. Apparently, many editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian were the subject of a smear campaign, even banned, while others were forgiven for 10 times more serious violations. There is eve evidence that certain editors use racist and genocide-inspired hypotheses as arguments and sources, and nothing happened. Even this time, Ktrimi991 reverted the page three times, and that version is protected and locked, not the one that contained well-sourced content.
So please, don't turn a blind eye to what is happening. I'm always in the mood for discussion and cooperation. I have changed my own contributions a million times, while on the other hand I only face putting tags and giving up any conversation. I apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not turning a blind eye, but these are editors in good standing who are regulars of the topic area — you should not compare them to fly-over IPs and so on. As I already noted elsewhere about this very topic area (Balkans) in this very talk page, I get the sense that the opposing sides are rather evenly matched (diff). You should expect multiple editors to have multiple related articles already on their respective watchlists. So, please observe the spirit of WP:AGF instead of jumping to bad faith conclusions. Not to be a broken record, but that (too) is not a good look. El_C19:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should expect multiple editors to have multiple related articles already on their respective watchlists. - I expect that in most cases, but I'm sure it's clear to you that this time it's not about that. Especially when the editors who contribute the most, for example, to the Croats-related topics continue “the battle” with me on Kosovo topics, even though they have never been on those articles. I am the one who always assume good faith and calls for it. But my patience has limits, especially when I am constantly harassed. Please take a look at the reports and evidence that I have provided. Thank you for contributing to the atmosphere on these hot topics.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at what exactly? Sorry, but to be frank, you're being quite longwinded above and I don't really have the time to examine walls of texts too closely. I'm just too busy, I'm afraid. If you are able to condense, I'll try to have a look (though no guarantees). Anyway, to your point: no, I don't buy that argument. Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians is an important subject, so expect it to already be on multiple editors' watchlists, even if they never edited it before (I have almost 100,000 pages on my watchlist and I assure you that I've only edited a very small percentage of them). El_C19:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, you don't have to. Sorry for taking the time. I don't matter, I hope that other editors will not go through such harassment. I will do my best not to be the source of the problem, I promise. Kind regards. --WEBDuB (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, WEBDuB, I don't have to. As in it is a bit presumptuous of you to expect me to have time to spare for anything but the most concise and pointed evidence and summaries. Not sure I'm able to square away I don't matter with Kind regards, but it is what it is, I suppose. El_C19:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) :::::I'm unfamiliar with old disputes, so I tagged WEBDuB's edits. Now, apparently WEBDuB tried to place a similar narrative in 2019 and Ktrimi removed it in 2019 and 2020. Why did WEBDuB think that such an editing narrative would gain consensus in 2021 when it was excluded in 2019 and 2020? If an editor knows that it's WP:BRD because they've tried a similar thing before, the logical step is to stop and avoid placing any other reverts if it's not accepted. And I'm not even saying this as a form of disapproval - it's just the rational thing to do.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is now much better sourced and cited. There is no reason to dispute it. There are no right or wrong narratives, but Wikipedia policies. Moreover, I did not add that narrative. I just expanded the existing one, and Ktrimi removed the stable version during his massive edits of Kosovo-related articles. Again, pleaste stop with label me with WRD and such things. @El C: I don't expect anything. You do a great job in general, but I'm used to my reports with evidence of serious harassment being ignored. I stopped believing a long time ago that the admins would react.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WEBDuB, you are entitled to think (as in argue) that there is no reason to dispute it, but you are not justified in repeatedly acting (as in edit warring) upon this sort of premise in a way that is contrary to the spirit of WP:ONUS. I could always use WP:ACDS to force ONUS on repeat offenders by imposing Consensus required on the page in question, or even on select individual editors themselves. So, I hope everyone keeps that in mind as far as a general mode of operation concerning editing disputes in the Balkans topic area are concerned. Finally, I'm not aware of (or at least not able to immediately recall) any previous reports you've filed, so I obviously am unable to comment further on that at present. Thanks for kind words. They are appreciated. El_C21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I say all the time. I always try to reach a consensus through discussion. No one wants to discuss specific sources and claims, but a group of editors completely delete the section and go on the offensive, sticking labels and providing some changes from a few years ago that are irrelevant now. The contet was only removed without explanation. That doesn't follow the WP:CRP. The section on Kosovo has been removed without consensus. Sorry again for this situation. I hope that a quality discussion will develop on the talk page of the article.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, WEBDuB, but I think you got it backward. It was added without consensus. The WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN are actually on you, as the editor advocating for the contending version, to establish consensus for it. It isn't on those who advocate for the longstanding version, even though they must participate in good faith once challenged. If there is an impasse, as mentioned in the section directly above, there are dispute resolution requests that you may avail yourself of (like WP:RFC and WP:RSN). Once such requests are properly closed, consensus (or lack thereof) becomes codified, at least for a long while. Needless to say, it is customary that the status quo ante (longstanding) version would be the version that gets displayed in the interim. Any serious violations in the topic area may gain priority attention at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, so participants may submit reports there with a greater expectation of a concrete outcome (compared to WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:AN3, which are less focused and generally less effective for these matters). El_C22:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. To be clear, Ktrimi removed (without consensus) the section that had existed for years. When I tried to return it, I was labeled and accused. Why didn't you or any of the admins react in this way then? That is the key question. I know all the policies well, but we always get stuck in double standards. I did not run to accuse anyone, but I opened the discussion and provided the sources several months ago and no one objected. In the meantime, I found even better sources, which no one has essentially disputed even now. The editors just show up to reverse the changes, and the admins somehow always decide to lock the page on the anti-Serbian narrative. While a kind of ultimate supermajority is required to show relevant historical events in which the suffering of Serbs is accidentally mentioned. To conclude, I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake during my work, but I think you all made a mistake now by putting me on a pillar of shame.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, if that is the case, I am the one who has it backward. Indeed, that would make your version the longstanding version and theirs the contending one (sorry, I am unable to immediately confirm this to be so). El_C22:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[A]nd the admins somehow always decide to lock the page on the anti-Serbian narrative. WEBDuB, listen to yourself. That is such a bizarre thing to say. There are (guestimating) 1000ish admins in total; probably less than 500 of them are active-ish; probably less than 25 deal with WP:ACDS, in general, and the Balkans topic area, in particular. I doubt you'd be able to find even one admin on the English Wikipedia that has a strong leaning either toward a pro- or anti-Serbian viewpoint — I certainly don't. It's quite a niche area of history to almost all admins (most of whom are from the US), I would wager. Sure is to me. See, when you say things like that, you make me doubt whether you are a good fit for this topic area... El_C23:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, Ktrimi removed (without consensus) the section that had existed for years. It was added to the article 3 days ago by you [34]. If 3 days are "years", only in that scenario you are right. What kind of Maths is that? Another admin, @Peacemaker67: asked you some days ago to provide evidence on your claims about "a wave of hatred" and "long-term abuse, disclosure of personal information, off-wiki harassment, threats" [35]. Take that advice seriously. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Balkan disputes should the funniest thing on Wikipedia. People fighting over tiny details on obscure articles that only their writers will ever read, opening months-long RfCs where the only participants are those involved in the dispute. The Creator of the Universe might be laughing while watching from above. :P Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I see it carefully, that Mittens cat is similar to a cat that sneakily comes to eat my cat's food. I would like to hit it on its evil head.lol (not seriously, of course). Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi991: No, it existed before 2019, when you removed it during the massive changes to articles. Take that advice seriously. - As I said, I prоvided evidence and filed reports many times, but it was ignored. To be honest, only the oversight team helped a few times. Thanks for caring.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Webdub, in 2017 the article did not mention Kosovo. Kosovo was first added on on 16 January 2018. It was reverted by me a week later, and the other side did not reach consensus on the talk page for inclusion. A blocked editor tried to add Kosovo again on 5 July 2018 and it was immediately reverted. A new discussion on the talk page did not produce consensus for inclusion. On 18 April 2019 you tried to add Kosovo, it was reverted. Although you did not get consensus on the talk page at the time, you gave it another try a few days ago. You will probably give another try later, the result is already known though. Bye, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, again, for providing actual evidence, Ktrimi991. WEBDuB, I am warning you right now: the next time you present any (Balkans-related) grievances absent actual proof (evidence in the form of diffs), I am likely to just impose an indefinite broadly construedtopic ban from the topic area on you, and that would be that. Some significant correction on your part is expected and is contingent on you being allowed to continue editing in this fraught topic area. Please reflect and take note. Thank you. El_C15:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really shocked. Each of my reports with a handful of evidence in the form of diffs for 10 times more serious violations was completely ignored, and now I am the target. During the first next problem, I will prepare evidence for each editor individually. Ok, I'll be more careful. I apologize if I have ever offended anyone or, at least, taken too much time. Honestly, I wish everyone all the best. I hope we will cooperate nicely.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C - hope all is well. Thanks for blocking this editor a few days ago. However, this new editor is obviously the same person evading their block. Adding this text is exactly the same as the first account, and targeting this article. Please could you take a look, or if you want me to log an WP:SPI case, please give me a ping/note. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me
Blockedindefinitely. Hey, Lugnuts. All's well, thanks for asking. Nah, I don't know that an SPI will help at this point. But if they return again, maybe list all the articles they're fixated on (if it's a reasonably-sized list), so that they can be semiprotected...? Regards, El_C10:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Guess who's back! Very similar username to the original blocked account. Evidence such as this where the first account over-links to Australia, which this new account does here, albeit to South Africa. I'm starting a log to list the common pages, per your earlier advice. Thanks again. LugnutsFire Walk with Me13:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since we exchanged a few posts recently the choice fell on you as I want to ask, how do you check redirects, is there any alternative for a tool that has been unavailable for some time, and which could be used by regular editors?--౪ Santa ౪99°18:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is to avoid an accidental perception of the request as being based on legalistic non-wiki reasons. Based on this slight accommodation in the process, and if indeed there comes a legal outcome, the opposers in a subsequent RM will try to snowball it claiming that legalistic reasons are not wiki reasons, and reframe the whole argument as misguidedly based on the articles of impeachment as the be-all-end-all (they will say: "nothing changed"); if there is yet no outcome, they will try to snowball it claiming that "obviously" it's too soon and/or unmerited and that it's implicit that we should wait for a legal outcome. None of this has to do with the reasons for the request (the actual arguments of the support side, expressed in the posts of most supporters) with are just standard naming conventions reasons. Thanks for consideration — Alalch Emis18:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Alalch Emis, but I'm not sure that is something that makes sense for me to preempt at this time. Users are entitled to argue whatever they wish, the substance of which the respective closer of any future request will be tasked in determining. I think over-qualifying this (purported "non-wiki reasons" or whatever) at this point in time will only add confusion rather than provide clarification. El_C18:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch Emis, I'm wary to say this, but I'll still add that, if pressed, "significant legal outcome," in my mind, is likely to involve either the conviction of the former president and/or the expulsion of members of Congress. But who really knows what else could come to the fore... El_C19:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, tx for the quick reply. I think it was a bad idea to add this unnecessary condition to nullify the moratorium as 1 month isn't long and people will latch onto it (they are entitled to but it's bad and intellectually dishonest/lazy), because your closer stands on top of the discussion and many people don't read the rest. This potentially distorts the perception of the support arguments. Just a subtle matter of tactics. — Alalch Emis19:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Alalch Emis, well, peering into the future is always a tricky proposition, I find, so that was a key component that I felt I had to seriously weigh and address. Thanks for dropping by and sharing your perspective. El_C19:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should clarify: I did not ask you to repeat what I told you here as an addendum to your closer, but to "expand on the decision", simply to state your reason for that decision publicly there. Might as well be a couple of words, a guideline, whatever. — Alalch Emis19:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand, AE is only the right venue if there was an arbcom case and a corresponding ds/alert, not for general sanctions (even though gs/alerts show up as ds/alerts in logs)? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, as well as for the cordial handling of my error. Hmm I'm doubting the usefulness of gs/alerts (vs ds/alerts) considering this (and that we have the other uw- templates), I'll read the available docs on it. —PaleoNeonate – 05:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, PaleoNeonate. Well, DS and GS topic areas are more fraught, so with admins getting more enforcement discretion, awareness criteria are likewise enhanced accordingly. Whereas uw- could be used for disputes that do or do not involve DS and GS topic areas, but they generally represent lesser admin discretion about the scope of sanctions. Anyway, from what I gathered, the alert requirement of the modern GS has taken its que from DS' WP:AWARE. El_C05:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry to bother you but I am a noob. Lala migos removes any "bad" material about Dutch-based kickboxers, including their Legal Issues and Failed Drug Tests. This is not normal, the UFC fighters have the same.
I don't know how to report him, but I would do it. Many users are complaining, he's consistently doing that.
I personally think these are all sockpuppets, he probably switched to Mobile from PC. See this case, the same edits on Badr Hari from different sockpuppets, manipulating the page. Basically hiding the truth. Straatmeester's sockpuppetry
Any warnings probably will not fix the problem, he keeps returning.
Oshwah investigated the case, but he's offline since some days ago. Thanks if you help! This is really annoying what are the fan boys doing. Zbreller (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zbreller, I mean, if it happens again, you can just list the pages that needs to be semiprotected for a few months and we can go from there. Otherwise, Atlaslion1912 and Hozmaster blocked as obvious socks; Lala migos was already globally locked, so I didn't bother. Sorry, I'm not able to immediately parse much beyond that at this time. Regards, El_C21:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So these are socks. Ok, thanks a lot. I don't care if he returns, even if he has more users. Just not to manipulate pages like that. Don't try to manipulate a page with your multiple accounts, and also don't remove info even if it's bad for image. Nobody even agreed for that. Zbreller (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zbreller, yes, pretty obviously WP:SOCKy (or WP:MEATy, doesn't matter). That is quite the onslaught, though, so we may not have heard the last of them. M.Bitton, again, I have no familiarity with any of this. I just learned about it now. So, no idea who the master is or anything else of the sort. El_C22:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry. I intended to delete that section from the Genocides in history (before World War I) article. In the meantime, there was a problem with link redirection. Or I simply missed the article I was in. Please, I really didn't have any bad intentions. I have already apologized and explained that I will not get into disputes. I think the sanction is too strict. I promise it won't happen again. That was a totally stupid mistake. I hope you will understand. After all, I don't see what it all has to do with Balkan topics. I'm so sorry you linked these situations that have nothing to do with each other. If I had noticed that I was on the wrong article, I would have corrected the mistake myself. I really don't think I deserved a ban like this. Please understand. I’m sure I didn’t break any serious rules.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it removed tons of content about Bosnia and Herzegovina. But that isn't even the main point. I've given you a final warning yesterday against continuing with evidence-less grievances. You replied with "shock," which is okayish, I guess, but then to have that immediately followed by more evidence-less grievances — that doesn't fly with me. Enough is enough. El_C15:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it was really a random and stupid mistake. I wanted to delete it from the Genocides in history (before World War I) article because those courts were made later. I complied with everything from your warning, except for this nonsense. I did not enter into any dispute. Please understand me.
This move with the genocide article was completely misinterpreted. With numerous changes, I condemned the denial of the Srebrenica genocide and all nationalist moves by Serbian politicians (it can be seen in the articles about Aleksandar Vučić, Ana Brnabić, Tomislav Nikolić, Bosnian genocide denial, Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević...). No one can attribute nationalist label or POV-pushing or anything like that to me. but then to have that immediately followed by more evidence-less grievances - I have previously left links with my reports where there is evidence in the form of diffs (some example: [36][37][38]). I have indeed often been in trouble for ignoring these reports, and now I am banned for an accidental mistake with no evidence of serious rule violations on the topic area.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are diffs which you have already cited in the discussion above, but ones I also have already addressed by noting that they were about IPs, not regular editors (in good standing) of the topic area — a matter which you continue to conflate. Like with your latest comment, which reads: Each of my reports with a handful of evidence in the form of diffs for 10 times more serious violations was completely ignored, and now I am the target. During the first next problem, I will prepare evidence for each editor individually. Sorry, it's too much for me at this point. Maybe appeal in six months, I might be open to granting that request contingent on productive editing elsewhere. El_C16:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WEBDuB, about the Genocides in history issue, specifically: I am more than happy to take your word for it that it was a WP:CIR rather than a WP:TE problem. Anyway, the point is that you were given a sort of last chance saloon for the topic area, but what I saw happen the next day (today) was kinda the last straw for me. Anyway, what's done is done, as far as the sanction is concerned. I mean, you're welcome to try to persuade me to reverse my decision, but I'm letting you know that as much as I'd like to keep an open mind, I struggle to conceive of a reason to do so at this juncture. Beyond that, there's also Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal (appeal to a quorum of uninvolved admins) which is available for you to make use of at any time. El_C17:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to be boring, but WEBDuB I am curious to know what do you understand with "pro-Serbian" editor? I ask because you keep using that term in such cases as: "rising trend of hatred towards the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian", "orchestrated smear campaign against the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian" ([39]), "wave of hatred towards the editors who were labeled as pro-Serbian" ([40]), "harassment of editors who mark themselves as pro-Serbian" ([41]). Who are those "pro-Serbian" editors and, as a result, who are the "anti-Serbian" ones? If indeed there is a "pro-Serbians vs anti-Serbians" war on Wiki, it is a big serious problem, and your evidence is very welcome. Thank you, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not make such divisions and I loathe all prejudices and nationalisms. I talked about the editors who were accused and labeled as pro-Serbian by other editors.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opps, sorry. My advice to WEBDuB is to reflect and to contribute to other areas, some of which are certainly more interesting than the Balkans. Maybe they are able to return to the Balkans later after 6 months or so - a time period long enough to reflect on past mistakes. Also, El C thanks for being patient with the long messy Balkans discussions that come to your tp. Frankly, you are probably the only admin around these days willing to help in such cases. Cheers to both, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I didn't write the request there, but someone else copied the appeal from WP:ARCA where there was no word limit. What should I do in that case? Also, after the warning, I didn't accuse any editor of anything. I referred to reports that have been ignored by admins for months (that really hurts!), even if they were IPs reports. There is no proof that I linked the IPs to the regular editors. Certainly not after your warning. I hope you looked at this section. Thanks.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know you might not expect to hear this, but Flyer22's death has been hard on a lot of people. It wasn't just her friends on wiki that have to grief here. I genuinely wanted to see her be better and act better because she was a great editor. WanderingWanda is dealing with that, and they are dealing with knowing Flyer22 died resenting them to the bitter end. Everytime I think about that I start to cry, and I can't imagine it is any easier for Wander (in fact, I know it isn't).
I don't agree with this close. You probably know at this point I look up to a lot of your work on that board, and I consider you one of the best admins on the project because of it (if not, you do now). However, this was not the right close. No one except the filer agreed with you, and the AGF reading of WanderingWanda's comments would imply that any insensitivity was unintended (as they stated).
There are really important reasons I needed to say this. While the community is still coming to terms with the death of a beloved community member, certain people have gone on to attack people for their participation in the Workshop phase of the case. I feel as though I have been made responsible for an editor's death.
To interject, because I think it's important (more important from a human and real-life-takes-precedent perspective than any of this): MJL, WW, et al. should know that Flyer was not dwelling on or stressed by you in particular during her last days. Her angst was about the overall dogpiling and attempts to bend her defense of neutrality about various sources and viewpoints into supposed support of/agreement with those viewpoints. She was upset that the case was turning into a recast-in-a-bad-light railroad, and was not angry at or dwelling on any particular person (not an evidence presenter and not an Arb). It had more to do with process failure than particular individuals. It's important to realize that her main hobby was WP (even more than I knew – she'd been bedridden since before the case started according to Halo, and basically had a choice between passively watching TV or getting actively online), so it was distressing to her to have her "e-home" seem to turn against her. If anyone thinks she was cursing them individually with her last breath, please put that idea out of your mind. Halo says (and means it to be disclosed on-wiki) that the family "doesn't want them [ArbCom] or anyone else to feel at fault." — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC); quote added 09:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, first, thanks for the kind words. I appreciate that. But, in this instance, I disagree with you. I had not spoken about there having been bad intent behind the contested comments. My close makes zero commentary on any possible motivation. But, the comments themselves, were grossly insensitive, which was shocking to me. To me, that is just a fact. One which I feel was important to emphasize. Not much more I wish to add to that at this time, except to spell-out my hope is that the potency of my aforementioned statement leads to greater reflection. Best, El_C18:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Thank you for the ping] I think you can move your thoughts on the comments do the "Result concerning WanderingWanda" subsection and not make them so prominent. It isn't fair after only four hours of open discussion that such a harsh admonishment gets written of a user before they could even respond when the commenters thus far did not unanimously agree to such a sentiment. Am I wrong? –MJL‐Talk‐☖18:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, again, I disagree and do not wish to dilute anything at this point by modifying. I think my dismay is appropriate, but if more individuals feel the same way as you do, and certainly if suggested by the Committee itself, I'm certainly willing to revisit that stance. El_C18:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like MJL, I'm feeling a little sorry for WW. I think it's quite possible this person is feeling absolutely terrible and their comments were affected by all sorts of emotions and cognitive dissonance. I don't think your dismay is inappropriate; I was dismayed, too. Like MJL, I'd prefer not to have I'll just use this closing summary to express how utterly shocked I am by WanderingWanda's gross insensitivity. I'll stop at that because I'm almost certain to regret saying anything further about that. visible when collapsed. I don't feel hugely strongly about it; actions do have consequences, and sometimes those consequences are that we get strongly criticized and discover we need to look at ourselves in the mirror a little harder. But you asked about others' thoughts, and that's my two cents, which is probably about what it's worth. —valereee (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did and that's fair enough. I mean, I, as well, feel bad for WW —whom I like and always been friendly with— and I don't wish to add to their distress, but they need to exercise better judgment. Especially at a time like this. Because that crossed a line. But, sure, in the interest of lowering the temperature: Done. El_C21:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, Valereee, and El C, the truth is that we have a rotten dispute-resolution system, and it has been causing deep distress for years. The people who run it seem not to understand how upsetting and all-consuming it is to be at the centre of one of those Arb cases, including the workshops, or perhaps particularly those. Now an editor has died in the middle of a case. Whether her death was hastened by it, or she would have died then anyway, we don't know. The only thing that seems clear is that the last few weeks of her life were a misery because she was consumed by it.
I was similarly concerned when Kevin Gorman died in 2016 a few months after his last holiday season was taken up by a case. Several of us asked the ArbCom to at least postpone it until January. Kevin had had health issues for a long time, and I am not saying I believe he died because of the case, but he was distressed by it and I have to wonder whether the stress made things worse for him.
We can't let this happen to anyone else. At the very least, we have to abolish the workshops. But I think we should take this opportunity to find a new final dispute-resolution mechanism. Would the WMF help with a grant, can we find professionals to help, and so on. We need to be talking about those issues and come up with ideas and proposals. I'm going to ping Littleolive oil because I've discussed the issue of stress in cases with her (in general, not this case), and Montanabw. Don't feel you have to comment; I just want to make sure you see this. SarahSV(talk)22:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment that the dispute resolution system on WP forgets there are real people on the other side ofnthe keyboard, and they have real emotions and genuine stressors. There was an article in WIRED recently that poked fun at WP as a gigantic MMORG, but the distressing thing is some people do treat it like one, and treat other editors as if they are merely characters, not living human beings. It’s particularly awful when the trolls descend on a case with expressions of false disbelief and fake concern. The system needs some definite reforms. Montanabw(talk)22:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as always, for your wisdom, Sarah. Absolutely, I'm all for brainstorming (and beyond) concepts outside of the current box. And if we do need WMF resources to facilitate that, I think they can spare it (and I'm confident they'd be open to doing so). I admit to not really having too sound of an appreciation for Wokrshops, and so on, though. Believe it or not, myself, I've never been that involved in an Arbitration case before and I have a rather fleeting familiarity with the process — which I realize might be strange as I probably undertake more Committee-authorized action than anyone else (as WP:AE and WP:AEL bear out), save for possibly the Committee clerks themselves. So, though I do try to do my part for these acutely contested topic areas, when it comes to the Arbitration cases themselves, I usually stay away (beyond a statement here and there). Mostly, because it seems like such a chore. El_C22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) In the interests of what Montana wrote, I've just re-read my post, and I want to make clear that I am not blaming any individual or group of individuals for any part of this. This is a systemic issue that we have had for years, and we all slot into place and carry out our roles. The only way to look is forward and to change the system as a community. SarahSV(talk)22:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read it that way, Sarah, and I have collapsed Montanabw's comment because I don't feel it furthers the discussion positively at the moment. El_C22:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, your page is taking a long time for me to load (probably my computer's fault), and so my replies are a bit behind. My comment above was written before you hatted, and also wasn't a reply to Montana. I don't agree with hatting it by the way. SarahSV(talk)23:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, respectfully, this is my talk page, where I get to set the tone. But by all means, this discussion doesn't need to happen here necessarily. I'll do some archiving momentarily. El_C23:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. No disrespect intended, but I just don't want that kind of vitriol to be included in this conversation (here on my talk page). El_C15:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would wager there's a lot of leeway in leveling allegations (in which the proof may not always align), which is coupled with being under the microscope of an intensive investigation. This of course isn't the reason why I, myself, usually stay away — again, the reason for that is because it seems like a tedious process that's super-boring. El_C22:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. So if one has faith in ArbCom to be competent and not misled by misleading presentations of evidence and typical nonsense, there’s nothing to worry about? Kinda in the same way that an ANI where the filer is immediately boomeranged is little to sweat over. The fear/stress is due to a worry that ArbCom may be mislead? Or is it the inherent nature of the allegations, regardless of whether they’re believed? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader, not to state the obvious, but it isn't easy to predict what the Committee would do at any given time. It isn't easy to predict what anyone would do. That's just a fundamental facet of the human condition. El_C00:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to remember that the ArbCom elections are simply a popularity contest. ArbCom is nothing like the Supreme Court, where a lifetime of legal (i.e., dispute reolution) work is required, and appointees will be carefully vetted for their decision-making judgement, etc. There are no qualification, formal or otherwise, for becoming an Arb (other than some barebones tenure ones so we're sure they're not a newly arrived sock/troll). "If one has faith in ArbCom to [anything at all]" is a big "if", and that has a great deal to do with why RfArb is more stressful than other noticeboards. Another is that there's basically no appeal from it (technically one could attempt appeal to Jimbo or WMF, but as far as I know, no attempt to do so has ever succeeded). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thinking off the top of my head, we need (a) to abolish workshops as a first step; (b) maybe apply to the WMF for a grant to investigate arbitration systems? (c) Wikipedians with legal and other relevant background to get involved in this discussion so that we don't try to reinvent the wheel. SarahSV(talk)22:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Montana's comment was hatted. If you've never taken part in an arbitration then it may be hard to understand the problems those who have face. Unless those issues are aired and faced we can't fix anything. Arbitration was designed many years ago, and hasn't been updated too much since then. It's possible it doesn't handle well the Wikipedia today given the number of editors, increased sophistication of editors- its interesting reading some old discussions on policy for example to see how far editors have come in terms of understanding, and the online communities and presence we all have now. As Sarah said this is not to blame anyone arbs included, I assume all are doing their best with what they have and know, but as Montana said to inform ourselves about how others feel when at the wrong or even right end of a sanction or reprimand. We are an online community and as such we owe it to ourselves to protect all of us in situations where our humanity is hidden, forgotten, or misunderstood. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't want to talk about that hatting anymore, so anyone else who wishes to bring it up, I'd appreciate if you were to do so elsewhere. El_C00:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding abolishing arb case Workshops, I'll repeat what I said at SMcCandlish's talk page. The Workshop "seems to accomplish nothing whatsoever except to engender massive amounts of ill-will, to enable dogpile harassment, and to permit circumvention of the evidence word count limits by posting it at the workshop. The Arbs did not need walls of text from the rabble, and never have. This would really streamline the process and make it much less of a hell than it currently is." Crossroads-talk-00:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Littleolive oil, I agree that the problem lies in our WP:ARBCOM being an old system, not intended to accommodate what WP has become. A lot is known about social media and the stress that's caused by being put under its spotlight, so this is a much bigger issue than us. We need help to dismantle it and find something safer. For example, we could have a dispute-resolution wiki, and we could develop the notion of standing so that only involved people get to see and take part in each dispute. SarahSV(talk)00:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, yes. It's an old system in a rapidly changing world. We are judging people based on very little evidence in many cases and then the door is open for anyone "off the street" to jump on the pile. We are also judging three dimenionsal conduct with two dimensional evidence. I've seen the arbs exhaust themselves in case that were so long and involved I'm surprised they were able to function by the end. The system doesn't work anymore. There's no shame in admitting we have to do something else. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm peering too far into the future with this, but when envisioning a fundamental alteration to the DR of acute cases on the project, I think there's two key things to consider (and Sarah has hinted on this already): should it be kept in-house (or in-houseish), and if not, will there be strong resistance from the community by virtue of that alone. El_C01:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even something like the WP:UTRS model — it works okay because the acute cases it deals with are generally of a simple nature. But what do you do with complex ones that, as Littleolive oil mentions above, may take forever to get through and in the process exhaust all concerned? Possibly, that is indicative of the limit to which you can tax volunteer resources on the project — in any conceivable set up, Arbitration model or whatever. Should there be a layer of paid professionals to pick up some of the slack? If so, what would it take to get consensus to seeing that implemented? Unless the Foundation were to impose it by fiat, which honestly, I'm not really seeing them being inclined to do (not getting the sense of them being more Wikipedia-activist at this time, in general, though I suppose who really knows). Questions, questions. El_C02:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I do also get what Sarah is saying (I think) about how perhaps limiting case participations only to those involved could be one of the things that could turn the tide. Maybe. Who knows. These are all uncharted realms after all. Ultimately, however we define the Wikipedia DR, it is its own thing. If it is altered, whatever it ends up becoming, will likely remain distinctly its own thing. Sure, there are legal and academic procedures and panels that serve as templates, but at the end of the day, the project is a unique thing all on its own. El_C02:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to wait a couple of weeks then come up with a proposal to get rid of the workshop phase. That's the step that makes the process really hard to get through, because it means there's a relentless spotlight on you from the initial request for arbitration through to the close, with no break, which can mean 2–3 months of people talking about you. SarahSV(talk)16:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, Sarah. For sure, one step at a time by order of priority makes sense. If you're able to remember, please alert me when you table that proposal. I'm interested notwithstanding my ignorance about much of this. El_C16:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please look at the Dabaqabad thread at ANI. I've had a look myself, and my gut feeling is that both editors are at fault, with Dabaqabad being the worst of the two. A problem I'm having is that links provided are meta links (used editing with a mobile phone?) which make it harder for me to do further investigation from those links. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you closed the discussion on the report I filed, and I was wondering why? No administrators responded to the discussion before it was closed and it doesn't appear to be resolved. If there's something different I can do in the future please let me know, if not would it be possible to reopen the discussion?
SPA not listening. This has been an issue last year, the talk entry I opened were not engaged, once already an admin acted. Since a longer while, user:S002282000 does not stop, ignore all edit log messages, warnings ([42]), 15 reverts since October [[43]], other users also reverted....please intervene, Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Piotrus, probably nothing at the moment, at least not until they're nominally warned. Even if only with {{uw-error2}} and up. Intuitively, feels like a likely indef, though a chunk of unreverted edits from Sept-Oct also give me pause (possibly those slipped through the cracks?). El_C04:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this catched my eye as it was just below the issue I opened above. I've also met with the users edits, and not always it was problematic, nevertheless, the editor has little experience (btw. I don't recall similar account in the past years). I would say, let's go with standard, friendly warnings in case and see how it will be received by the user.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry I was briefly unavailable. I have already reported Tinno Canst once to the administration board. He received a warning, however, the result of the dispute was inconclusive. There are sadly hundreds of articles relating to Poland which he edited, or vandalised should I say, and are in need of repair. Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've run into a problem that I'm not sure how to resolve and I see you've been recently active so you might see this. I deleted a user page on the request of the editor but it contained a userbox that was used by quite a lot of other editors. And now, if you look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user, you can see that 68 user pages are listed for CSD U1 deletion because of this tagged userbox. But clearly the editors are not requesting that their user pages be deleted as some aren't even active any more.
Unfortunately, there are some admins who don't ask a lot of questions when they see pages tagged for deletion. Will these user pages eventually lost their inappropriate CSD tag now that the page with the userbox has been deleted? Any advice from you or a friendly talk page stalker? I'm keeping the category open in a tab on my laptop in case these pages need to be restored as categories do not maintain lists of their previous contents once they've been emptied. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!06:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Liz, no idea. I'm generally terrible at that technical stuff. For example, protected a bunch of AfDs yesterday but forgot to add the <noinclude>. Or, as I noted yesterday, I don't even understand what Wikidata is. Best, El_C14:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for being inexperienced, but I wanted to ask a couple follow-up questions based on my comment at AN and the discussion there regarding the table. One of the problems I think that discussion is having is that many people (I won't name names here) are using it to "relitigate" the insurrection discussion - which you placed a discretionary sanction against for one month. Unfortunately, some of these people seem like the only reason they are participating in that talk page is to attempt to put the article at the only title they feel is correct, and this goes beyond a reasonable assumption of good faith. I also note that many people are saying things such as "truly accurate" and/or "watered down" - which are refusing to accept that the policy that is being discussed is WP:COMMONNAME. I won't say most, because I don't think it is most, but a significant minority (maybe 30% or so) of the comments are based solely on reasons similar to not liking the proposal or at best based on attempts at proving what the name "should" be for reasons other than reliable source name usage. I understand that your moratorium is solely on the proposal of "insurrection" for one month - but I will now get into my questions. 1) Based on your DS, would it be possible to strike or remove completely comments which solely or virtually completely advocate for an "insurrection" title in this discussion as an arbitration enforcement? If so, what would be the best way about getting an admin to do that. If not, can they be struck as moot given the DS you placed so as to not derail discussion further? 2) Given your DS, can the insurrection part of the table be removed completely, even if the table is allowed to stay? 3) Under (general, not your specific moratorium) DS, would it be possible for an admin or admins to "monitor" the discussion and strike comments that are solely based on things such as "x is the only accurate term" or "I don't like y"? 4) Would warnings/sanctions be appropriate for editors who are advocating for "insurrection" here (assuming they are or should be aware of the DS, such as having participated in the previous discussion), given that such comments are blatantly unhelpful and useless in this current discussion?
Thanks for your attention here - I think the discussion is getting off track primarily because of the poor structure of this RM (ideally would've been started with multiple options instead of as a single option RM with multiple others added later) - but I think it may be able to be brought back if the DS you placed is enforced and comments that are clearly not based in policy are struck/removed before they turn into long discussions. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually wary of interfering further in the discussion in any way at this point, mostly as I barely had a chance to glance at it. But I did notice that the "insurrection" option on the table (a table I am far from a fan of, by any stretch) does make mention of the moratorium, which I guess is okayish...? I mean, the moratorium's terms are what they are, meaning that the page simply will not be moved until the moratorium's conditions are met, or I rescind it outright. The rules of WP:ACDS even preclude any other admin from over-ruling me. Only the Committee may do so, and possibly, also a quorum of uninvolved admins at WP:AE. But other admins with more time on their hands are encouraged to review the talk page closely and are, of course, free to act as they see fit (again, so long as those actions don't contradict the terms of the moratorium itself). In the final analysis, if there's an RM which outright asks about moving the page to "insurrection" as its main question/s (in its lead), that would be an obvious no-no. But a more passing mention of it on the table (such as it is)... not sure I'm ready to impose anything to curtail that component of the table (as opposed to the entire table itself) at this juncture. Because, as far as I'm concerned, editors are free (within reason) to argue that the moratorium I've established is dumb and wrong and that we should still go with an "insurrection" move right away. I have no intention to censor anything like that — though I would stress again that, with respect to applying anything like a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to the moratorium itself, the normal rules do not apply (by virtue of it being a logged ACDS action). Hope that makes sense. Best, El_C03:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does - basically, the DS will apply regardless, which I figured as much but confirmation is good. That being said, I guess my goal here is to try and come up with some "ideas" that would help prevent the discussion from being derailed by "insurrection" discussion. I understand you don't really want to get involved more, so I won't push the IDLI discussion with you - but if you know any admins who may want to take a look at that please feel free to invite them to my comments here. I think it's a clusterfuck nobody wants to get involved in and I don't blame anyone for wanting so - but I worry that it'll result in another "no consensus" just because of the derailing by repeated "i don't like that title" or "this is the better title (for no policy based reason)" and derailing from "insurrection" discussion. Thanks again for the response - and for your thoughtful close of the original discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sorry, I'm also wary of naming any other admins — not because I can't think of any, but more because I don't want to put anyone on the spot. Spare time is a valuable commodity, so I would rather not impose in any way when it comes to taking on a challenge as formidable as this page (in any capacity). It's probably just a limitation inherent to the fundamental nature of a volunteer project, I suppose, to be able to allocate volunteer resources effectively. Not sure I have a solution to that. Not sure that there is a solution to that. El_C03:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just in the middle of typing a statement saying that since returning to activity in mid 2020 IHTS has hundreds of positive contributions to chess topics and that these two talk posts appear to be his only transgressions since then. I do wish you'd left it open a little longer before jumping straight to an indef.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just poor reading comprehension on my part, I'm afraid.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Anyway, AE complaint re-opened. As mentioned there, not sure there's a realistic alternative to an indef, but who knows. El_C17:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thanks. I realize this editor has been given a lot of chances, but until today I thought he had been keeping out of trouble and just doing what he is best at. Sigh.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, relentless, aren't they? Maybe a mass semiprotecting of a bunch of those pages will drive the point home...? Hopefully. El_C18:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I suppose it can be seen as an appeal of sort. I don't mind having an AE 3O like this handled by Doug. I trust him implicitly and am happy to have him take the lead in deciding on this. El_C19:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I see that they did attempt to ping me, but I never gotten a ping alert for it. Weird. Anyway, thanks again for letting me know. El_C20:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, El C. I wanted to ask you about Template removal. Currently, on Talk:Beit Shearim, there is a discussion between myself and another editor on the relevance of removing a Template that says, "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, etc." Please go there and review our exchange of comments. Currently, I am in disagreement with the editor on the Template's relevance. Am I handling the issue correctly, or should we wait for a third opinion? Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Davidbena, if it it's just one, single tag, where the grounds for placing it are being actively discussed, then you should not be removing it. Only when such discussion has become stale can you safely remove it. I think getting to the heart of the content matter that saw the tag being placed in the first place is the way to go. Sure, whatever dispute resolution step makes sense, including dispute resolution requests such as WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:RSN, and so on. Hope this helps! El_C23:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CuriousGolden, you can certainly copy components of it, but the entire submission needs to adhere to the structure and word-count that is prescribed for that noticeboard. But, again, if you have nothing recent to report, I wouldn't even bother filing a complaint there at this time. To put that in perspective for you: the most recent incident needs to have happened, at the latest, weeks ago (definitely not months). El_C17:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do have something recent additions. So I think I'll just create a new report with the new additions and link to the report at ANI for most of the other part of the report. Would that be fine? — CuriousGolden(T·C)17:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You closed it with the rationale that “this report is too lengthy”. What did you mean by that? The original report by CuriousGolden, or how long it became eventually? Is there any precedence for such a closure? ◅ Sebastian11:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "report," I always mean its totality, otherwise I use the word "OP." Yes, too lengthy and containing nothing recent, just like the now-withdrawn AE report. Anyway, as mentioned there, there was a sanction imposed on Jan 24, so that is the action. "Precedent"? Do you mean have I (and others) closed AN/ANI reports for inordinate length and inaccessibility and stale-ness? Yes, many times. Myself, I even brought up the notion in the latest ANI reform discussion a few days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Holy_wall_of_text!_On_word_count. El_C13:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sanction imposed on Jan 24, is not the action, since that addressed a different case.
“lengthy”: Yes, people complain about walls of text, and the section you are pointing to is, at 2300 words, itself such a wall. That is however not a precedent for the argument that such walls of text should result in no action. Ending up with no action specifically on the big problems would be silly and grossly unfair (see the Che quote on top of this page) for a number of reasons.
“stale”: I presume you are using that word in meaning 3. Granted, it apparently was not interesting to most administrators, but that has been so from the start, as I mentioned in finding #22. Whether other admins are interested or not, this is about a real existing problem, which understandably is not solved as long as no action is taken.
For these reasons, as well as for the fact that an admin already put in the time to write recommended consequences, I am questioning your decision to close this case with no action for no reason other than that it was “lengthy”. If you disagree with the recommended consequences, please explain your reasons in the case, instead of single-handedly changing them to no action. ◅ Sebastian15:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That the IBAN was insufficient (unrelated?) was not made clear. Anyway, you can think what you wish, but my action/s stands. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE further if you wish dispute that, but it's my view that this would not be time well spent. Again, no outsider seem to have been able follow this AE-centred ANI rabbit hole of a report, which is why it was referred to the better structured (and brief!) WP:AE noticeboard. No specific recent incidents were cited there, so it was withdrawn by the OP. I'm sorry, but your lengthy list of "recommended consequences" overrelied on micromanaging and seemed unrealistic. Not to mention your "findings" — 24 individual notes, really? I'm not sure you're appreciating that this is a volunteer project. Nobody can be expected to spare the time for such a magnified view, except possibly at an WP:RFAR's workshop, and likely not even there. So please adjust your expectations accordingly. El_C15:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get involved here, but I just want to clear out that I withdrew my report at AE after I was told by El C that my report was problematic and didn't refer to a single case. So, I imagined it'd be closed with No Action regardless if that was the case. — CuriousGolden(T·C)15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that unless there is something recent to report, it is exceedingly rare to see corrective action applied to the reported editor. El_C15:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm a volunteer here. And yes, I put in a lot of my time for this. Not because it was fun or because I had nothing better to do, but because it was a problem for the project that needed to be solved, and someone had to do it. So, did it ever cross your mind to think how a volunteer might feel when such an effort gets negated with a snap remark? ◅ Sebastian16:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, SebastianHelm, I think I was reasonably polite, but I am not actually here to hold your hand. The timesink that these AE-centred AN and ANI mega-threads (another example from earlier in the month) constitute is something I intend to curtail with great vigor. Not really interested to just let those reports bloat with insiders going on and on while outsiders are effectively shutout, until the thread gets archived with no action, anyway. If you got a problem with that stance, you are free to bring it to wider review. El_C16:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If, by “outsiders are effectively shutout”, you mean that it takes an inordinate (or almost prohibitive) effort for an ousider before they can form an informed opinion, then I agree wholeheartedly with you. That is exactly why I ended up spending so much time on the case. ◅ Sebastian16:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the outcome of that amounted to the very same problem being repeated. A bit of a self-defeating exercise, methinks. El_C16:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now at last we're getting to a point that may actually end up constructive for the project. Do I understand you correctly that you believe that closing this case with no action somehow was constructive, while my suggestion to close it with certain actions was “self-defeating”? What makes you think so? The “no action” approach has been tried many times before, so far without result. That is why I tried a more thorough approach. ◅ Sebastian17:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying you need to be more succinct, by prioritizing both the egregious as well as the recent, if you wish to be realistic about any uninvolved admin investigating and possibly taking action. El_C17:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While this doesn't answer my question, it could have been an interesting point in a discussion about the optimal action to be taken – if it had come while the case was still open. That said, I'm taking exception to the patronizing way you are talking about “any uninvolved admin investigating”. Are you not aware that you're talking to just such a person – and, by contrast, what investigation did you do? ◅ Sebastian20:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware. And being straight-forward isn't "patronizing" in my book. Your approach to ACDS disputes is deeply flawed if you think a 24-point "finding" and a 9-point "recommended consequences" is likely to advance resolution to such protracted disputes. What investigation did I do? A nominal one, which suffices. Again, these AE-centred AN/ANI mega-threads are not feasible, and the sooner you come to terms with that, the better. El_C20:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a dissonance here. Because, why were you even waiting for other admins for, like, a week after having posted all of that, in the first place? If, as an uninvolved admin, you're satisfied with your own investigation, just impose whatever remedies you see fit (ACDS or otherwise), and that would be that. But waiting for someone to parse something like 30+ disparate points, to me, that comes across as neither respectful to the prospective outside reviewer, nor reasonably expedient, for that matter, in resolving the dispute. El_C20:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be even more upfront about it. Indeed, you are a longstanding admin, but nonetheless you're not coming across as a particularly experienced one (yes, even though you became one in 2007, only 2 years after me). For example, you've blocked a total of, like, maybe 30 users — I've blocked nearly 8,000. You've protected less than 20 pages in total — I've protected nearly 6,000. So, while I do respect my admin colleagues (as I do all editors) as a matter of course, if one of them is doing something wrong (due to inexperience or for whatever other reason), I'm going to tell them about it. I'll be polite, of course, but I won't dilute the potency of my point. And I don't think being reflexively defensive as a response to that is conducive to making any sort of progress, anywhere (whatsoever). El_C21:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This article has suffered from persistent vandalism and sockpuppetry in the past until it was semi-protected by Ad_Orientem for 3 months. Unsurprisingly, the usual vandalism from the usual suspects started again as soon as the protection expired and is now becoming a time sink. Will it be possible for you to semi-protect it again? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, how have you been? I am on "wikibreak" actually as I need to focus on real life stuff and to reflect on some things on Wikipedia - maybe change editing topics or practices etc. Anyways, as I have been seeing Balkan editors from all sides during the years to accuse each other of "off-Wiki collaboration" and "tag-teaming", is that edit summary without bringing evidence (not the first by the editor) acceptable? I ask because this kind of claim has become a habit among a part of Balkan editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input and advice to the editor. As I noted a few days ago, you are probably the only admin who is willing to help Balkan editors solve their disputes. Hopefully the Balkan topics will become less toxic. Meanwhile I am staying away from some time and reflect on some things - I too have made my mistakes. One thing I regret is getting involved in several content disputes at the same time. That is not productive. Cheers and keep up the good work, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Khirurg, definitely warning-worthy. Also, had to look up Scardus — I guess it's a mountain range...? (I would have guessed food again, although maybe that just indicates that I need a snack!) El_C16:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, a very interesting thing about the dispute is that it doesn't have a functional meaning. There were no borders in antiquity, landmarks were used as general transboundary points. Nobody lived permanently on those mountains before the introduction of New World crops. The potato is the unsung hero which claimed these mountainous lands for humanity. Flags and states came later. If a particular landmark wasn't perceived as a "border", there wouldn't be a dispute. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's weird. I suppose, so long as there isn't any messy transclusions happening, we're okay for the moment. Though, it is a bit concerning to have the lockpad display when the page isn't yet protected. El_C17:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I just tested it by lifting the protection and the padlock vanished — so that wasn't you doing anything. I guess templates get padlocks automatically displayed whenever protection is applied, which is news to me. El_C17:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are right. I have done many weird things throughout the years on Wikipedia, and do not want to expand the list of them anymore. :P Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now I seem to vaguely recall that actually being a thing. I guess it's just been a while since I protected a template, so maybe I just plain forgot. El_C18:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ok for a user to edit war [50], lecture others to "find consensus on tp" (while avoiding participating in the tp discussion themselves), all the while claiming to be "busy in rl" (presumably "too busy" to discuss in the talkpage discussion, but apparently not "too busy" to edit-war)? Khirurg (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I, actually, am unable to parse People find some consensus on tp between you and make changes — that sentence just isn't entirely comprehensible to me. El_C18:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:STABLE version of the article is the one which El C protected and Ktrimi reverted to. There is no right or wrong version when an admin protects an article, but there is a WP:STABLE which was challenged with numerous edits/reverts by two editors. Khirurg, your only comment on the talkpage before El C protected it was[51] but you reverted twice a version which wasn't the product of an emerging consensus. Now that El C has protected the article we are finally having a discussion but it presupposes a common set of rules. Khirurg claims that the map shouldn't depict populations of different ethnicity in the same colour[52]. I reply to him that the map is not an ethnic, cultural, linguistic map but a geographical one as its name highlights (Template talk:Southern Illyria Labeled Map It's color blind in terms of ethnicity. And Khirurg replies: Highly disingenous. The name automatically implies everything in it is "Illyrian", and shows "Illyrians" all in the same font and color. Anyone seeing that map will be led to believe that the tribes listed therein are Illyrian. Nope. How should I respond to that?--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ah, the magic of punctuation! Anyway, it's always best for those who advocate for the contending version not to continue edit warring against those who support the longstanding version, at least without reaching, at minimum, some form of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. El_C18:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The longstanding version is this one from December [53], before Maleschreiber and Bato started "expanding it" two days ago[54]. And Ktrimi edit-warred without any tp participation, claiming to be "too busy" (just not "too busy" to edit war at the right time). What kind of behavior is that? Khirurg (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's behaviour that's... not great. Sorry, I'm unable to immediately discern what's what when it comes to the various reversions on that template. (Also, in general, please cite diffs rather than old revisions.) El_C18:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Khirurg, where did I say that I am busy to post on the talk page? Stop putting words in my mouth. I am checking the sources one by one before making my own proposal. Focus on the content dispute instead of accusing other editors without facts. How many editors have you accused so far today? As for the "right" version, the discussion on the tp, and maybe a RfC, will decide which is that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, folks, all this back-and-forth sniping — I'd rather not host that on my talk page. There are a number of noticeboards where you can report problems as you see fit. El_C18:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're right El C. I'm sorry for the abuse of your talkpage as hosting space for disputes. Thanks for taking the time to work on the Balkans topic area.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate that. A number of editors usually ask for my help on a number of topics (including really fraught ones that are covered by WP:ACDS or WP:GS) pretty much on a daily basis, so I do expect a certain level of... finesse (I guess...?) — because I am otherwise stretched thin, nearly always. El_C19:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for this (boring) dispute coming again to your tp but, if possible, can you post a reminder there about WP:Civility or DS regarding the Balkans? The discussion has degraded to that degree that I decided to not participate at all - for me they are free to do whatever they want. If you have time and desire, just read a few comments, such as the last 10, to see a good example of what a discussion should not be. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for your response. Always ready to help :) I still think that a general reminder on the tp of the template would be good though. The discussion has become messy there, as it happens in that area of Wikipedia on a daily basis. Hence I am on a Wikibreak at the moment, and will not edit Balkan stuff for a few months. Busy in rl and willing to reflect on several things. After all, Wikipedia has more interesting and productive things for editors to do than participating in messy disputes on obscure topics that very few (if any) readers care about. They just keep getting wrong reactions out of their editors. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the edit warring on that page that you protected some time ago started again, although the RfC has not been closed yet. Hopefully one day it will be closed. lol If possible, you keeping an eye on it would be great. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went on and and added this WP:ARBEE Talk Page warning [55], to help remind editors that this Illyria topic area article, which has seen an unfortunate surge of edit warring in the recent past, is subject to discretionary sanctions. I reflected this on the discussion below as well [56] due to my concerns that editors may again sideline the discussion and resort to edit warring to get things done instead of seeking consensus first. Its unfortunate that Ktrimi991 just responded to me now with "do not open new discussions with the usual warnings and threats, as it will bring you no benefit.[57] which is exactly the kind of problematic approach where one editor disregards any concerns of other editors for the cost of edit warring to the article's well-being. Since Ktrimi seemed too concerned about User:Alexikoua's conduct, I want to remind him that his attitude is also problematic and there is room for improvement. Just my two cents. Good day.
Edit: about the "edit warring" Ktrimi mentioned: it is just the removal of the disputed content which was added without any WP:CONSENSUS. We already let it stay in the article for 2 months but that was as far as it can get without the necessary support for inclusion. If it has to be added, it should wait for the RfC to conclude about it. Not before. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)19:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not complain about Alexikoua specifically, and the edit warring did not involve your edits only. And yeah, when you discuss a content dispute do not mention reports and sanctions every now and then. As I wrote above, I am not interested in editing Balkan topics for a few months, so do not ping me again. Bye, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this ([58]), the situation is not as most of the participants identified (I focused only the Axis/Allies related articles, which I follow). I just notify you to help, given the rapid events in more articles that are hard to follow and evaluate by those who are not daily engaged in the plethora of intermediary edits and talk page content. Cheers! (a lot of issues, why people ain't calm in January... :/).(KIENGIR (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Okay, thanks, noted. Not sure how to best have outsiders be able to parse any of that, but here's hoping. Also, although I can't really commit to anything at this time, by all means, please feel free to update me on any further developments. El_C20:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I am having a tough time in understanding the scope of Arbitration enforcement and your response. So allow me to have a discussion here. Are you saying that the topic may be under the scope of Arbitration Enforcement, but sanction do not apply because the content being added/removed in the linked edit does not relate to India-Pakistan? Excuse me if I am still getting this wrong. --Walrus Ji (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walrus Ji, not at all. Happy to have you here. In answer to your question: what I was getting at is that for the sanctions to come into effect, there has to be either a page that sufficiently features the conflict between India and Pakistan, or edits that do the same. We have neither here. Hope that makes sense. Regards, El_C19:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that clarifies it further. I filed this report as I understand that the Indian Government and Indian Media are calling these protestors as Pakistani agents / Khalistanis. The article in question elaborates the conflict between the Protestors (i.e. Pakistani Agents (allegedly)) with the Indian security forces. The edit diff that I linked as evidence as has phrases like "deployed 15 companies of para military forces" and " died after being shot in the head by the police". So, is this still not sufficient to be considered as the said conflict? --Walrus Ji (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walrus Ji, that's right, it is not. More often than not, Indian authorities will claim that any major domestic development has a Pakistani-inspired facet to it (and likewise, vice versa for Pakistani domestic developments and their similar stance), but that does not make it so — that is, actual level of prominence of the conflict outside of the sheer propaganda leveled by either country against the other, and so on. Not saying such an influence isn't real, but both countries often tend to greatly exaggerate its impact. El_C19:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I see. I felt that such an extension would come under "broadly construed" language used in the sanction statement. Sorry for the confusion and wasting everyone's time. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at this thread User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#Alert. I have two questions. Was it a right call to alert that user about DS even though his edits are not about the conflict. 2. if the offending editor continued adding the same content, could he be reported to WP:AE or will it be judged out of scope. I think it is important for me to better understand this grey area of the scope, to avoid misunderstanding and time waste in filing future AE reports. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, El C. Hope you're well and that you managed to get some time off during the weekend. You protected Predrag Bošković on 20 January. As soon as the protection ended, the edit-war began again. The bigger problem is that the dispute is about a potential BLP violation[60][61][62]. A tabloid - rival to Bošković's party - alleged in 2001 that he was a Serbian nationalist and a member of a paramilitary death squad (White Eagles) at the age of 20-25. The Whie Eagles were involved in many massacres in Bosnia and their members have been convicted of war crimes. Bošković who self-identifies as a Montenegrin apparently has never been indicted or involved in events linked to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The tabloid allegation made it into the article as The general public learned about Boskovic in mid-2001 when, as president of the DPS Youth Club and a member of the Parliament of Montenegro, he announced a lawsuit against the newspaper Dan for a text claiming he was a volunteer in the Croatian War of Independence as a member of the Serbian National Renewal and a paramilitary White Eagles unit. Up to this day, he has not filed a lawsuit against Dan. Is there a specific talkpage template about BLP which could notify editors that they should be careful about allegations which potentially have very serious legal repercussions? --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the talkpage will remain blank even if the edit-war restarts - the wondrous world of the Balkans topic area. This seems to be correct: lawsuit announced, but never filed. Overall, my main concern is about sourcing. I don't know what's the middle ground between allegations and reportable allegations and WP:LIBEL, which I had forgotten about until you mentioned it. But that should probably be the topic of a wider community discussion which may establish a guideline which will stop edit wars about wartime allegations in the Balkans topic area. As always, thanks of the very quick response! --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Any concerns should be presented at the article talk page, first and foremost. I will take a dim view of anyone continuing to edit war over this addition while neglecting to do so. Please update me as needed. Regards, El_C20:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*10:55, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 11,970 bytes −2,869 Cut out extremely POV essay about China in general during the pandemic, and shorten to statement that state media has made some false claims. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
*10:52, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 14,839 bytes −937 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: This again has nothing to do with misinformation. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
*10:52, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 15,776 bytes −597 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: Macron's "worries" do not render the National Health Commission's numbers "misinformation" undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
*10:51, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 16,373 bytes −465 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: This is extremely misleading. The increased numbers were "revealed" by the government, similarly to how many countries have periodically "revealed" increased tallies. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
*10:49, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 16,838 bytes −1,082 →Accusations of downplaying early signs: Remove conspiracy theory about urns undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
*10:48, January 31, 2021 Thucydides411 talk contribs [+] 17,920 bytes −3,866 This is not an example of misinformation. undothank Tags: Mobile edit*
I worked very hard to expand the article while the AfD was still open, and spent alot of time researching to find high quality RS for in-text attribution. It was all removed as demonstrated above. After I restored it, I explained what I did on the article TP. Just wanted you to be apprised because my intent is to entice the other editors to collaborate rather than take it upon themselves in a WP:0WN style behavior to push their POV. The editor who removed all of the above content, Thucydides411, adamantly opposed keeping the article and as you can see by the edit summaries, his reasons are not backed by RS or policy. Atsme💬📧20:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, okay...? I mean, I think the situation calls for a dispute resolution request at this point, like WP:3O, WP:RFC. WP:RSN, etc., to bring more outside input to the dispute — but noted. If you're asking me to weigh in with the extra-authority inherent in WP:GS/COVID19, I'm not inclined to do so at the moment, if only because this dispute seems to involve content of complexity and length that I find a bit daunting right now. Kind regards, El_C20:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I and Alexbrn have objected that most of the content in the article is not actually about misinfomation. For example, one passage I removed introduces a conspiracy theory from Chinese social media about large numbers of urns being shipped to Wuhan, and then contrasts that with the Chinese National Health Commission's statistics, as if to imply that the conspiracy theorists were correct and the NHC's statistics were misinformation.
While we're here, I should mention that ScrupulousScribe has been making some strange (I think offensive) statements on the talk page about how I'm "sensitive" over this issue because I'm supposedly Chinese (understand that this is a sensitive topic for you being Chinese, but Wikipedia is not censored), and how it's suspicious that I have some proficiency in Mandarin (on WP:RS/N revealed that you have a high level of fluency in Mandarin Chinese, and while I agree that language proficiency isn't something a Wikipedia editor should normally have to disclose, I find it highly unusual in your case [...]). See [63]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The PP has ended, and Thucydides411 has returned to removing well-sourced information leaving false edit summaries. The material complies with WP:PAG and MOS:LEAD, but he picked-up where he left off at the time of PP, and resumed his reverting behavior that clearly conflicts with our policies. I restored the material, but I'm of the mind that Thucydides is not quite understanding the context of disinformation based on his edit summaries. For example, he appears to be fixated on the material about the urns. His edit summary misrepresents the context: The story about the urns itself is very likely disinformation, which makes its inclusion here ironic. The context of the urns is proper not ironic, and the material is cited to Time Magazine, Bloomberg, and the BBC, to name a few RS. I have attempted to explain the context to him but it has been futile and more like a WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Atsme💬📧14:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, it's only been a week and almost 30 sections and subsections below this space?(!) What is happening on my talk page?(!) Re-naming to Grand Central Station! El_C14:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🥇 Our best admins are neutral admins which makes them popular admins, and that explains Grand Central Station in a nutshell. 🐿 Atsme💬📧14:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Please strike your accusation of leaving false edit summaries, unless you're willing to substantiate it. As for the urn story, yes, it is very likely disinformation. It originated with the New Tang Dynasty (Falun Gong's main media outlet - see the original tweet), and was picked up by the US government outlet Radio Free Asia ([64]) and Vice ([65]). A few other outlets reported on the existence of the urn theory on social media, but the story itself was never substantiated. The content of the story (that tens of thousands of people died in Wuhan of coronavirus) is rendered virtually impossible by multiple subsequent studies (e.g., in the journal Nature) showing a low seroprevalence in Wuhan (on the order of 3% to 4%).
Atsme, you've added this urn story to the article about misinformation by China, juxtaposing it with the death figures to imply that the urn conspiracy theory provides the true figures while the National Health Commission's figures are misinformation. The irony here is that the urn conspiracy theory itself is very likely disinformation, given its implausibility and provenance (Falun Gong and Radio Free Asia). It should not be used to imply that the death figures from Wuhan are misinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've already substantiated everything, and I suggest that you read the material that is cited to RS, not the sources you've been mentioning, which you accumulated in an OR effort without a single RS stating what you have alleged, not to mention noncompliance with WP:SYNTH. Please stop pinging me about information based on your OR and POV. Atsme💬📧16:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, you two, I'd rather not host this content dispute on my talk page any longer at this juncture. Thanks and good luck! El_C16:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, would you look at this IP editor? [[66]] (record of clearing talk page [[67]]). It looks like their recent edits are meant to antagonize an editor who you recently tban'ed. Comments like this are unproductive [[68]] and these are clearly designed to tban dance on another editor [[69]], [[70]], [[71]], [[72]]. Edits like this are simply NOTHERE [[73]]. Thanks Springee (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy El C! I appreciate your protectiveness, but you have just blocked my alt account. I'm working at a new job with less than secure internet and lots of people who could possibly be at my computer, so I'm not using my OS/CU super sensitive account there :) I'm using my phone to be the Captain if I have to, but its bloody annoying to type on it. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- just saw this thread! I fondly remember the good ole days: And so the admiral ordered, Weigh anchor and hoist the mizzen! The crew responded, Aye, AdmiralEek!! But where's our captain? The admiral responded, Taking a caulk. The captain was a bit squiffy, so heave ho or you'll hang from the yardarm!Atsme💬📧14:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. Since the topic ban concerns not just WWII but " Polish political history, as broadly construed as you can imagine", can you clarify the following for me. I am in the process of expanding an article on the Ćmielów Porcelain Factory, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with WWII or Polish political history. But in the process I added a relevant tidbit of info to a biography about the 18th century nobleman who founded it ([74]). But then I noticed that noble was also a politician, even if removed from WWII era by a century and a half. Nonetheless, if my topic ban concerns not just WWII but, independently, as a second topic area, also non-WWII Polish political history (all the way to Mieszko I?), I realized that my edit could possibly have violated the topic ban. To be safe, I reverted myself. Could you clarify if this article (Jacek Małachowski) is indeed within the scope of the topic ban? And if so, should I also revert my edits to the Porcelain Factory, where I added information about said founder? I will do my best to abide by the restriction, but I'd appreciate some clarification and guidance here (I was initially under the impression the topic ban is focused on Poland and WWII topic area, but having re-read it I am not so sure...). To be safe, I will stop all my editing until I receive a clarification. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here06:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi El C,
To follow up on your comment at the arbitration case, I thought I'd bring to your attention the whitewashing taking place by user Des Vallee at AANES and other pages. This diff and comment from a more reasonable user (Applodion) on their edits explains what I am talking about. You're welcome to use that at the case too. While writing this I found out they just received a block. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Valereee and El C for the advice, but this user is new to the area, and would be unfair to drag them into an ArbCom case as a party given the number of disruptive edits they have done, so I will give them some time and the benefit of the doubt for now. I just wanted to bring to El C's attention (and you too Valereee) that this might be a coming problem and confirm El C's point about these random, disruptive users attracted to this topic. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Original message read:] If you can show that either myself, NinjaRobotPirate, Floquenbeam or Fram (to name the latest) were/are "trigger happy," then making that assertion would certainly be your prerogative. But otherwise stating it just as snark in passing, I'm not sure that's helping anyone or anything. El_C21:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Undo message read:] Message seen. Don't want to argue, but it is my opinion that the block was ill-judged and fails to meet the requirements of WP:BLOCK as it is clearly not a preventive but a punitive measure. Well, RandomCanadian, maybe I'm speaking into the ether here, but it seems to me that: either you argue or you don't. Either you engage in snark, or you don't. Anyway, my approach to some WP:AEL/WP:RESTRICT sanctions is that "preventative" has to be understood in the context of: the rate of violations in relation to the date of the latest violation (i.e. risk of repetition); though, generally, with weeks-rather-than-months serving as its upper limit. But I do not view it as a normal, say, WP:EW block or one that's otherwise conventional. It has to do with interpreting WP:HARASS, which I find is more tricky. Other admins' mileage may vary, which is what unblock requests are for. Just in case you're interested, or even reading. El_C03:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this incident may merit a little more attention. The OP claims Today I plan to create many articles about political heroes during 2021 Myanmar coup d'état and members of the dictator family, and a quick check of their talkpage reveals a pretty telling username change a couple of years ago. Pop that old username into Google or Wikipedia itself, and you get an alarming COI red flag. Grandpallama (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of retired, anyway, since they're still chiming in on the talkpage of the article in question. More eyes are on it at this point, though. Grandpallama (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This picture here originates from the same source as the picture you removed here. That is the Museum of Revolution of the Peoples of Yugoslavia, and its copyright usage remains unclear.
Will do. By the way there is an expired RfC on the Chetnik war crimes in World War II talk page ("Genocide question"). If you could close it, it would be appreciated. --Griboski (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the closure of this incident.
Being a lengthy incident shouldn't be a problem as long as the length of the text is supported with appropiate different diffs and links. I provided around 20 diffs and 30 links which clearly support the incident.
I only wanted to inform editors in the talk pages of those two articles in question (not like I copy-pasted the same thing on thousands of articles) since they both suffer the same problem and the situation requires talk page discussion. I did not post the exact same discussion but a bit modified one, to suit the other article's needs. I'm surprised it was seen as a problem by you.
This situation has been brought to me and quite a few others by another editor in the first place, about two weeks ago. Then apperantly discussions about this topic took place in those users' talk pages 1, 2, 3. Also, after I reviewed those three articles, I've found out that the same discussions have already been apperantly happening in the edit summaries, to this day, albeit short ones. So, I'm baffled you think this issue didn't see any discussion, recently.
Also, I don't think there's a dispute here, like you claimed in the closure. There's a clear violation of the Wikipedia policies, denial of a consensus, which was agreed upon after an rfc at RSN, no less. I feel like a fool since I'm quiet active at RSN, thinking rfcs there change things.
Last but not least, seeing all those time of mine, reviewing the history of those articles and editors, writing a detailed, "lengthy" incident post which was supported by 30 diffs or links, thrown away to trash can in such a quick manner was extremely disheartening and disappointing. I felt like I wasted huge time of mine for nothing but trying to help an editor at first, other editors later and the whole Wikipedia eventually, in a topic I wasn't really interested in the first place.
Magnus Dominus, you greatly overestimate the availability of volunteer resources with a report that is so exceedingly lengthy, it is virtually inaccessible to any outside reviewer. The top of ANI explicitly says, in boldface, be brief. If you're unable to condense and prioritize both egregious and recent items, your report is almost certain to go nowhere. If anything, I just spared you the time that your report would have languished without any meaningful outside intervention. Intervention which would not have been forthcoming, certainly for such a narrow issue. Sorry that this reality may be harsh, but it is what it is. El_C13:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, I miss the part about be brief. It was a fault on my part but still I feel you could give it a true shot just for the respect for the time that was spent on it. Anyways, I get you. Thank you for looking into it, even just for a moment or not.Magnus Dominus (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you look this user talkpage history? He is quite disruptive and has lot of warnings but he blanked 2 times his talkpage and contines disrupting wiki.Shadow4dark (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. They are also using this IP to engage in cross wiki edit warring (managing to get it blocked on some of them). I guess, they'll never learn. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You SEMIed it it based on a request from a LLLLLLLLTA. Looking at the article history, that editor was making substantially bad edits whereas IPs and others were making reasonably constructive edits (including fixing the requestor's mistakes). Maybe unprotect? DMacks (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And at least that edit left the article relatively in tact. But they also reverted an IP who basically just broke everything. So, who cares if it was an LTA. The stability of a biography about a recently deceased person is what's paramount. Anyway, I'm not sure where you're getting "reasonably constructive edits" from exactly... El_C23:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have taken this to the user's talk page, but for obvious reasons I don't think that would be a good idea, so here I am. I don't believe this quite conforms with Wikipedia standards. – 2.O.Boxing17:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, El C. Hope you're well. An IP started adding a Greek translation of toponyms across many villages in Albania - inhabited by a Greek community and also many that have a small Greek community or none at all. I reverted some of the IP's edits, particularly in places where very few Greeks or none at all live. Many editors have reverted the IP's edits and have warned them on their talkpage. Now, Khirurg began reverting back the IP edits[75] without any consensus and claiming that somehow I'm following him [76] because I restored some articles to the pre-IP version which he is trying to make into the new WP:STABLE without discussion. These WP:LEDE name changes can create a very tendentious situation and I don't think that they should be decided via who does the most reverts.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You very well know that virtually all these villages are almost entirely inhabited by ethnic Greeks, and that this is sourced, and the source is present in the articles in question. The "many editors" is just Bes-ART (talk·contribs), who went reverting every single one of the IP edits indiscriminately, without care and without explanation [77]. This amounts to unexplained removal of sourced info. You also participated in this, for example here [78] (almost entirely Greek) and here [79] (25-50% Greek). In the latter edit, you justified your revert on the ground that the original addition was made by an IP editor; as if that somehow justifies blanket reverting. IP editors have the same editing rights as you do, and that's not an excuse to revert them. And yes, you reverted me within 3 minutes at an article you had never edited before [80], which leads me to wonder how often you sit there refreshing my contribs log. I must say I'm flattered. Now instead of the usual admin-shopping, how about you explain based on wiki policy why the alternate name of minority-inhabited villages should be summarily removed. Let's hear it. Khirurg (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first edits made by this IP were all erroneous, biased, and often using references that did not in fact mention the subject of the change at all. In some cases using the 2011 Census which in fact did not mention the ethnicity of the population by villages but only by Counties. Not to mention the fact that many members here on the one hand oppose the use of this census data but in some articles are interested in using it. Therefore this census will either be used for all articles or will not be used in any of them. Looking at the first edits I reverted all the articles to their previous status regardless of whether they are OK in some articles or not. Having said that, for me, it is ok to put the name in Greek in those where there is a significant percentage of the population of this ethnicity or other ethnicities. But let's use a certain standard because although there is nothing wrong with using the Greek alphabet in the infobox, it would be better to use transliteration in the Latin alphabet or only in the Greek one and not both together. This makes Infobox look ugly. Bes-ARTTalk10:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was monitoring the IP's edits again to see if they were edit-warring and then saw that you began to restore them. This is not the way to put forward edits which don't have a consensus. I'm OK with the Aliko edit, but you have no consensus for the edit on Delvinë and many other ones which concern villages where Greek is spoken by a small community only. Edit-warring is not the way to include edits which weren't part of the WP:STABLE. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Maleschreiber, I'm not well! My car got majorly dinged a couple of days ago (no one hurt thankfully; I wasn't actually there), which is gonna be expensive and is a real drag. Plus, nobody wants to be my friend lately, it seems. Sorry, don't know if I'm up for an insane Balkans run right now. At the risk of reusing the same lame joke twice in matter of minutes, perhaps someone else can step up this time...? Best wishes to all, El_C01:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about your car, El_C! My youngest son had a mXXXn slam into his car while it was parked on the street. Luckily the mXXXn's insurance totaled it and gave him a hefty check. Good luck dealing with insurance! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kansas Bear. The insurance folks are all really nice people, the problem is that they're just not especially competent, which is adding to my stress levels. Oh well. C'est la vie!El_C01:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, just what I needed. You said something nice today, DYK? "Maybe a week, ten days, at most." A month seems long for someone defending an invaded area, iban or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate you looking out for a friend, Gerda, but Mathsci was blocked back in Nov (as opposed to a year ago), with that last block being for a full week. So, to me, a month seemed like a reasonable escalation. Weird how both cases involve the same admin, NinjaRobotPirate (I'm a fan), talk about criss-crossing paths, again! El_C15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See, I never want to be an admin, and - believe it or not - this horrible infobox warrior has never been blocked. But I mused at times what that time-out would teach me. Did you keep an eye on BWV 53? (I look away. I look away, but can't help seeing it's still busy. FS made a nice comment today - in the BWV 1 FAC - about I'd not recognize "my" article If he edited, which is soo true. Remember the Magnificat that was my kick-off for the year, until ...) Some suffer that better than others, it seems.) Eric Corbett would just sit blocks out (at least for I while), and that's what I probably I might do as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I know probably the least about WP:ARBINFOBOX2 than all the other AE topic areas. I mostly engage the politics and history ones — although WP:ARBBLP and WP:ARBPS are key ones, too (with an occasional WP:ARBGG incident happening from time to time, as well). Anyway, my familiarity with that Arbitration case pretty much approaches zero. Sorry, no, I've not kept up with, well, anything really. I haven't loaded my (~100K) watchlist in, like, maybe 3 months now...? El_C16:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also know nothing about ARBINFOBOX2 ;) - I had enough after the first. Seriously. In a nutshell: I liked Carmen better as it is now than what it was in 2013 but I can't show you because it was just deleted. Just took seven yer to get resolved, but I will carry the label forever, probably. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonono, there was no 1. The arbs probably thought they'd solve Teh Problem then, forever. The real problem: the case was requested by a friend of mine (as a surprise) to have someone look at the massive opposition that the introduction of {{infobox opera}} received. You can imagine: everybody jumped on the train with complaints about everything that ever went wrong with infooxes. In the end, after what I thought was a fruitful workshop phase, they restricted a few people (including me), and told everybody to find consensus on each article's talk page, which was the perfect invitation to have conflict and unkindness forever. I left the circus in 2015, due to health issues, but you will still find people claiming that I drove editors away. The most recent edition is Ian Fleming, where I was amused today about a cleverly worded edit, - look for "boilerplate spiel" ;) - Our cat IP - perfect match to the header higher up- responded, less amused, it seems (see user's talk, deleted). Thank you for the beautiful flowers!! I'll listen later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I listened, should have known which flower :) - I love what the orchestra is doing during his last word, these strange harmonies. He's not even looking at her, just focused on himself. I mentioned the opera today, DYK? (MarnetteD) ... memory lane --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
meow - everyday, I thank the author of today's featured article, DYK? - today I did it and wondered how long it would take to be reverted - 20 minutes - meow - it's funny and sad --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad this animosity endures, but it is what it is. Oh well. It's probably best to leave them be —here, too— unwanted is unwanted, and that's that. El_C11:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...? Sounds a bit mean of a mean it, honestly. Also, how does WP:TFAA even happen? What a mystery that process is! I, for one, can't make heads or cat's tails of it.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C13:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you a long time ago not to comment on “my” talk page, and that position hasn’t changed. Your comments are, as El_C put it, sincerely not welcomed. Commenting when you’ve asked not to can be taken for harassment, and that is exactly what it will be every time you do it. I have deleted similar messages from you in the recent past (example), so why this hasn’t sunk in yet, I really don’t know. I will make it crystal clear here for you, yet again: do not comment on the SchroCat talk page again. 213.205.194.182 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Easy answer: Three elected delegates put something in the days, which may be by their choice (they take turnes monthly), or by requests WP:TFAR. Everybody can work on the blurbs that lie in the future. The delegates have the tricky job to have only one bird and one hurricane per month ;) - On TFAR, you see two suggestions by me for the articles of others, and one that made me slow down work on BWV 1, because the only possible day for it in 2021 is wanted by someone else. In the old days, people would then fight, with a point system of relevance, newness, recent similaraties etc, but I just slow down. Support whatever you like there! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, no magic Elves? Now the mystique is gone and I'm sad... Which instantly turns to seething rage and paranoia. Off I go to make a 3-hour documentary about how them damn commies stole my TFAA. Wait, who am I again? El_C14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(I told you the formerly despised Wehwalt became delegate, no.) What can I do? I gave you flowers already. If you are yourself again, you could really help Nikkimaria at BWV 53, now that she is alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your close of the Zvikorn report on AE, I have always been perplexed by what, exactly, "previous version reverted to" means on AN3. I don't often file reports there, but I did file two recently, and, as usual, I really didn't understand what was being asked of me. When you have a free moment, could you explain it? Ping me if you do, please -- and thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, that WP:AN3 paramter is simply asking that the filer demonstrates with respect to their list of diffs showcasing the alleged reverts, what version the earliest diff cited had reverted. Just so as to prove that it wasn't simply a bold edit that is being misconstured as a revert. Hope that makes sense. El_C14:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, El C. I am asking you to look at the section "Depopulated" vs. "Displaced" in the Talk:Beit Shearim article where I have asked you to decide in my case if this article falls under my Narrow Topic Ban issued here on 18 August 2020. Please give me your fair and undivided judgment. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, David. As far as your topic ban is concerned —which seems to be the most elaborate topic ban I've ever seen on the project— it does not appear to be a violation, as it involves events well before 1948. Note, though, that a village displaced of its inhabitants reads awkwardly to me. Probably better to state it as: a village whose inhabitants had been displaced. Regards, El_C14:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And ONLY if you have time. Please take a look at this page Witold Pilecki, the ongoing discussion [81], new account edits in breach of ARBCOM restriction[82] following a revert without concensus reached, (discussion ongoing) to the version of the restricted account, by another fresh account that (I think) just passed the restriction threshold [83]. Links to discussions[84],[85] Note that Bob not Snob participates in both discussions, so is aware of them. - GizzyCatBella🍁13:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing my ANI case! I think you missed two accounts, though (the last and third-to-last in the given list of socks). Especially the former has been active in the talk page abuse I mentioned. Also, should this vandal return with a new account, would I be able to request TPA revocation alongside the SPI case? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't catch the one already blocked, just saw the one who wasn't and figured both that didn't pop up on my watchlist were not blocked. Thanks for clearing this up. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere, too. Protected three 2 pages that I immediately encountered. Seems to be some weird Hania Amir fixation...? Oh well. But why an SPI? Who do you suspect of being the master? El_C12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, make that two. Not sure why I protected the same page twice at the same time (or that it was even possible), but meh-here-are! El_C12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! The master is IrzaKhanz69, according to Pahunkat in the ANI thread linked above. (I don't know if I can necessarily blame them for the fixation part, of course; Hania is pretty attractive, and there's a reason I edit Kinza Hashmi so much...)Anyway, I managed to total my car about an hour and a half after messaging you, so forgive me if it takes me a while to reply further. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, no! My own car got majorly dinged too a few days ago (see this thread), but not totalled. What a drag. At least you're okay (I hope!). Sending positive thoughts your way! El_C14:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I'm not sure whether to be sad or relieved that I'm not alone. I'm sorry for your loss...Yeah, I'm fine, thankfully; I don't think my car could say quite the same, though :-/Thanks for the cheer-up, though! It was exactly what I needed to brighten up my day at that point :-) M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, now that is totalled, the axel and everything. Impressive. Still, for me, $8K is nothing to sneeze at. Guess I'm rental-ing it for the next few weeks... Fun times.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a novice user, that more or less try to cooperate, however I raised an obvious question ([92]) for which I get a correct answer ([93])...besides this, I ignored a third IP editing which may be the same user logging out...with all of good faith could you explain him/treat the situation about the validity of multiple accounts? (did he forget his password, or?) Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, KIENGIR, not trying to be difficult, but what is preventing you from making those further inquiries and/or clarifications? Regards, El_C13:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean at this point my role ends, I don't know what to do, there are some policies about abusing multiple accounts, and maybe the user don't know this, I just want to prevent him/her from troubles in the future, and I was thinking I should not cope with content issues with him/her until this is not clarified (since such issues we should report to admins, even if it seems technical). What do you suggest? I could only tell what I did now for you, and likely the user would turn to an admin as well even not kowing the exact policies on this...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
KIENGIR, I think starting with something basic like {{uw-login}}, and maybe some otherwise basic explanations to that effect, would be best. Granted, we generally wish to centralize an individual contributions to the utmost, just for best recordkeeping practices, but this is still early days — obviously, it isn't like, say, SchroCat's use of an IP above or CaptainEek's use of AdmiralEeks above that. Rather, it's seems like somewhat ordinary growing pains fare. So, slow and easy; calm and friendly. Sorry, I'm feeling a bit stretched thin right now, so unless there's a need for more immediate intervention, I'd prefer you (or anyone else) were to handle the non-urgent end of it on your part as best you could first. Good luck! Best regards, El_C14:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got distracted earlier! I'd run a CU looking into this, which came back Likely. Same IP, slightly browser. IP Seems to house a few other probably-unrelated accounts. SQLQuery me!00:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just glanced at it. Sorry, there's no way I'm doing that today! I'm burning both ends of the candles right now, so I gotta pace myself. El_C00:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the above discussion was cut short, I'm going to further expand and expound about some of my thoughts on the matter. When DGG said to Sarah: And it's curious that what we personally believe is always the mainstream — I didn't like that. Speaking as someone whose social philosophy views are in no small measure outside the mainstream (to which I'm acutely aware), when it comes to depictions of Holocaust historiography, as representing a social scientific consensus approach, that's all I actually want. Yes, I agree with DGG that APL content should also feature some components that touch on popular sentiments, but I think it's absolutely key that these are carefully qualified by the realWP:APLRS — and it is this body of work which needs to form the central basis for any overarching wikivoice presentation.
The whitewashing coming from Poland serving to minimize Polish culpability (or involvement, call it what you will) in the Holocaust, is not just despicable and reprehensible, it also injects itself into a scholarly discourse where it does not belong in a deeply insidious way. So, I'm thinking maybe Sarah is right, after all, about me supporting the respective appeals of GCB and VM having been a huge mistake on my part.
I mean, my conscience is clear about having advocated for their appeals to be granted on the basis of sheer merit (giving a 2nd chance coupled by abuse amelioration). But my conscience is not clear about the real damage resulting from those appeals being lifted, which they now both bring about, eroding verifiability for this key subject by advancing a fringe view (and who cares how popular that fringe view might be in one country, to the point of it even being legislated outright!).
Anyway, in theory, to combat that, we have APLRS, which is meant to serve as barrier against substandard material. Just like we do with WP:MEDRS for medical content. Both of these enhanced sourcing standards are equally important, in my view, and serve as a great credit to the Committee and community that passed them, respectively.
The ip uses the same arguments with Armanqur's arguments on talk page and has similar edit summaries. They also remove modern Iranologists and linguists (Limbert, McKenzie, Daryaee, Russel) and some Medieval historians' notes which provide better context for the reader as to why the association between 2 is regarded as "old" by James R Russel.
Creating strawman socks to demonize opposing editors, removing useful contents from the section, edit warring through his ips and his account is disruptive. Please lock the page. 176.54.37.31 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now one more user has become a part of the same edit war and removed modern scholars, historians and Iranologists' opinions (Limbert, Daryaee, McKenzie, Russel, etc) from the section again:
Instead of removing the specific outdated content he mentioned, the user outright removed everything completely (including the opinions by modern experts). Was it a constructive edit? I'll notify some other editors editing related topics. I don't have a time to follow up the page but an admin or a capable editor should definitely do. 176.54.39.53 (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C Thanks a lot. Do not worry for as long as the ArbCom on Kurds and Kurdistan is going on. I have it sort of covered where the issues are and might approach you with some of it, once the ArbCom has come up with a decision.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me @El C: I might add that whoever wants to make an edit to Wikipedia has a responsibility to make sure that the content is properly added per the guidelines. Especially in this case, when we're talking about 12k content. It is not our responsibility as readers and fellow editors to filter whatever may be good out of the heaps of problematic content. Any good sources can be re-added as far as I'm concerned as long as Wikipedia's guidelines are maintained, including WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. The edit was not problematic just because of outdated sources; its also due to atrocious unencyclopediec style. For the record: the article has been a target for drive-by accounts/IP's and sockpuppets for years, and I can ping a dozen admins who can attest to that, including Doug Weller. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."
I would copy edit the unencylopedic style and preserve the sourced content from modern experts.
Thank you for the explanation El C. I have checked the policies you mentioned. Policies regarding onus and burden seem to be about insistence of including the problematic content (in this case certain outdated sources). It is not the case here. It is about removal of large amount of appropriate content (Limbert, McKenzie, Russel, Daryaee, full quote of Bruinessen etc) leaving the page unbalanced. Moreover at least 2 unverifiable and unreliable sources re inserted (probably by a mistake). Sparing a few minutes to filter the content would leave wikipedia articles in a better quality.
Anyway my intent was to raise awareness about the long term edit warring on the page and thank you for your actions. Good night
excuse me, today I am strained, sorry I have no power to provide more diffs, but more of use recognized a troll that is keeping vandalizing articles, post unnecessary templates and warnings and meanwhile playing fool, and tire more editors, including me ([94])...and SPI is already opened, clearly WP:NOTHERE. If you check the recent edits or the discussions at the joke article the user created Szekely moustache and the nomination for deletion discussion, more user demands an action..I am afraid patiently waiting for the SPI evaluation will not be enough...
Blockedindefinitely. Yup, standard ethno-national provocations and fabrications fare. Page deleted (AfD closed as speedy delete). Note that I was confused about your source for that 40,000 figure, so I queried you about that at Talk:Hungarian dialects, (in the early stages of my investigation). Hope I helped make your day better! El_C18:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed, I answered there. Well, I am always sorry deep in my heart for every editor who did not came to our encyclopedia to improve it, rather to steal precious time from editors, as we could spend those times with improving articles. They hella' find me recurrently :(. Thank you, but I think you as well saved many nerves for the pinged fellow editors, have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hi. I noticed that 71.232.135.186 has just restored EdDakhla's rant[96], using the same strange choice of word ("inquiry" instead of "enquiry") that was used previously by T.Khattabi when they reverted your edit[97]. Is this too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence? Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reverting anything that is submitted by an EdDakhla account (whatsoever) on sight and with immediate effect. Report here so that I could complete the rest of the WP:RBI cycle. El_C18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no appeal available or needed, Arthur Smart. Error or not, you may remove the warning message unread, if you wish (though, hopefully, you do end up reading it). Nothing more to it. El_C18:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your close; I'm glad you saw my point of view on this being vandalism. I was quite shocked when I went to AIV and was told that it was not vandalism, and then told at ANI that I was edit warring. ― Tartan357Talk02:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question earlier left notes on the talk pages of two admins and one other editor ([99], [100], [101]) accusing me of being an agent of the Burmese military. Would you mind leaving those editors messages to explain the situation? It's not that I think they're going to believe that; I just want them to know the dispute has been resolved. ― Tartan357Talk02:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C! I appreciate your closure of the ANI discussion that I replied to. I didn't mean to "sidestep" anything, however. I felt that, upon looking, that the dispute was content-related, and that the basis of the problem was edit warring. I'm obviously no expert on the article subject, but I thought that what I did was the right thing to do. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's always nice to see you, El C! :-) Well, the thought I had was that it was said in the ANI here that the user was from that country - even though we don't really know (unless the user said so?). Taking that into account, this to me isn't vandalism, but someone from that country trying to edit the article to push a point of view - which is different than someone editing that article in bad faith to deliberately add false information. The latter is exempt from 3RR; what Zhong ST was doing is not. By stepping in and saying, "this editor is wrong with this content and this editor is right", aren't we choosing a side when we need to be neutral? This is what I decided when I stepped in and responded to the ANI discussion. Down to the core of it all, this was edit warring. I'd like to hear what your thoughts were when closing the article and what you would've done had you been the first admin to respond. What would you have done? If anything, I want to POINT FINGERS AT YOU AND SAY THAT YOU'RE WRONG! I'm just kidding... I want to hear your thoughts so that, if anything, I can better myself as an administrator and editor. :-) Thanks again, and I highly appreciate you for hearing me out. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, I obviously don't have any experience adminning but I'd like to give you my thoughts on your above comment. If someone makes an edit that they know to be counter-factual, shouldn't that be enough to say that they're deliberately adding incorrect information? It seems like a lot to expect everyday Wikipeidans like myself to judge their motivations on top of their likely knowledge about the facts. ― Tartan357Talk03:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tartan357! What if they believe it is factual? I think that's where our differences in the interpretation of policy and what the right responses and actions at the ANI are... I'm no expert at this article subject, so I couldn't tell you. This is why I responded in the way that I did, and warned you both for edit warring. I was doing what I felt was right. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, if they believe it is factual, then I completely agree that it's not vandalism. I just found that highly implausible. Maybe I'm just numbed from all the similar edits since the coup. I've closed two edit requests at Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi just since the ANI discussion asking to describe her as State Counsellor. ― Tartan357Talk03:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357 - Regardless, the manner is handled and the user apologized on my user talk page, which is good - maybe they'll become a contributor here and stay with us! :-) I appreciate you for bringing the matter to ANI, and I appreciate the discussion. If anything, I've learned some things too! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, no, it is absolutely exempt by virtue of it being vandalism-like (once explained) and, as I mention, should be initially responded with something like {{uw-error2}} (seriously, click on that link and see what it says). Again, a plain fabrication does not constitute a content dispute. Never have, never will. El_C03:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{uw-error2}} is a staple of mine. I have given users countless of these warnings for adding content which unambiguously contradicted established, well-known facts. El_C03:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C, while the reported IP was stale, the user you blocked here has an IP account which they have flitted in and out of using since creating their account. They were warned about it here (and simultaneously here) and confirm they are the same user here. That IP was missed by the reporting editor at ANI. Incidentally, the accusations here, according to the person's own account, most likely refer to the "personal attacks" whose tenor can be sampled from what they mass deleted, labelling them as personal attacks. The direct accusation toward me of hounding refers to this article; its tiny editing history shows who was following whom with little effort (I started editing the article 3 months before they created their account; edit immediately preceding theirs was by me). Cambial foliage❧03:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cambial Yellowing, thanks for the useful information. I agree that the removal you cite (diff) is just matter-of-fact, devoid of any personalization whatsoever, not to mention personal attacks (or even the mildest of incivility). It is an inexplicable removal that she will need to answer for. Your observation about you having edited the article months before she even joined the project, is also duly noted. As for that IP, it is Stale, as well. El_C04:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a second AfD ongoing that has aroused weird controversy, including sockpuppetry at the first AfD to keep, and now (alleged) canvassing to the second to delete. If you or experienced stalkers of your talk page could bring some thoughts here, it would be good. I hope this is not canvassing because I am not telling anybody how to vote on the AfD but if it is canvassing, I apologize. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C, User:Seyoumamhara has merged the information in the Humera massacre article with information in the Mai Kadra massacre article without reason. Which could be a simple mistake but then in the War crimes in the Tigray War page, he removed mentions of war crimes committed by Ethiopia and Eritrea against Tigrayans in the introduction and instead said they were committed by TPLF forces against Amhara.
Finally, in the Humera article (the city itself), he changed the city to be apart of the Amhara Region and not the Tigray region. And also changed the mention of the Humera massacre to say that it was committed by TPLF-allied forces against Amhara. Also made unsourced edits like changing the majority ethnic group in the city to be Amhara and not Tigrayan. He changed the text under Monuments section to say "The Amhara population living in the area destroyed a monument named after qeshi gebru she is known for her bravery to kill amharas brutally a former foot soldier of tigray people liberation front TPLF after liberating thier home land after 50 years of tigray colonisation of the area in Nov,2020." The original text was "Statue of anti-patriarchal feminist Mulu Gebreegziabher. It was destroyed by two Neftenya vandals, under the eyes of Ethiopian soldiers, in November 2020."
IP 213.55.85.126 has the same problem but is on a different side of the coin. He undid some of Seyoumamhara's edits but still removed information. Changed the monuments section to "The Amhara barbarian ethnic group has demolished the Tigray heroine monument,qeshi gebru,collaborating with the Eritrean troops in Nov,2020." Calling an ethic group barbaric seems like hate speech. Finally, he removed the entire history section of the article and once again called Amharans barbarians in his edit summary. Wowzers122 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blockedindefinitely. Plus, another AE protection. I get the sense that we've only seen the first glimpses of the true scale of WP:ARBHORN disruption. Let's hope I'm wrong. Finally, I've now warned that IP (wasn't linked at the time in your note, didn't notice) with a {{uw-error2}} — if they continue, feel free to escalate up to and including reporting them to WP:AIV. Regards, El_C18:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I inadvertently undid your removal of your comment in this edit please forgive me - I am using the beta edit conflict resolution tool and it showed zero change on the left side (before my edit) and so I selected my comment to be added - it did not display any other changes so I figured it must've been an edit on another part of the page that was conflicting. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I'm having an issue with a user here at [102] who is attempting to push the name of 'Persia' onto the lede as one of its synonyms, even more or less no sources uses the word 'Persia' to refer to the region (it goes without saying that the term is a synonym for Iran). I've attempted to discuss with the user at it [103], but to no avail, as the user is more interested in me than the topic itself (getting lowkey WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE vibes). I'm thinking about taking this to WP:ANI, but I think that it will be ignored/won't reach a outcome. Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Okay, but I really am not accepting new requests at this time (or so I thought). El_C22:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As can be for example seen here among all other edits here, me edits are removed with accusations of pov pushing and twisting wording when I followed the source. The person even literally deleted and copied what I wrote again. Subtly leaving out the fact that Yoemans said that the anti-Catholic angle he could see. Could you step in to deal with the constant edit waring and accusations? It’s getting to be too much. OyMosby (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP, it just means that the prevailing practice is not to bother blocking accounts that, though have been proven to be otherwise block-worthy, simply had not edited for a while (i.e. may be inactive as far as the individual behind the respective violations). That is what templates like Stale and Stale are used for. So, that IP, for example, I didn't bother blocking it since its last edit was over a week ago. Of course, if it's used again for that purpose (unlikely), it will be instantly blocked, once reported (or re-reported). Best, El_C08:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, IP, you asked when, not why. The answer to that —for blocking, as opposed to CU— is usually a couple of days-ish. But this could vary for, say, a static IPs with a lengthy (similar) contributions history that, for example, shows them editing once or twice a month. In such a case, the usual stale notions would not apply and a block would still be imposed, even if the account hasn't edited for a couple of weeks or whatever (i.e. as their return would not otherwise be unlikely compared to the former, much more common type of IPs I described). El_C08:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I believe so, too. They're just not likely to edit from that same IP again (is the point). But a different individual at some point may. Thanks, you as well. El_C08:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am at work atm and will not have enough time to follow up this case but in case you may want to follow up it, i am dropping the link below:
IP, I am not interested in following up there. If the admin reviewing the unblock request has any questions for me, then I may. Best, El_C14:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and your translations too, which almost read like original poetry, given that I didn't understand the Hebrew lyrics. Thanks for sharing! DanCherek (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there is a (very naive} cycle of reverts on the Dafina Zeqiri article between some IPs and a registered editor. It is a pity that an editor who has written 31 GAs gives that attention to that. Can you make a short protection or sth similar? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since this was quite simple to parse. But please note, it is singing time here, for now, not admining time! El_C15:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know you are having a good time. I love music too, especially when mixed with some dancing. Especially with a beautiful lady :P Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashleyyoursmile, just as an FYI, being addressed as "Hello admin" wouldn't feel good to me. I'm sure it's not what you meant, but if you were intending it as some sort of respectful address such as "Your honor", to me it comes off more like "Hey, you." Sorry to butt in! —valereee (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, as mentioned before I might approach you with some issues after the case has been closed. I will first try to solve the issues myself as now there should be less resistance, and also as mentioned before I know pretty well, where some areas in need of a clean up are. But when I can show some reasonable amount of intent to try to solve it for myself in a constructive manner, I'll might approach you to find a solution for this. I have also seen that there exists the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement where I might add requests as well. If you have any questions in the area, don't hesitate to approach me, too, but actually I hope we won't be bothered with problems and wish you and me both a calm and happy editing.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What to do with a talk page that has completely devolved into toxicity?
Please see Talk:Palestinian enclaves#This talk page is toxic. This is the same talk page that previously lead to a warning with the holocaust references and baseless allegations of racism. Unfortunately, the general toxicity of this talk page has continued unabated. I'm wondering if there are any steps that could be taken to cool things down there, as it is essentially impossible to go 5 minutes without receiving a hostile and uncivil reply on that page. Drsmoo (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm .... Why was I unsurprised to see the name of Wikiedtor19920 all over the page? "Nishidani's one-sided diatribes are almost certainly not worth reading" - nice. Black Kite (talk)18:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani (shoutout) may have the propensity to go on (and on), but rarely if ever have I found one of their treatise not to be a most worthwhile read. El_C18:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I must apologize. I don't think I have acted in bad faith, but some view it that way. When I see what for me, is extreme repetitiveness, I am drawn to explain at tedious length how I see it. Concision is a virtue, but it takes an inordinate amount of time to be pithy in these discursive contexts. I'll try to be more laconic, in fact, I thought I was exercising restraint in not replying to everyone and everything. I can't see any bad faith there. Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that my putative 'erudition' (which I'm not - I just, if I am to trust a few friends- have a fairly good memory for what I read) looks like flourished pomposity. I hope people can just ignore that part. I need to do it because working here is extremely difficult, and to ease the burden I feel, I like to entertain myself by writing as I think, to compensate for straining to write what wiki orthodoxy commends as best praxis. I really admire admins and many great editors who can cut to the chase without the loose-mouth riffs on personal memory. I admit it is a failing, and I can see it does get up get up some folks' nostrils (oh Gawd, that idiom calls for a gloss on Theocritus on nostrils as a source of pride, its reflex in Shakespeare, and in Hopkins' 'Habit of Perfection'). I'd better stop and think of easing that large pizza I'm eating with a soporific gin (no, sir, not in the rude Australian dialect sense of that word (lubra, black woman, ugh).Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was not specifically referring to Wikieditor when I sent this message, though I agree that his message to Nishidani was pointed and unnecessary. The talk page, as a whole, is extremely tense, and while some discussions are moving forward, they are being done so under a constant barrage of insults. For example, the thread I was linked to was opened by someone shocked by the intensity of the vitriol directed AT wikieditor. Perhaps nothing that is on itself sanctionable, but overall, the temperature remains high. I stick to my belief that if 1rr was applied to talk pages as well, Wikipedia would benefit greatly. But that seems unlikely to happen. Drsmoo (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I don't know if you've met Paul Siebert (shoutout) — another longwinded expositor whose own treatises often contain kernels of truth of great profundity. Like with you, you just have to resist all WP:TLDR impulses! El_C20:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be sleepless tonight over the Cliff Notes' joke. I guess it asks for a gloss on T E Lawrence saying 'outrageous' on the outskirts of Damascus? Well that's not, as far as I checked, in his great memoir Seven Pillars of Wisdom, but by hearsay exclaimed by Peter O'Toole playing that role in David Lean's 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia. And no, I can't say I personally remembered it from that date, though I recall the scene. What happened was, when I happened to use the term comically, my cousin told me (in mid 1983) that this was the adjective used by O'Toole qua Lawrence at that dramatic moment. So it may be indeed my latest addition to the immense archives of apocrypha in circulation. Thanks for making me remember the details of this. Now I'm going to be sleepless until I find a video of the film to check where the truth lies (which truth often does:), alasNishidani (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I was just gonna say how I have several works of his in my library (all in Hebrew; I don't have many novels in English), only to realize that I was thinking of D. H. Lawrence — wrong Lawrence! Absolutely, fond memories of this most golden of Golden films. El_C21:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that it does (at the event, I just copied Black Kite above). Anyway, yes, I was gonna get to it, but things keep happening. Otherwise, on it. El_C21:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bish! Aiming to be known as a Nishidani or a Paul Siebert laconic counterpart (compliment monster growl!), but there's a long road to go yet. El_C21:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We all began as singular zygotes that expand exponentially to 30 trillion cells in adulthood. Console yourself with the reflection that the Big Bang had small beginnings (a minor punctual crepitation, to expand using an euphemism, gave us a field of noise that now vibrates throughout the cosmos to the endless reaches of infinity, a process imitated by the internet's 'social' media. By both cosmo-physical and biological logic, seeing that entropy invariably sets in and reverses the expansions, to be only at the starting line that leads from laconism to the slobbering garrulity we oldtimers evince, augurs well: the world's still your oyster, so Festina lente. it will be the perfect counterpoint to my phonological festering! Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too true, too true. I just have an especially soft cosmo-quantum spot in my heart for Linde. His theory probably changed my outlook on physics and cosmology more so than any other living (or recently-ish deceased) physicist out there. Which is to say: profoundly. El_C14:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C- I'm trying to figure out the best approach to get a new editor on a campaign to slow down and communicate with others. Hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction. I'm assuming that posting on a noticeboard would be premature at this point. The editor has been active for a little more than a day, making similar changes across many articles related to Catholic clergy and buildings: contributions, talk. Thanks in advance for any tips. Erictalk17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I saw this before I posted earlier, and hesitated for a moment, then decided it must be about something else and was not meant to discourage a request like mine... sorry! Erictalk21:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, would you be able to review an edit warring & content issue relating to a possible hoax image that seems to be motivated by Turkish nationalism? One editor inserted the image across multiple Wikipedias and another keeps edit warring to keep the image in the article space here at en-wiki. I've written a short contextual summary and gathered several relevant links on my talk page. Given the topic, nobody wants to touch my reports at AN/EW or sanction the editor involved (the first report was archived without action). If you're unable to do this, do you happen to know any admins with expertise in regional history/nationalism who would be able to assist? Thanks for your help, Jr8825 • Talk22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at the recent edits at Lorestan Province by user Rizorius?[104] The local Kurdish name of the province is being removed despite a large population of the province being Kurdish. The editor is making a false equivalence comparing it with having the German name at Paris. Conversely, an unverifiable and ridiculous survey that contradicts the info in the 'demographics'-section is being added. --Semsûrî (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel inclined to unblock, but I do feel that you should have asked someone else to impose the block, as a best practice. It would have eliminated unneeded Sturm und Drang and would have served as a reality check. She did almost step back with that trope business, but that could be read as attempted salvage. Also, I don't think there is much distinction between being "XYZist" and using an "XYZist trope". Having said that, I believe this user should edit in less emotionally volatile areas and I believe she may not be compatible. Best, --Deepfriedokra(talk)23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, I realize there are admins who believe this to be the best practice to follow, rigidly so, but myself, in some circumstances, I block and/or remove talk page (or email) access to users, even when the abuse prompting this is directed toward myself as the sanctioning admin. If you or anyone else feel that this is something the Committee should weigh on (as an admin conduct matter or as a theoretical question, whichever, or both), an WP:ARCA about this is always an option. I'll note that I have blocked nearly 8,000 users from the project. Rarely do my blocks come into serious question, and even more (much more) rarely are they overturned. For whatever that's worth. Kind regards, El_C23:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To those who elsewhere question the length of the block due to the user having a clean block log, I contend that one week is not excessive for such an offense, especially seeing how it kept repeating even after a very strongly-worded warning against continuing to do so. I'll also note that, earlier, someone pointed out how Awoma was calling editors "transphobes" a few months ago (Oct), which I found quite disconcerting. I'll quote what they said in full:
There has been a lot of discussion around this and there is now a very wide consensus in support of the section as it currently stands. A handful of transphobes trying to whitewash it aren't going to convince anyone otherwise (diff).
This is highly problematic conduct, I challenge. So, I don't think a week-long block is especially draconian when we also take this into account, in addition to today's events. And who knows if there's more misconduct I'm simply unaware of — maybe there's nothing, maybe there's something. Who knows. Regardless, for such a fraught topic area as WP:ARBGG, I think those two incidents alone, to me, signify conduct well out of step with even the most lax of standards. El_C02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also point out, as a follow up to a comment by Newimpartial which I just removed (diff), that most of the AE topic areas I attend to, I do so by way of WP:AE. And the fact is that there are very few WP:ARBGG reports posted there. It's mostly WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBEE. Those, I estimate, account for something like 85 percent of all AE complaints. Not that I need to justify how I volunteer my time on a volunteer project. I think that's a markedly presumptuous notion. Also, the unwanted innuendo by Newimpartial about my esteemed self is not a nice thing to say, I find. I'm not sure why they choose to address me in such a manner, also calling my comment above hilarious, and so on, but I feel that it is uncalled for, and I wish for it to stop. El_C02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My final UTRS message (plus new addition) reads as follows:
Since there's seems to be a cloud over this block, now raised by GW, I have unblocked Awoma. User_talk:Awoma#Unblocked
But, GW, again, for the record, I said: "I truly am sorry you feel that way." And I truly meant it. I'm still puzzled it backfired or was viewed as a non-apology apology. [Added now: not to mention a "sexist trope."] I mean, how else do I convey that better? I really am racking my brain over this.El_C00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posting my note from UTRS here since it's not immediately clear what this cloud may have been: While it's true that "I'm sorry you feel that way" can be a non-apology, and I've certainly seen the phrase used in response to accusations that a person is sexist, I don't think I've ever seen someone argue that the phrase itself is a sexist trope. I tried googling for "'i'm sorry you feel that way' sexist" in case I'm just behind the times, but it's all discussions of someone being called out for saying something sexist and then using the phrase as a non-apology. While Awoma may well personally believe that the phrase is sexist, I wouldn't say it's widely considered to be. That said, I do think a better response would have been to ask why they felt that way about the phrase or just move on. It also seems to me that if El C thought a block was appropriate, it probably should've been handled by another admin.
Regarding "I'm sorry you feel that way" being a non-apology—it's one of those things that depends so highly on tone and context. It's also one of those phrases that has become so well-known as a non-apology that that's often the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear it, even if the speaker truly is sorry that someone feels that way. I usually try to phrase it differently for that reason, even if that's the sentiment I'm trying to convey. GorillaWarfare(talk)17:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GW, again, I just don't know how to convey that better. I thought that with the added truly it did express my good faith sincerity, but I obviously it wasn't understood that way (i.e. was seen as provoking, which definitely was not my intent). I suppose that, as a sanctioning admin, I may just have to start being more guarded about expressing sympathy to a user who is upset, because, again, I simply don't know how else I could have phrased it better otherwise, I really don't. (How else do I say to someone that I feel bad that they are undergoing distress? Or, again, perhaps I should just refrain from doing so entirely with someone whom I don't know. I'm open to ideas about that, in any case.)
Regardless, I did try to understand how saying something that innocuous (non-apology apology implications aside) can possibly signify a "sexist trope," but the follow up answer made zero sense to me. Since the behaviour continued even after my (strong) warning to that effect, the block was imposed.
As well, I'm not sure what your view about this is, also as a former arbitrator, but I did further address the matter of this block about an hour ago at User_talk:Nil_Einne#Non-apology_apology?, so I'll just cite the relevant portion:
if I admin imposes, say, an WP:ARBPIA sanction and the sanctioned editor accuses me of using "Zionist racist tropes" or "Palestinian terrorist tropes" or whatever due to something innocuous I said, then I think that, if warnings to that effect remain unheeded, I'm entitled to apply additional sanctions, despite it being directed toward me. Not sure why it should be any different in the ARBGG topic area [realm], or any [other] DS/GS topic areas, for that matter.
If I am sorry for something I have done, I try to apologize for my own actions. If I am sorry that someone feels some way, but don't feel like my actions were a factor (or shouldn't be apologized for), I usually just don't say anything.
Regarding the propriety of the block, I do think it was within reason to impose it. However when an exchange is becoming heated as that one was, it's a lot less messy to have an outside admin step in and evaluate whether a block is needed. There are two ends of the spectrum as far as how that exchange could be interpreted: on one far end, you said something egregiously sexist, Awoma pointed it out, and then you blocked them in retaliation. On the other, you said something kind and completely blameless, Awoma baselessly described it as sexist, and you blocked them for continuance of the behavior they had been warned about (which intersected with the ARBGG topic ban). I'm sure each of you would point to a different location on this spectrum if asked what happened in reality, and outside observers would probably also have a differing opinion. But there is some portion of that spectrum where the block gets pretty messy, and because it's a little unclear what actually happened, having an outside admin step in would eliminate a lot of that messiness.
Again, I think the block was within discretion, and I think it was both fair and wise of you to have other admins come in to review. The block has been lifted, and hopefully heads have cooled and the topic ban will serve its purpose. GorillaWarfare(talk)18:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, GW, that also makes sense to me. I will try to move forward with these lessons that you've imparted in mind. Thanks again. El_C18:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has invested a fair amount of time and energy negotiating the terrain of apologizing, my suggestion would be that "I understand that you feel singled out by my admin conduct" (or whatever the apology is for) ". I am sorry." - or some similar formulation - is more likely to be heard by the recipient. For one thing, "I am sorry you feel that way" leaves "that way" doing a lot of the work, and doesn't acknowledge anything in particular that the person apologizing is actually apologizing for. Taking a stab at what the hurt is about - even if the first try doesn't 100% capture the respondent's actual cause of hurt - will come across as more authentic than vagueries, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that actually makes sense to me. So, I will try to be more precise with that in the future so as to avoid any similar misunderstandings. It's just that I've never experienced anything like this before — either on the non-apology apology or the "sexist trope" (which I still find totally bizarre) fronts. Thanks for your insights, Newimpartial. El_C17:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I have experienced a whole lot of this before - including the "sexist trope" element. Mostly in the wilds of the internet, where nobody knows you're a duck. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the onion has another layer. "I'm sorry you feel that way" distances the speaker from any responsibility; the other person chose to feel something and you're sorry that they made that choice; it's a brush-off, often used as a conversation-ender. (I picture a negotiation scene in a conference room, and one person gathering their files together, tapping them on the table to even them out, and coldly saying "Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.") "I'm sorry that I made you feel that way" acknowledges the speaker's participation in the issue. (No clue about sexist trope, I've heard it said W-W, M-M, W-M, M-W.) Schazjmd(talk)18:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly acknowledge that there is no general rule. However, as GW might have been alluding in the previous section, there are situations where phrases like the "I made you" of I'm sorry that I made you feel that way seem to concede too much responsibility for the other person's feelings. In such cases, "I understand that you feel X, and I am sorry about that" might at times offer a more authentic take. But YMMV, of course. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, I now am finally recognizing that saying something to the effect of: this is a difficult situation, which I realize may be distressing, and I genuinely feel bad if this is proving to be so –would have been way better. Or as GW, has noted, perhaps simply not express any direct sympathy from the outset — which goes against my nature, but I'll do what I can to adjust for the good of the project. Again, now that I've had time to reflect, I'll definitely try to aim at improved precision and tact in any and all of my communications. Thank you, everyone, for all of your thoughts on this matter. I do feel better guided now and am confident it will reflect in my future approach, overall. Thanks again! El_C19:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Palestinian enclaves#This talk page is toxic. This is the same talk page that previously lead to a warning with the holocaust references and baseless allegations of racism. Unfortunately, the general toxicity of this talk page has continued unabated. I'm wondering if there are any steps that could be taken to cool things down there, as it is essentially impossible to go 5 minutes without receiving a hostile and uncivil reply on that page. Drsmoo (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm .... Why was I unsurprised to see the name of Wikiedtor19920 all over the page? "Nishidani's one-sided diatribes are almost certainly not worth reading" - nice. Black Kite (talk)18:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani (shoutout) may have the propensity to go on (and on), but rarely if ever have I found one of their treatise not to be a most worthwhile read. El_C18:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I must apologize. I don't think I have acted in bad faith, but some view it that way. When I see what for me, is extreme repetitiveness, I am drawn to explain at tedious length how I see it. Concision is a virtue, but it takes an inordinate amount of time to be pithy in these discursive contexts. I'll try to be more laconic, in fact, I thought I was exercising restraint in not replying to everyone and everything. I can't see any bad faith there. Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that my putative 'erudition' (which I'm not - I just, if I am to trust a few friends- have a fairly good memory for what I read) looks like flourished pomposity. I hope people can just ignore that part. I need to do it because working here is extremely difficult, and to ease the burden I feel, I like to entertain myself by writing as I think, to compensate for straining to write what wiki orthodoxy commends as best praxis. I really admire admins and many great editors who can cut to the chase without the loose-mouth riffs on personal memory. I admit it is a failing, and I can see it does get up get up some folks' nostrils (oh Gawd, that idiom calls for a gloss on Theocritus on nostrils as a source of pride, its reflex in Shakespeare, and in Hopkins' 'Habit of Perfection'). I'd better stop and think of easing that large pizza I'm eating with a soporific gin (no, sir, not in the rude Australian dialect sense of that word (lubra, black woman, ugh).Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was not specifically referring to Wikieditor when I sent this message, though I agree that his message to Nishidani was pointed and unnecessary. The talk page, as a whole, is extremely tense, and while some discussions are moving forward, they are being done so under a constant barrage of insults. For example, the thread I was linked to was opened by someone shocked by the intensity of the vitriol directed AT wikieditor. Perhaps nothing that is on itself sanctionable, but overall, the temperature remains high. I stick to my belief that if 1rr was applied to talk pages as well, Wikipedia would benefit greatly. But that seems unlikely to happen. Drsmoo (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I don't know if you've met Paul Siebert (shoutout) — another longwinded expositor whose own treatises often contain kernels of truth of great profundity. Like with you, you just have to resist all WP:TLDR impulses! El_C20:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be sleepless tonight over the Cliff Notes' joke. I guess it asks for a gloss on T E Lawrence saying 'outrageous' on the outskirts of Damascus? Well that's not, as far as I checked, in his great memoir Seven Pillars of Wisdom, but by hearsay exclaimed by Peter O'Toole playing that role in David Lean's 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia. And no, I can't say I personally remembered it from that date, though I recall the scene. What happened was, when I happened to use the term comically, my cousin told me (in mid 1983) that this was the adjective used by O'Toole qua Lawrence at that dramatic moment. So it may be indeed my latest addition to the immense archives of apocrypha in circulation. Thanks for making me remember the details of this. Now I'm going to be sleepless until I find a video of the film to check where the truth lies (which truth often does:), alasNishidani (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I was just gonna say how I have several works of his in my library (all in Hebrew; I don't have many novels in English), only to realize that I was thinking of D. H. Lawrence — wrong Lawrence! Absolutely, fond memories of this most golden of Golden films. El_C21:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that it does (at the event, I just copied Black Kite above). Anyway, yes, I was gonna get to it, but things keep happening. Otherwise, on it. El_C21:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bish! Aiming to be known as a Nishidani or a Paul Siebert laconic counterpart (compliment monster growl!), but there's a long road to go yet. El_C21:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We all began as singular zygotes that expand exponentially to 30 trillion cells in adulthood. Console yourself with the reflection that the Big Bang had small beginnings (a minor punctual crepitation, to expand using an euphemism, gave us a field of noise that now vibrates throughout the cosmos to the endless reaches of infinity, a process imitated by the internet's 'social' media. By both cosmo-physical and biological logic, seeing that entropy invariably sets in and reverses the expansions, to be only at the starting line that leads from laconism to the slobbering garrulity we oldtimers evince, augurs well: the world's still your oyster, so Festina lente. it will be the perfect counterpoint to my phonological festering! Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too true, too true. I just have an especially soft cosmo-quantum spot in my heart for Linde. His theory probably changed my outlook on physics and cosmology more so than any other living (or recently-ish deceased) physicist out there. Which is to say: profoundly. El_C14:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C- I'm trying to figure out the best approach to get a new editor on a campaign to slow down and communicate with others. Hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction. I'm assuming that posting on a noticeboard would be premature at this point. The editor has been active for a little more than a day, making similar changes across many articles related to Catholic clergy and buildings: contributions, talk. Thanks in advance for any tips. Erictalk17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I saw this before I posted earlier, and hesitated for a moment, then decided it must be about something else and was not meant to discourage a request like mine... sorry! Erictalk21:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, would you be able to review an edit warring & content issue relating to a possible hoax image that seems to be motivated by Turkish nationalism? One editor inserted the image across multiple Wikipedias and another keeps edit warring to keep the image in the article space here at en-wiki. I've written a short contextual summary and gathered several relevant links on my talk page. Given the topic, nobody wants to touch my reports at AN/EW or sanction the editor involved (the first report was archived without action). If you're unable to do this, do you happen to know any admins with expertise in regional history/nationalism who would be able to assist? Thanks for your help, Jr8825 • Talk22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at the recent edits at Lorestan Province by user Rizorius?[105] The local Kurdish name of the province is being removed despite a large population of the province being Kurdish. The editor is making a false equivalence comparing it with having the German name at Paris. Conversely, an unverifiable and ridiculous survey that contradicts the info in the 'demographics'-section is being added. --Semsûrî (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel inclined to unblock, but I do feel that you should have asked someone else to impose the block, as a best practice. It would have eliminated unneeded Sturm und Drang and would have served as a reality check. She did almost step back with that trope business, but that could be read as attempted salvage. Also, I don't think there is much distinction between being "XYZist" and using an "XYZist trope". Having said that, I believe this user should edit in less emotionally volatile areas and I believe she may not be compatible. Best, --Deepfriedokra(talk)23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, I realize there are admins who believe this to be the best practice to follow, rigidly so, but myself, in some circumstances, I block and/or remove talk page (or email) access to users, even when the abuse prompting this is directed toward myself as the sanctioning admin. If you or anyone else feel that this is something the Committee should weigh on (as an admin conduct matter or as a theoretical question, whichever, or both), an WP:ARCA about this is always an option. I'll note that I have blocked nearly 8,000 users from the project. Rarely do my blocks come into serious question, and even more (much more) rarely are they overturned. For whatever that's worth. Kind regards, El_C23:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To those who elsewhere question the length of the block due to the user having a clean block log, I contend that one week is not excessive for such an offense, especially seeing how it kept repeating even after a very strongly-worded warning against continuing to do so. I'll also note that, earlier, someone pointed out how Awoma was calling editors "transphobes" a few months ago (Oct), which I found quite disconcerting. I'll quote what they said in full:
There has been a lot of discussion around this and there is now a very wide consensus in support of the section as it currently stands. A handful of transphobes trying to whitewash it aren't going to convince anyone otherwise (diff).
This is highly problematic conduct, I challenge. So, I don't think a week-long block is especially draconian when we also take this into account, in addition to today's events. And who knows if there's more misconduct I'm simply unaware of — maybe there's nothing, maybe there's something. Who knows. Regardless, for such a fraught topic area as WP:ARBGG, I think those two incidents alone, to me, signify conduct well out of step with even the most lax of standards. El_C02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also point out, as a follow up to a comment by Newimpartial which I just removed (diff), that most of the AE topic areas I attend to, I do so by way of WP:AE. And the fact is that there are very few WP:ARBGG reports posted there. It's mostly WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBEE. Those, I estimate, account for something like 85 percent of all AE complaints. Not that I need to justify how I volunteer my time on a volunteer project. I think that's a markedly presumptuous notion. Also, the unwanted innuendo by Newimpartial about my esteemed self is not a nice thing to say, I find. I'm not sure why they choose to address me in such a manner, also calling my comment above hilarious, and so on, but I feel that it is uncalled for, and I wish for it to stop. El_C02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My final UTRS message (plus new addition) reads as follows:
Since there's seems to be a cloud over this block, now raised by GW, I have unblocked Awoma. User_talk:Awoma#Unblocked
But, GW, again, for the record, I said: "I truly am sorry you feel that way." And I truly meant it. I'm still puzzled it backfired or was viewed as a non-apology apology. [Added now: not to mention a "sexist trope."] I mean, how else do I convey that better? I really am racking my brain over this.El_C00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posting my note from UTRS here since it's not immediately clear what this cloud may have been: While it's true that "I'm sorry you feel that way" can be a non-apology, and I've certainly seen the phrase used in response to accusations that a person is sexist, I don't think I've ever seen someone argue that the phrase itself is a sexist trope. I tried googling for "'i'm sorry you feel that way' sexist" in case I'm just behind the times, but it's all discussions of someone being called out for saying something sexist and then using the phrase as a non-apology. While Awoma may well personally believe that the phrase is sexist, I wouldn't say it's widely considered to be. That said, I do think a better response would have been to ask why they felt that way about the phrase or just move on. It also seems to me that if El C thought a block was appropriate, it probably should've been handled by another admin.
Regarding "I'm sorry you feel that way" being a non-apology—it's one of those things that depends so highly on tone and context. It's also one of those phrases that has become so well-known as a non-apology that that's often the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear it, even if the speaker truly is sorry that someone feels that way. I usually try to phrase it differently for that reason, even if that's the sentiment I'm trying to convey. GorillaWarfare(talk)17:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GW, again, I just don't know how to convey that better. I thought that with the added truly it did express my good faith sincerity, but I obviously it wasn't understood that way (i.e. was seen as provoking, which definitely was not my intent). I suppose that, as a sanctioning admin, I may just have to start being more guarded about expressing sympathy to a user who is upset, because, again, I simply don't know how else I could have phrased it better otherwise, I really don't. (How else do I say to someone that I feel bad that they are undergoing distress? Or, again, perhaps I should just refrain from doing so entirely with someone whom I don't know. I'm open to ideas about that, in any case.)
Regardless, I did try to understand how saying something that innocuous (non-apology apology implications aside) can possibly signify a "sexist trope," but the follow up answer made zero sense to me. Since the behaviour continued even after my (strong) warning to that effect, the block was imposed.
As well, I'm not sure what your view about this is, also as a former arbitrator, but I did further address the matter of this block about an hour ago at User_talk:Nil_Einne#Non-apology_apology?, so I'll just cite the relevant portion:
if I admin imposes, say, an WP:ARBPIA sanction and the sanctioned editor accuses me of using "Zionist racist tropes" or "Palestinian terrorist tropes" or whatever due to something innocuous I said, then I think that, if warnings to that effect remain unheeded, I'm entitled to apply additional sanctions, despite it being directed toward me. Not sure why it should be any different in the ARBGG topic area [realm], or any [other] DS/GS topic areas, for that matter.
If I am sorry for something I have done, I try to apologize for my own actions. If I am sorry that someone feels some way, but don't feel like my actions were a factor (or shouldn't be apologized for), I usually just don't say anything.
Regarding the propriety of the block, I do think it was within reason to impose it. However when an exchange is becoming heated as that one was, it's a lot less messy to have an outside admin step in and evaluate whether a block is needed. There are two ends of the spectrum as far as how that exchange could be interpreted: on one far end, you said something egregiously sexist, Awoma pointed it out, and then you blocked them in retaliation. On the other, you said something kind and completely blameless, Awoma baselessly described it as sexist, and you blocked them for continuance of the behavior they had been warned about (which intersected with the ARBGG topic ban). I'm sure each of you would point to a different location on this spectrum if asked what happened in reality, and outside observers would probably also have a differing opinion. But there is some portion of that spectrum where the block gets pretty messy, and because it's a little unclear what actually happened, having an outside admin step in would eliminate a lot of that messiness.
Again, I think the block was within discretion, and I think it was both fair and wise of you to have other admins come in to review. The block has been lifted, and hopefully heads have cooled and the topic ban will serve its purpose. GorillaWarfare(talk)18:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, GW, that also makes sense to me. I will try to move forward with these lessons that you've imparted in mind. Thanks again. El_C18:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has invested a fair amount of time and energy negotiating the terrain of apologizing, my suggestion would be that "I understand that you feel singled out by my admin conduct" (or whatever the apology is for) ". I am sorry." - or some similar formulation - is more likely to be heard by the recipient. For one thing, "I am sorry you feel that way" leaves "that way" doing a lot of the work, and doesn't acknowledge anything in particular that the person apologizing is actually apologizing for. Taking a stab at what the hurt is about - even if the first try doesn't 100% capture the respondent's actual cause of hurt - will come across as more authentic than vagueries, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that actually makes sense to me. So, I will try to be more precise with that in the future so as to avoid any similar misunderstandings. It's just that I've never experienced anything like this before — either on the non-apology apology or the "sexist trope" (which I still find totally bizarre) fronts. Thanks for your insights, Newimpartial. El_C17:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I have experienced a whole lot of this before - including the "sexist trope" element. Mostly in the wilds of the internet, where nobody knows you're a duck. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the onion has another layer. "I'm sorry you feel that way" distances the speaker from any responsibility; the other person chose to feel something and you're sorry that they made that choice; it's a brush-off, often used as a conversation-ender. (I picture a negotiation scene in a conference room, and one person gathering their files together, tapping them on the table to even them out, and coldly saying "Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.") "I'm sorry that I made you feel that way" acknowledges the speaker's participation in the issue. (No clue about sexist trope, I've heard it said W-W, M-M, W-M, M-W.) Schazjmd(talk)18:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly acknowledge that there is no general rule. However, as GW might have been alluding in the previous section, there are situations where phrases like the "I made you" of I'm sorry that I made you feel that way seem to concede too much responsibility for the other person's feelings. In such cases, "I understand that you feel X, and I am sorry about that" might at times offer a more authentic take. But YMMV, of course. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, I now am finally recognizing that saying something to the effect of: this is a difficult situation, which I realize may be distressing, and I genuinely feel bad if this is proving to be so –would have been way better. Or as GW, has noted, perhaps simply not express any direct sympathy from the outset — which goes against my nature, but I'll do what I can to adjust for the good of the project. Again, now that I've had time to reflect, I'll definitely try to aim at improved precision and tact in any and all of my communications. Thank you, everyone, for all of your thoughts on this matter. I do feel better guided now and am confident it will reflect in my future approach, overall. Thanks again! El_C19:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they consider it a term of respect, like calling you Colonel or Your Honor? As Grandma used to say, just don't call me late to dinner. :) That apparently was a hilarious joke 100 years ago. :) —valereee (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain that I need to explain exactly why you deserve this barnstar, suffice it to say that you spend a lot more time cleaning up WP:AN and WP:ANI than any admin should be honorably required to do. One hopes that perhaps watching the soothing, spinning star will help you relax some. :-) WaltCip-(talk)15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is excitement!. Message added 03:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
"he seems to be at his wits end at this time" about sums it up. The worst of the behavior has stopped, but there's two factions that are numerically balanced, and neither is willing to budge an inch on any aspect of the article whatsoever (you'd think a more readable page with the same content would be something everyone's interested in, but no). So the talk page has just devolved into endless stone-walling, and unless and until an uninvolved user with no opinions on the content is willing to try to rewrite the page, I don't think any progress is likely to be made...Vanamonde (Talk)19:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:AE would probably get you the best results. As for how: attach whatever evidence showing that the IP/s is actually them. No stale reports, please. El_C22:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, you might want to do the same to the other two accounts listed here. There is also a list of similar names here that haven't been used in awhile but which may need watching. Also, this does not bode well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's no need to bother with anything that isn't an active incident or is otherwise stale. As for Commons, sure, someone should let them know. El_C23:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I should post something here because my name has come up in some of your recent discussions. I was previously known as Mclarenfan17, and I have largely been retired for the past six months. I have been intermittently active over the past few weeks, mostly because of virus restrictions.
I have noticed that I was referred to you because of arbitration enforcement. An editor, Tvx1, claims that I have been editing from an IP address to circumvent an arbitration ruling. I think these claims are being made in bad faith as the editor in question had a habit of wikilawyering, which was noted in the arbitration hearing. Case in point, this edit that he made around the time he went to arbitration enforcement. It ignores a consensus that was established on the article talk page, a discussion that the editor did not take part in. He is well aware that there is a small number of editors on the article, and so appears to be using arbitration enforcement to try and stop me from making any edits to the article and allowing him to ignore the consensus. 1.129.108.95 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mclarenfan17, as an individual subject to an Arbitration sanction, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports, it is inappropriate for you to be editing from various IPs, sometimes in contravention of your interaction ban. Please either log into your Mclarenfan17 account, or if you lost your login details, create a new registered account clearly identifying yourself as such. And from that point forward, please ensure that you adhere to the conditions set by the Arbitration decision in the strictest possible sense. El_C00:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it is inappropriate for you to be editing from various IPs"
I understand this, but my device has a dynamic IP. I do not know how to change this; had I known, I would have taken steps to change it sooner. As very few of my edits have seen me cross paths with the other editor, I was under the impression that this was okay. 1.129.108.95 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, it isn't the end of the world. Just make sure you login from now on, each and every time you edit, and we can definitely go from there. El_C00:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C,
I noticed that you have recently put indefinite protection on several pages as part of arbitration enforcement. You also noted that the discussion regarding me "fizzled out". This is because, as I explained to you, I am on a dynamic IP. I cannot change this; I do not even know how to. I would register a new account, but last time I did that I had to request one, and that took six weeks. How am I supposed to contribute to the arbitration discussion when a) my IP is constantly changing, b) I edit from a mobile device and so do not get notifications when messages are posted to the IP talk page, and c) it takes weeks to get an account registered, but the arbitration discussion is closed within days?
Furthermore, if you read Talk:2021 World Rally Championship, you will see that the reason for the dispute has largely been resolved. The edits in question were reverted because they broke the format of a table, rendering it completely unreadable on the mobile site despite the changes being made so that the article would be more accessible. I reverted those edits to the last good version because I did not know how to fix them, but knew that a major edit would be coming within days and was concerned that it could make the problem even harder to fix. I advised other editors on the talk page of the problem with the expectation that they could find a solution. Everything that I did was in good faith. I didn't even look at who made the original edits; I looked at them and thought "this is a serious problem that I cannot fix, but if I don't do anything, it's going to create bigger problems". 1.144.105.233 (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mclarenfan17, I don't see what that has to do with the heart of the matter, which is that you continue to evade your sanction by using multiple accounts. Until you adhere to the instructions set above, you are effectively a persona non grata on the project, and efforts to deter you from making any edits will now be undertaken with extremes prejudice. El_C22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I am not trying to evade sanctions. I cannot log into my old account because I forgot the password. I tried to register a new account in the past, but that took weeks. How am I supposed to take part in the arbitration enforcement discussion process when it is closed within days? Please understand my position here - I cannot satifactorily meet all of the conditions required to participate in the procesd. If I try editing from an IP, I get accused of evasion. If I apply for an account, it takes weeks and I am accused of not taking part. I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't. Nobody has said "this is how you fix things so that you edit from a static IP" or "tell us which username you registered and we can get it approved" or "tell us which username you registered and we'll take it as a sign of good faith in the arbitration discussion because we know the process takes a while". Nobody has offered me any solution to the problem, even though I have consistently pointed out that I don't know how to fix it. And then, when I don't immediately do as instructed, I get further sanctions from the very people I just told "this is a problem and I don't know how to fix it". 1.144.105.233 (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mclarenfan17, trying or not, you continued doing so after multiple warnings. Not sure how it takes weeks to register an account. Never heard of such a thing before. But even say that's the case, however long it takes, that's how long it takes. Full stop. El_C23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm using the wrong word here. In registering an account, I specifically had to request one. I had to fill in a form with my preferred username and e-mail address, and it would be sent off to someone to review and approve. I was directed to Wikipedia:Request an account, possibly because of my dynamic IP. The first time I did it was shortly after I forgot the Mclarenfan17 password. I did not get an e-mail about it for about six weeks.
"But even say that's the case, however long it takes, that's how long it takes."
Well, my concern here is that the arbitration enforcement message was posted on the 12th. You closed the discussion on the 18th and described me as persona non grata on the project because I was not taking part in the discussions. What would you suggest that I do here? I cannot participate because I am waiting to hear back about an account, and get in trouble because I'm not participating. But if I do participate while waiting on an account, I get in trouble for circumventing the rules. By the time the account is approved, the decision has already been made.
Now, I did everything in good faith. When the issue was raised, I owned my actions. I could have ignored it and pretended it was someone else, but I didn't. The person who filed the report was clearly on a fishing trip (and had previously been told as much) - they had no concrete evidence to support their claim and ArbCom recognised that they have a history of wikilawyering, using the rules to punish editors they disagree with. I have been transparent at every step of the process, and so all I am asking is some reason to believe that if I follow the instructions of the arbitrators that I won't just have a different rule thrown at me.
So let's say for the sake of argument that I apply for a new account right now and that it takes six weeks. And in six weeks, I go straight to arbitration to deal with this. How do I know that I'm not going to be told "you had your chance to deal with this six weeks ago" and then get slapped with further santions despite following instructions to the letter? 1.144.105.203 (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mclarenfan17, sorry for the belated reply, having overlooked yours — hope you still end up reading this (soon). Anyway, I'm not going to repeat this again, so one more time: please ensure that you have one single registered account self-identified as you. Period. Again, never heard it taking six weeks-long to be authorized as being a thing (even six hours seems a bit much), but if that what it takes, then, yes, wait six weeks or however long it takes. I don't really have much more to say at this time except for this one salient point. El_C02:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I am happy to see that you took the time to respond. Truth be told, if you had not, I would have very little faith in the arbitration process because what I am asking is a simple procedural question. Unfortunately, though, you have not answered that question. I understand what you are asking of me; I really do. My concern is that I go through this entire process of requesting an account and do everything that you have asked of me - but then when the discussion resumes at Arbitration Enforcement, I get told "you had the chance to address this X weeks ago and you didn't, so you are now faced with these additional sanctions" even though that delay is through circumstances beyond my control.
I have a second question for you, one which I have held back until such time as the procedural question could be answered. But I think I would like to get an answer now because that answer will influence whether I register a new account or retire for good. I feel that the other editor involved in this has acted in bad faith. I think that some of his recent edits demonstrate an obvious agenda and that his going to Arbitration Enforcement is itself a violation of the IBAN. He was actively searching for me in various articles, but had no concrete evidence that I had been editing. I think it was clear that he was looking to have someone banned so that he could pursue his agenda, which is consistent with his previous behaviour of using ANI to make life difficult for those he disagrees with. I am not asking you to make any decision here; I am simply saying this to show you that I think I have a proveable case. My question is this: if I register a new account and make this case at Arbitration Enforcement, how can I show that this is not some tit-for-tat revenge? I have found in the past that when he is taken to ANI for his behaviour, he immediately involves his preffered admins and convinces them that there is nothing to it. I predict that the same thing would happen here, and so have little confidence in any dispute resolution or administrative process. 1.144.107.138 (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mclarenfan17, honestly, I really am not sure about either tit-for-tat optics, or about what the status of your soon-to-be (hopefully) registered account will be. I'm just one admin, and one who isn't at all familiar either with that Arbitration case or with the overall topic area. All I can tell you is that registering an account is an absolute prerequisite for any further steps toward anything (whatsoever). I also submit to you that discussing your opponent here, on my talk page, is probably not the best idea. Regards, El_C06:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided that I am not going to register a new account. From this point forward, you may consider me fully retired. My reasoning for this is simple: in the weeks after I forgot my password, I noticed that my mental health improved. In the time since I resumed editing—even on the small scale that I did it—my mental health declined. I attribute this to one person: Tvx1. Truth be told, dealing with him was always exhausting, and I am disappointed to note that many editors of WP:F1 and WP:MOTOR have adopted his tactics in their editing practice. These WikiProjects were once well-organised with dedicated editors who worked collaboratively. Now they are toxic, run by bullies who toe the line of Wikipedia policies. See, for example, this edit by Fecotank, who seems to think that if an editor has been banned at any point, then he is free to disregard any contributions that they have made regardless of whether or not those contributions had anything to do with said ban (and in this case, these contributions were made before this Arbitration case). Disagree with someone—especially Tvx1—and you will likely be referred to ANI for daring to disagree in the first place. If you raise concerns about his activities, they will run to their favourite admins and plead their case, convincing them that it is a bad-faith move by the other editor. If you propose a change that one editor does not like—even if everyone else is on-board—then be prepared for that editor to drag the discussion out and force a WP:NOCONSENSUS, preventing the change from taking hold. Case in point, in a recent discussion, Tvx1 emphasised the importance of articles complying with MOS:DTT. From the way he presents this argument, you would think it is something he is passionate about, but that article is the only article that he cares about complying with MOS:DTT. And he only started caring about it once he suspected I was active again. His agenda is obvious: he cannot stand the thought of someone being able to influence the direction of an article when that same person disagrees with him on other issues. Knowing that others take pride in their work, he aims to destroy that. He is toxic, agressive and condescending and he is almost certainly reading this (watch his contributions page and see which admin's talk page he posts to). He should have been banned years ago, but he has been very careful to observe policies. I hope that someone keeps a very close eye on him because he keeps getting away with this stuff, which has only emboldened him and dragged the community down with him. There is no collaboration within WP:F1 and WP:MOTOR anymore. Just an attitude of "we will not negotiate with terrorists", and it is solely down to his influence. I have had enough, and I know other editors have, too. He will likely take my retirement as vindication, but it is quite clear that this latest chapter started because he wanted to change a consensus. Unable to convince other editors, he instead decided to get one banned, paving the way for a new discussion. He needs to be stopped. 1.129.111.253 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mclarenfan17, I wish you a healthy state of mental health, and of course, advise that you take any and all needed steps toward that end. But I also wish for you to cease from violating your interaction ban over and over again on my talk page. That's inappropriate, even now as a seemingly final message. I hope that you no longer continue editing these pages until having secured a registered account that is self-identified as you. Full stop and deep breath (for me). I know I keep saying that like a broken record, but you still edited those pages not even two days ago, so I'm not sure I know of a way to get that salient point to resonate with you — clearly, simply repeating isn't having the desired effect, but how else can it be otherwise articulated?. Seriously, I'm at a loss. So, again, if you still have a desire to edit the topic area, please do so the right way, because any other way is just a big headache for everyone concerned, yourself included. Good luck! El_C22:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a consensus [106] of many Wikipedia users to oppose the edit Casperti just made again,[107] even though these were exactly the types of edits which got him topic banned.[108] The ANI thread confirms it.[109]
Now after coming off from the temporary topic ban, it seems that nothing has changed.
He started a DRN thread on 11 February (see WP:STICK) to dispute the same content from Pashtuns and it was speedily closed.[110] He invited only 1 editor (who didn't even participate in ANI) instead of inviting me and other 3 editors who vehemently disputed his edits to Pashtun.
He continues to misrepresent sources on that article per his recent edit. The Census link he uses mentions the number of Pushto speakers in India, but not the number of Pushtuns (Pushto speakers ≠ Pushtuns). A reliable source says that over 100,000 Pushtuns were granted Indian citizenship in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir alone and Casperti was pointed this out many times.[111] Repeating entirely same conduct that led the topic ban is surely WP:DE. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)03:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recently noticed your message on my Talk page [112].
I have neither engaged in a edit conflict, only what I did was picking up the issue we were facing 8 months ago here in the dispute resolution:
1. There was never a consensus to begin with as it was claimed in the report at least 2 editors (vs 3) in the talk page, user @Mar4d: as well. (excluding previous Talk pages of other users on this matter) did not find this source as reliable: [113]
2. The claim made in the report that user Anupam was not involved is false as you can read here in the talk page: [114], it was mainly me and Anupam discussing with each other.
3. Since we did not have consensus and this discussion is highly politically sensitive + we only needed a resolution/advise on the WP:RS. I engaged a WP:DRN here: [115]
4. I was banned 8 months ago because of my behaviour and 3RR rule violations on this matter. I was never told that I could not engage in dispute resolutions.
5. These numbers were never explained as it was claimed by the user that reported me again and why these numbers have a huge difference 3.2M claimed in the interview by a organisation head and 21,677 by the Indian census and 13,800 by the UNCHR India (non-citizens). I cannot believe that I am getting banned for resolving this issue.....
Can you please check all these markers since I have been now banned for half truths in the report on your talk page. I have not violated any rule here, I handled through a Discussion resolution board advise since this discussion had no consensus to begin with and nothing was agreed.
Please read the Resolution board for more info:[116]
This source that is being used: [117] has been marked as unreliable several times by third parties and the whole discussion is about this. Whether this source is reliable and can be used. Since when do we use Interview Quotes for population counts. We even said in the talk pages to come with ethnographic / official sources to support this 3.2M Pashtuns claim. Result? nothing except this Interview. This source is still discussed about by many editors and was also in the past. Please, Check it for yourself is this source reliable? Is any claim in an interview reliable for population counts. The resolution board was a good idea that follows WP:DR. Please check it up and let me know if I handled it okay since this discussion can go on and on while we only need an answer whether this source claiming 3.2M non-citizen Pashtuns and I only want this solve this issue since that's what wikipedia is for: using reliable sources for adding information + dispute resolution should maturely be cared for. Casperti (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casperti, there's nothing more to discuss. As Aman.kumar.goel has already pointedly stated (back on May 25): The census mentions 21,000 speakers of Pushto and Casperti is trying to equate that to 21,000 Pushtuns. Whatever comprehension problems you're having there, that isn't something to be further entertained on the project. Full stop. El_C22:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: What have I violated? Please tell me, I am seriously wondering what I did wrong. why am I banned for editing the page 1 once, only and only after an advice from the Dispute resolution board. What is the reason of my ban? You have made a mistake, I have never been banned for engaging on this topic of Pashtun numbers please check out my last ban. I was banned for my 3RR rule and "Personal attacks", I have never been banned for this "21,000 Pashtuns" reason. + you are blindly trusting the reporting user. There was never a consensus, please read that talk page again. Casperti (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casperti, the reasons for the ban are stated in AE template that announces it, as are avenues of appeal, which you have the right to pursue — though my sense is that if you were to do so so soon after the sanction was imposed (especially with your record), it is highly unlikely to succeed. Otherwise, I have nothing further to add at this time. El_C23:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:, Is this a personal attack towards me and are you judging me? What history are you talking about? That is the problem in your template there is no specific reason. I have been banned for opening a dispute resolution for 1 source..... a source that justifies a population count by quoting an interview of a famous person. I have been banned for no reason. What kind of reason is this? I have not been disruptive towards the Wiki page nor I have been disruptive in any other "Afghanistan" related pages for the past 3 months. You have banned me for using a dispute resolution. I deserve an explanation since a decent explanation is not given. I have not been disruptive to the cause neither. Could you please show me the diff for the disruption after my last topic ban. Since when is seeking a "dispute resolution" disruptive? You have neither pointed out a reason. El_C you are wrongfully accusing me and banning me. Casperti (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casperti, the diff in question is in the report. Here it is again: diff. That you were unable to parse that only reaffirms what I said about these acute comprehension problems on your part. El_C00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:I know but what is the violation? I deserve to know this. I did already knew which diff you mean, this only confirms you do not read my messages thoroughly, and straight judge/attack me. Compression problems? Imagine you get banned without any explanation/violation/disruption and then an admin says: “why can't you understand your ban”. To be on topic: What did I violate or disrupt? Did I go against a consensus? No, since there was never a consensus. Did I violate WP:RS by deleting the 3.2M source? Clearly no. Did I engage in an edit conflict? No. Did I violate the previous reason for my ban? No. I wanted an answer for the reliability of this source by a non-involving party. This whole dispute was based on 1 thing. Is this 3.2M number given in the interview reliable? Since we did not have a consensus, what is the most logical thing to do? Following steps of solving a dispute: I opened a Dispute resolution There is no rocket science that I have replaced the source by the Indian census which we use for all ethnicities of India (Punjabis, Bengalis etc). It is not my fault that the Dispute resolutions board closed this dispute in 4 hours without Anupam responding. Whether there were 100 user tagged or not the results would have been the same. @Nightenbelle:, could you confirm that indeed this dispute result was closed in 4 hours without the other party responding: [118]. Since, it was a clear case. (No rocket science) And that this source was definitely not meeting WP:RS for census information. Also I tagged the Talk pages for Nightenbelle I am pretty sure the volunteer checked those as well (again they had no consensus). I had replaced the source based on the advise but I am now getting banned for it for no valid reasons. Saying that this edit was disruptive.... while a dispute resolution board is one of the most civil way to take on problems. Anyways, El_C I have yet to see a disruption/violation in that edit I deserve an explanation so I can properly appeal. You have blindly believed the editor reporting on your talk page who accused me with straight up non-facts without any possibilities for me to react to these untruths. Be honest, you have made a mistake and cannot even come up with the violations. 03:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Casperti (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:, This was certainly not an appeal, I wanted to have answers for my appeal. You have not even provided the violation that I violated. I wanted to have an answer to my question. What violation did I violate? What did I violate or disrupt? Did I go against a consensus? No, since there was never a consensus. Did I violate WP:RS by deleting the 3.2M source? Clearly no. Did I engage in an edit conflict? No. Did I violate the previous reason for my ban? No. You are banning me without any valid reasons and then you say "Why can't you understand the ban". I want answers, something that you did not provide. Casperti (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casperti, again, as far as appealing to me here, that has been declined. As far as me explaining the nature of the sanction and the reasons behind it, that I have also attempted to explain to you here multiple times now. That you still fail to acknowledge or respond to what I said, again, isn't actually on me. But it does demonstrates to me (further still) why other participants found engaging with you so challenging. At this point, it does feel like you are misusing the appeals process and are taking advantage of the hospitality of my talk page. El_C15:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: You have not explained anything, that is why I kept asking you. Yet you have not given me the violation or disruption that I have made. I will not write to you no more on this talk page but this is clear. You have not a violation to name since I did not disrupt or violate anything. You are the one who has banned me without me violating any rules and you are expecting me to not seek answers from you. Casperti (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, Casperti, I feel like I have given you answers to the best of my ability on multiple occasions already. But as much as I keep repeating that, you do not relent. El_C16:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what in the world you expect me to say or do here. I am not an admin, I am not going to attempt to overturn an admin decision. Nor am I going to encourage them to do so when all I know of the matter is there was a DRN opened inappropriately asking if a source was reliable. The correct place for that would have been the reliable source noticeboard. IMO- the facebook source is not reliable. Now as to your past or present behavior- I have no opinion and as such I am inclined to agree with the admin, especially considering the way you have interacted with them. So... hope that clears things right up. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casperti, please stop bringing up discussion of content that is covered by your topic ban. Further such violations are likely to lead to additional sanctions. Thank you. El_C15:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And please stop bringing me into this. I had nothing to do with your ban, I have nothing to do with the RS noticeboard, and I can do nothing to reverse either. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I was going to write to Ymblanter but then I read the banner (I hope everything is ok), so I thought I would contact you. I would like to give you a report of what is happening on Navalny's article (and not only), because I consider it quite particular and of a certain gravity.
Extended content
Since February 3, I have been forced to protect the article from the removal of the controversial content of the past of this politician (approximately 6 years of documented nationalist militancy from 2007 to 2013). I started fighting with the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson and User:Nicoljaus, and now I'm continuing with User:Nicoljaus and User:My very best wishes. In particular User:My very best wishes removed with confidence a huge amount of data [119][120] (only the controversial ones, making the article a sort of LinkedIn profile, where only the positive aspects are shown), then justifying them in this way: "the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography"[121]
Here I summarize all the parts of the article that are in the process of being destroyed or that have already been destroyed:
Russo-Georgian war: Navalny's suggestions on how to manage the tensions with Georgia: arming of separatists, noflyzone and shot down Georgian airforce, deportations of all Georgian citizens - using racist insults. (source The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, Politico, RollingStone, Al Jazeera) (There is a long discussion that seems engulfed [122])
The point of view of User:My very best wishes is this one:"He is mostly known as an anti-corruption activist, and yes, involved in Russian politics in general ("smart voting"), etc. But he never was an officially registered presidential candidate, for example. Given that, his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant" So, according to his point of view, it would be "Undue weight" to bring this whole part back.
Racial slurs against georgians: The same thing happens on the article Anti-Georgian sentiment always connected with Navalny's racist insults against Georgians. Even there, the whole part is removed from the block from User: My very best wishes for "Undue focus". [123] (and luckily a user intervenes to stop the operation [124]).
Stop Feeding the Caucasus: "He endorsed a nationalist-led campaign called Stop Feeding the Caucasus to end federal subsidies to the Caucasian republics." (NYTimesREFRL)
At first he removed everything.[125] Then, when the part was restored, he removed [126] any reference to the fact that it was a campaign launched by the nationalists (as it was written on the RS)
Russian march: "He also has been a co-organizer of the 2006 Russian march. [...] In 2011, Navalny defended his attendance at the march, where BBC News reported that racist slogans were chanted, saying to reporters that the rally was an outlet for anger at the government." The source said he had only attended. But for sure he was co-organizer of the 2011 Russian march, User:My very best wishes is also a native Russian speaker, but he can't find a source that can certify it, so he prefers to remove everything. Who cares if there is also written on several RS (BBC, Der Spiegel, The Moscow Times, RFE\RL)
2013 Biryulyovo riots: "In 2013, Navalny defended riots by nationalists in a Moscow district on his blog which was sparked after a murder was blamed on a migrant." (The Nation, and then I found more RS like TIME, Deutsche Welle)
Video for NAROD 1: "He starred in several videos recorded for the NAROD movement, in one of them he compares dark-skinned Caucasus militants to cockroaches and calling for arming the population to shoot them." (The GuardianNYTimes, Financial Times)
Video for NAROD 2: "In another video for "NAROD" he is dressed as a dentist, with an on-screen caption describing him as a “fully-trained nationalist,” and compared illegal immigrants to rotten teeth that needed to be “carefully but forcibly removed” from Russia." (The GuardianPolitico)
On the issue of the two NAROD videos we have opened a discussion [127] that reached surreal levels. User:My very best wishes states that "not every sourced defamatory content about living persons belongs to WP". He is literally accusing some of the biggest newspapers of the world journalism of having produced defamatory content. I understand a little Russian, I went to see those original videos, the journalists did nothing but correctly report what they saw, without adding anything else.
The NAROD movement: Strangely another controversial issue which User:My very best wishes has removed, [128] and which was then partially restored, that is, the movement with which Navalny did the most controversial things, such as allying himself with the xenophobic racist organization called the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI). Here too, the magic word "Undue weight" pops up. To demonstrate how User:My very best wishes doesn't care about the question itself, he first begins: "There is no such organization, and apparently never was. Please give me a link to website of this organization if you think it really exists or existed.". (Here there is a long discussion about Narod movement [129]) When I gave him the link of the site, with all the activities of the movement from 01.11.2007 to 25.05.2009 [130], the answer his is "I am sorry, but this is internet garbage.".
Just to underline how User:My very best wishes doesn't care about the facts themselves, but about the protection of Navalny's reputation, he took a part of the text already inserted, where Navalny defined himself as a "democratic nationalist "and deliberately distorted the meaning of it without even reading what the source said. [131]. Since the discussion started, has started also leaving me incomprehensible (perhaps derisive) messages on my talk page, citing my first edits on Wikipedia.[132] Or by reverting [133] my old edits,[134] showing that he taken the matter a little bit too personally.
On the other user User:Nicoljaus that is backing the deletions on Navalny's article (he is not the one to implement them, I must admit this), I have some doubts about how he behave, I'm sure he is in good faith, but he seems to be defending Navalny from a political point of view, constantly talking about the Kremlin's influence on the media [135], with phrases like "The Kremlin has spent a lot of money to demonize Navalny, regarding the Georgian question" and "Despite the Kremlin's best efforts to demonize his opponent, only a few publications follows this narrative.", or accusing me of adding "bad things" on the article. These are answers given in the face of the my hard work of search for all the multiple western RS brought. Not fair in my opinion.
This looks to me like a whitewashing operation mainly carried out by a user, and backed by a user who supports Navalny. I may be wrong, but I have spent enough days in these discussions to understand that I am not facing interlocutors who want to find a way to report the info with neutrality. The topics that have been put into question are now numerous, I don't even know if I should open an RFC (I still don't know how to open those RFC) for each of these points listed. I'm afraid this thing will go on indefinitely and I can't handle it alone. My impression is that we are facing a clash of tons of RS against smoky "Undue weight" accusations everywhere.
UPDATES 15 February 2021
User:My very best wishes has started doing selfreverts,[136] for example about the Narod movement, since he read this report. Maybe it's a way to lower attention now that the alleged operation has been mapped out.
User:Nicoljaus restarted the full deletion of controversial contents (NAROD part completely removed).[137]
If I'm right, I'm asking you to help me. I invite you to check my edits, about 220 almost on Navalny's discussion [138]. I've spent days turning the web upside down searching RS, and now I'm really exhausted... I really don't have the energy left to handle this alone. If instead I'm wrong, I apologize to everyone.--Mhorg (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC) - modified 15 February[reply]
Mhorg, I'm sorry but I am unable to commit to such a significant investigation at this time. Perhaps another admin can spare the time for this, or maybe there's a noticeboard that could be of assiatnce...? Best of luck in being able to resolve the dispute amicably. Regards, El_C20:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C No problem, thanks anyway, I can understand that the issue has taken on colossal dimensions. Could you suggest me the Noticeboard that is more appropriate to leave this message? I've never released one. As for instead of contacting another admin, being the first time that I am in these disputes, I really don't know anyone else. I don't know if you can help me find one. Thanks for your patience.--Mhorg (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhorg, I'm afraid no one in particular comes to mind. As well, I'm not sure I'm able to advise on the right noticeboard because I don't really have a firm grasp about the nature of the dispute. I mean, it does fall under the WP:ARBEE topic area, so I suppose the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard could be be a good candidate, but you should note that complaints submitted there are subject to a strict word limit. Regards, El_C21:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on comments by Mhorg above and elsewhere he wants to expose nationalists. This is hardly the case because he started editing in the project from creating a large series of links to YouTube [139], such as these: [140], [141] (an example of link: [142]). These video were created by separatists (some say international terrorists) to promote their cause. The guys on these video are real nationalists, ones who actually kill people on the territory of another country. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the perfect comment that proves that the person in question is completely misunderstanding his role here on Wikipedia. Instead of collecting and showing information based on sources, it takes action of a political nature. Thanks for proving your true intentions again.--Mhorg (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tt's funny how you try to divert attention from what you were trying to do. However they are not promotional videos, they are videos directly released by the channels of the organizations. And they are used as source to establish their existence. This should be evident (or maybe I'm too optimistic).--Mhorg (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I already asked User:Robert_McClenon[143] the question of the 500 words. I still don't understand if they affect both the diffs section and the space for my answers below together. Actually, the diff part is below 500 words... but I had to answer a lot to defend myself from accusations. Speaking of wikihounding... MVBW has precisely targeted my old changes to revert them, just to annoy me. Isn't this stalking or wikihounding? Thank you.--Mhorg (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhorg, again, I didn't count, so I don't know. But to reiterate, my impression is that it is likely border-line at this point, at the very least. El_C19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, how have you been? I just took a look at my watchlist after an absence of almost two weeks, just to see that several IPs of the same range have been making disruptive edits on articles of settlements in southern Albania. Their disruption includes removal of sourced content and modifications that counter with what the used sources say. Since they are being continuously reverted by several editors, including User:Bes-ART and User:Maleschreiber, I wonder why nobody has made a report somewhere already. The IPs include [146][147][148]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi991, how have I been? Let me see. Spending inordinate amount of time translating a song — check. Writing lengthy, primordial treatise — check and check. Trying to navigate the pitfalls of "neo denialism" of the Armenian Genocide — check, check, check. Yes, it's been that kind of day. About your request: one IP blocked, the other deemed Stale, for now. Skore semi'd for 2 weeks. Now, you can draft a range block proposal (in detail), or you can request for additional pages to be protected. Up to you. El_C23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not complain, IMO your day has been amazing. It is great you do all of that work in a single day; as a lazy person I would need a week or two :P On the IP stuff, thanks a lot. If they continue, I will make a request for range protection rather than protection of that large number of articles. But lets see: tomorrow is Valentine's Day, and hopefully they will have more lovely things to do ;) Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of us had a New Year's gettogether, but we're all already pretty intertwined in each other's lives (for a number of reasons), so just a bit drunker than usual...El_C01:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs has been reported here by User:Maleschreiber days ago but it continued getting worse last couple of days. Yesterday I also reportet it for edit warring. There are at least 4 IPs with same geolocation in North Macedonia. It seems the articles might need protection but there ara too many of them, basically all southern Albanian villages, cities and counties as well. And thats not possible. So lets see how it goes.Bes-ARTTalk09:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, my car got wrecked that day, so Wikipedia (in general) wasn't exactly a top priority for me during that time period. Anyway, short of Tony having taught me about IPv6 range blocking (prompting him to then write WP:/64), the only range blocks I really otherwise impose are those ones already vetted/prepared by users whom I trust (LightandDark2000 comes to mind as an example — shoutout!). I may know my way around ACDS topics (and GS ones, too), but I'm not really that tech savvy, truth be told. El_C14:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
GPinkerton (talk·contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
GPinkerton (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Thepharoah17 (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
عمرو بن كلثوم (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Supreme Deliciousness (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.
Bold is my emphasis. What can I say? I asked and the Committee delivered, which they did with unusual expediency. So, kudos to the arbitrators for giving us this sorely needed DS for the topic area. This still newish Committee batch is proving worthy, so again, nicely done! </suckup> El_C14:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C, another autoconfirmed editor is declaring Win Myint to still be president and Aung San Suu Kyi to still be state counsellor of Myanmar, reverting past my {{uw-error2}} warning and declaring my revert to be "illegal". I'll keep reverting and have explained myself at user and article talk, but I may need your help. ― Tartan357Talk02:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, Tartan357, I am wary that just the urgent requests alone will deter my singing efforts! What to do, what to do. BTW, maybe we need to WP:ECP a few of these pages for a little while, because it doesn't seem to be working out too well to me. What do you think? (And, if so, which ones?). El_C02:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, semi-protection seems to be doing fine (this is only the second time an editor has gotten past semi-protection with such blatant fabrications), so I think ECP would be overkill at this time. I'll let you know if my position on that changes. The most disruption has been at Min Aung Hlaing, Win Myint, and Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as on the talk pages of those articles. I actually got Talk:Min Aung Hlaing semi-protected last night due to edit request spamming. What I do think would be helpful is longer semi-protection periods than I'm getting from other admins at RfPP. Disruption resumes whenever protection expires at any of these pages, and when I return to RfPP, it gets renewed, but for far too short a time period. For example, I just got the protection on President of Myanmar renewed for a second time, but it was only protected for two weeks. I also think semi-protection of 2021 Myanmar coup d'état, 2021 Myanmar protests, State Administration Council, and Min Aung Hlaing's military cabinet will end up being necessary, although I'm not confident there's been enough disruption on those pages to go to RfPP yet. ― Tartan357Talk03:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357, okay, understood. Thanks for your input from within the trenches. My thinking is that, due to their sensitive nature, those articles need to be protected for a long while (months rather than weeks), so feel free to request such protections here, whenever. El_C03:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wario-Man, I'll add that, even if I knew the urgency of this, my internet is a bit too spotty at the moment for me to risk taking administrative action that is likely to be interrupted. If this, indeed, is of an urgent nature, I recommend contacting another admin or seeking assistance at the admin noticeboard. Regards, El_C16:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was pretty sure they did know, but even if not, why not just inform them about it? Not really sure what there is for me to do about any of this at this time. El_C21:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, could you please look into the sabotage of the Arab Belt page done by GPinkerton here just hours before they are indefinitely banned? This wild POV pushing is obviously a hopeless provocation from a sinking user to launch an edit-war in an effort to sink other users with them. They even nominated the article as GA. I am staying away from it, but was hoping you could intervene given that this is a huge violation of their current post-1532 Middle East tban. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting per the section above this ("Block evasion?"), that my internet is proving a bit spotty today for me to want to engage in too intensive use of admin tools, regardless of anything. El_C21:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GPinkerton! I'll probably be accused of "bragging", but this is, what, admin branstar number 12? Always got room for more, at any rate! El_C22:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. You blocked Mdgds for a week after my report at ANI due to their repeated addition of unsourced information. It seems they waited out their block and have resumed their mass unsourced editing again. I did bring it up on their talk page but then thought you may prefer I bring it up here. Could I trouble you to cast an eye please. Robvanvee05:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, is it acceptable to put blocks of the AE requests into collapsed blocks? The issue I'm trying to illustrate is not that any single event crosses the line but the long term behavior is the problem. My concern is with fewer diffs all this looks like a small thing vs a wide spread pattern. Thanks. Springee (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, I think it's a bit of a grey area. Personally, I think it's a terrible idea, that it is GAMEy, and I'd disallow it outright, if I could. El_C14:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Atsme, that's good. But I'll stress that Hot-Dog Park needs a new warden, and you have been, erm, volunteered for that task (which is to say, conscripted!). Still super-angry, btw. Grr!El_C18:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh - volunteered like when you're in the military. Got it! I'll just pack-up a half-dozen Coney Island dogs, and start surfing Hot-Dog Park via the internet, with social distancing in mind, of course. My laptap will serve as my mask & gloves. And El C, it is time for you to be glad, not mad. Holding a grudge is like drinking poison, and waiting for the other person to die (a modernized Buddha quote that speaks to anger management). Atsme💬📧18:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Negative, Atsme, seething rage keeps me young (or something). Glad to see that you're on-board now, though. Military tribunals aren't a fun thing (well, except for me as judge, jury and Gooby-justice metter — that is fun, I admit). Now, you have your marching orders: go forth and spread the good word of Gooby to the masses, and for God's sake, keep Hot Dog Park pristine (do I even need to say or else...?). El_C18:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RE:the latter in parenthesis - YES, you do but from now on, consider El C as a one syllable word with a soft "C", then all you have to do is prepend the 4 tildes with "or" when you add your sig. Done deal. Happy editing, Or ElC! Atsme💬📧19:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, there's some material I believe needs to be said regarding the arbitration request but it's sensitive and I think it would be best if I communicated it to you personally rather than post it publicly on Wiki. Would it be possible to email you about this? Thank you Noteduck (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Noteduck, I am not available to correspond with you via email at this time. I'll also emphasize that am unable to commit to following up on the case any further. I may well do so, but I also may not. We shall see. Regards, El_C05:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kitty cries much softer now, an admin helped, please check again. Was nice to see that, returning from a hike. - My much-missed banned friend also signed Buck once, but I forgot where, and it wasn't as Waterbuck. He had so many beautiful user pages and names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Gerda (still terrified to ping!), good, happy to hear that you're happier now! (Dang, that sounded pompous!) Ah ♫memories♫ — but you know me, in the darkness I subvert. Which also seems to apply to going from spreading the gospel of Gooby to assuming the identity of Buck Flower. Also, is this an appropriate place to credit "vital contributions"? Well, I'm doing it anyway! Skeet Simpson — Foreman; Buzz Knudson — Mixer; Buck Flower — Security Guard. //END TRANSMISSION!El_C16:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ping language is difficult. Yesterday, you replied to a ping that was just for info. Today, I meant that I sent no ping, to not cause more replies. The rhythm of "no milk - today" was in my head ;) - Did you read what someone hammered softly? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now read in full. Glad to see that Hammersoft and Drmies (courtesy spam-pings) have the matter well in hand. I'll also note that their comments shed light on facets to this with which I was previously unaware. Anyway, looks like a significant outcome is all but certain, so hopefully, that will do much to alleviate tension in the topic area, which, though I am largely ignorant of, seems to revolve mostly on FS and Mathsci by way of their longstanding IBAN. Looking promising, at any rate. El_C18:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C; hey, if it were me I'd eye me with suspicion too. I mean, I always come at people with a hammer, after all :)
@Gerda; I'm not inclined to unblock Mathsci. I haven't delved fully into that side of this history, as Mathsci is after all blocked right now. But, what little I did see strikes me as concerning. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C, there's an editor, S2K-Lynx, who's been adding unsourced content, making test edits, and introducing bizarre formatting changes to articles related to the Myanmar coup for several days now. I've warned them for all of these things numerous times (they've since removed some of the warnings from their talk page), but they have not engaged me and have simply carried on editing disruptively. Can you block them? Thanks. ― Tartan357Talk03:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357, handled. But please merge any new Myanmar-related sections with the parent thread from now on — sorta getting sick of needing to keep doing that for you. Do it again and I may be forced to call upon Buck Flower, which nobody wants! El_C17:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buck Flower extends hearty thanks, Tartan357! The truth is that Buck Flower is a complicated man (who carries a big stick), with a simple hat. And, of course, as a trained security guard he has to deal with troublemakers and potential troublemakers alike. (Like those who may at some point end up neglecting their sacred Hot-Dog Park oath! Though certain recent important developments taken are a hopeful sign.) Anyway, #Cat musicians and musician-hopefuls just added minutes ago! El_C23:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do here. Rolf keeps going around in circles claiming over and over again (without providing supporting sources) that Aung San Suu Kyi is still State Counsellor: [153], [154]. They have also started employing WP:GASLIGHTING tactics; in this reply to my request for sources to support the claim she is still State Counsellor, they said there are sources describing her as "deposed", which seem to directly contradict the position they're supposedly supporting: [155]. ― Tartan357Talk21:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357, I'm reluctant to swing the AE hammer at this time, to be honest. If they want to go through the 3rd opinion motions —a role which I could be seen to have (somewhat) played, anyway, but whatever— then maybe just let them...? I sorta suspect what the outcome of that will be, but my sense is that it will likely work toward cementing the obvious, once and for all. El_C22:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has (I think) been resolved now. We agreed to change the short description from "former state counsellor" to "deposed state counsellor", without agreeing on whether some sources still say she's state counsellor. Rolf agreed to leaving the infobox as-is. I have not agreed to changing the FAQ, but it's unclear if they still want that. I think the 3O people are pretty strict on only responding to disputes involving two editors, so we decided to take any further disagreement to BLPN. ― Tartan357Talk20:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, sorry to bring this here, but ANI has been locked, so I can't respond there [158]. The issue seems to be over what steps can and should be taken to protect the articles, given that the promotional/copyright issues are slow-moving and long-term. I don't know what alternatives are at your discretion re: level and length of protection; as well, each article has experienced different amounts of disruption.-Mr. Harris' bio was one of the more egregious promotional pieces I'd seen, all the more so for having sat relatively fallow for so long. Your thoughts welcome, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I'm not quite sure what to do at this point, though I suppose lengthy semiprotections for these pages would be the intutive next step. But my concern is that with the long-term nature of these advocacy efforts, these various accounts may well end up easily reaching autoconfirmed status. Perhaps WP:ECP will eventually be needed, then (especially when involving living persons), but I guess we gotta start somewhere... El_C19:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get that there's no simple bandage for this. Whatever makes the best sense to you. I can keep an eye on the articles, but eventually they will fall off my radar, and it's a good bet that the issue will outlive my time here. One expects Mr. Harris' proxies to be locked in on this for at least another decade....on a separate note, thanks for helping out with Silver1500 (talk·contribs). I can not tell if they're genuinely incompetent with the language, or messing with us. The request for unblock was so incomprehensibly fractured as to raise suspicions. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that it's relatively inactive; my guess is that the accounts that pop up periodically come from interns or public relations folk at the filmmaking offices associated with the younger Mr. Harris' endeavors. They're not so interested in the father's bio. Probably that can be left alone for now. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copy that, IP. Feel free to update me with any new developments. Maybe, somehow, we'd be able to nip this in the bud, after all. El_C01:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, since you're aware of the situation about the lab leak i'd like if you could TBAN me from Covid stuff so that the thread at WP:ANI can stop. I'm reacting very badly to their comments and it's starting to affect me irl. It's just too much at this point. They're just commenting about me and slandering my (yes limited) contributions and they don't seem to answer my questions. Thank you. Feynstein (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to do with him anymore, I am desperate. He is removing descriptions, lying only a medal must be in the description but these are fighters. .karellian-24 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Toddst1. My sense is that this isn't as immediatey intutive as it was with the first block, so, sorry, as the notice at the bottom of my talk pages indicates, I'm not really accepting any new requests of note here right now (which is to say, rarely, at most). Maybe try WP:ANI...? Best, El_C21:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, EdJohnston, but I rarely, if ever, have discussions archive-closed on my talk page. To the best of my recollection, I have not even done so once, ever. El_C00:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casperti, good, glad to hear that. Yes, you may trim as you see fit. If you want to go for best recordkeeping practices, I'd maybe also note the removal with a diff, but that's totally up to you. Regards, El_C21:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had a question about 1RR restrictions for pages. The pages I am specifically concerned with are Uyghur genocide and Slavery. How does an editor request that a 1RR restriction be placed on a page? I have no experience on this, so this might not even be possible (or advisable). I always appreciate your counsel.
Hey, yes, doing well, thanks for asking. Hope you are, too. In answer to your question: neither of these pages fall under either community (GS) or Arbitration Committee (DS) -covered topic areas, so this has to be a community sanction/s raised at WP:AN, which I suspect you may face difficulties accomplishing jointly. Yours, El_C21:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is editing against a talk page consensus a "content issue" or is it something that can be raised at AE in a topic covered by discretionary sanctions? nableezy - 21:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy if its the page I put under Consensus required, then it would just be a straight sanction violation — though I should caution you that in other CR cases (all of which were WP:AP2), admins at AE had difficulties with it (likewise with EBRD, too, so both beyond-1RR enhancements, to be fair), with it not usually exceeding a warning (logged or otherwise). Possibly, there were other cases involving CR (or EBRD), which I simply am unfamiliar with, who ended with a different outcome... But who knows. Anyway, if it isn't that page, thereby CR not being in effect, I suppose it would really fall down to the details of the incident/s in question and accompanying context/s. El_C21:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not, it is simply editing against a talk page consensus. Editor removes source a. Somebody else restores. 4 other editors agree that the source should stay, with just the lone dissenter. Editor removes source a, again. Is that disruptive or tendentious editing, or would I be wasting my time? nableezy - 21:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, again, without the details... But, sure, from that, it does sounds like you probably have something actionable there. 22:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Just for the record. I probably annoyed Nableezy there by reverting his revert. I didn't even trouble to check the technical reason for his scruple. I know the talk situation, and saw a revert that violated a clear consensus, and restored it. I see now on my page an insinuation that I might have coordinated that revert of Nableezy with him (making him look like a sneaky prick) No, I don't play games like that. Nableezy is a technical fiend in my book - pedantically ruled-obsessive, and, on things like this, loses me. If you, El C, think I should self-revert (to me that is to yield to blustering) I'll of course do so. Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, well, at least I know what the article in question is now (secret revealed!); maybe I'll call you two the pedant and the (lovable) rogue, so there! El_C15:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That adds up to a a diarchic regime, and history teaches me that, in times of conflict, rather than face the common enemy, the two protagonists will fall out in rivalry and try and kill each other (Imagining a Nableezy vs Nishidani or vice versa AE report!). Well the curse says may we live in interesting times, so I can live with that,- treading on tenterhooks does improve one's dancing on aged pins,- as the Chinese would say, as one of two barking pups trying to be top dog in an age of chaos. Cheers!Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess...? But it still assumed omniscience on my part. How can I know what I don't know? Why such egregious comments weren't reported, frankly, puzzles me. Maybe they were and I missed them, somehow...? If so, I would apologize profusely, but I just don't think that's something I would overlook. Who knows, though. The attack is question is approaching a year, after all. And, let me warn you that humor on this page is now the exclusive domain of one Buck Flower (security guard), and he can get... a little aggressive. El_C02:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you say, but based on what evidence that I am able to verify? I don't even remember much of the context, to be honest. So, yeah, I don't like that. El_C02:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, confirming. Briefly glanced at the diffs you've provided during the July 8 and July 30 discussions on my talk page (archives 18 and 19, respectively) and there was no mention of that attack. El_C02:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it was posted near the end of April. Then removed, apparently, and not archived. But I most certainly posted it.
P.S. I also posted it to GS's Talk in July, so don't beat yourself up about it. Newimpartial (talk)
Newimpartial, that is incorrect. You made 4 edits to my talk page back in April. Here they are: 123 and 4 (continuous three edits). I submit to you that it isn't mentioned there. And everything was archived normally, as is standard practice here. El_C04:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which, frankly, is puzzling, seeing that it happened only 4 days prior, and considering that nearly all the diffs you did cite (and there were a few) were to the page in which the attack was made. I can't explain it. But I looked for Bilorv's diff specifically, and it just isn't there. El_C04:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, it is not "the relevant one" because it doesn't say that. Here is a File:April-TP.jpg|screenshot of the revision history. All the diffs were accounted for by me above (though I seem to have maybe accidentally doubled one). Anyway, again, it doesn't say that. Quote the pertinent passage if you are able.El_C04:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This diff says I simply stated (accurately) that it this term (cis) is not considered a personal attack on WP, unlike such other terms as "misogynist" and accusations of "smacking a woman into place", which you have lobbed at me repeatedly. It is true that the relevant diff (this one) was provided in the previous comment I added to your Talk page. Rest assured that I did not separate the quote from the diff when I posted to GS in early July, FWIW. Newimpartial (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Jeez, Newimpartial, you are taxing me today.] Anyway, now I realize what happened. You did say that (being labeled a "misogynist," etc.), but you did not support it with a diff, which is all I was looking for a few minutes ago. Anyway, so, on 21:09, 19 April 2020, Lilipo25 removes the entire section along with everyone's comments (!), before I got a chance to read your "relevant" comment. I almost certainly didn't notice either of these changes, just because my talk page is, well, super-busy. Like, I had to go with a 25,000 edit range (which takes like 30 seconds to load) just to get to April 2020! Or, put another way, there have been hundreds of edits to my talk page this week alone, even with the notice at the bottom of my talk page that's meant to deter the sheer volume of these. El_C05:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I had provided that diff in my preceding comment and, in my naïveté, I probably assumed that you would have checked it out when you read the exchange. Rest assured, I am older and wiser now. :). Newimpartial (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, just for my own sanity, could you please just quote yourself mentioning that diff (in plain text)? Because I ctrl-f'd the diff number and it did not show up. Possibly, just technical incompetence on my part a few minutes ago, but if you could do that for me, I'd appreciate that (otherwise, it's just gonna bug me). El_C05:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see it. It is this diff, which has different numbers altohether. Well, I can't explain it. But I can't explain how any of this shit works, anyway.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C05:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no tech whiz either, but I know that there are two different formats for diffs, and I often use the "wrong" one (not on purpose). As long as the link works, I'm happy. Newimpartial (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, in conclusion: if you go forward from the point you cited that diff (here) all the way until Llilipo25 went on to remove everything (here), you'll see that I simply wasn't around to notice any of it happening. And that's that. El_C05:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To emphasize, I simply wasn't around from the first point that Lilipo25 posted their initial April complaint (here) all the way until she removed the entire section (here). The whole exchange, and its removal, happened during my absence. El_C06:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can't believe that a few hours ago I said: Also, no luck required. Doing nothing is a breeze (diff). That shows me to test the gods of chance... El_C07:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, IP! I really appreciate it. Also, thank you for all of your hard work. I see you! Stay anonymous, my friend. (Well, I'm anonymous, too, but you're even anonymous-er.) All the best, El_C05:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per [165]. When I was young, many years ago, I was walking on Gun Hill Road in the Bronx, when an old man passed by. My memory is that he was shirtless (though that may be a romantic embellishment provided by time), laughing to himself, and announcing, "I'm the old sea captain!" So I mean, why not? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Always shirtless over here, btw. Yeah, that's right, IP, and an upward trajectory from there is sure to follow! PS: RE: "upward trajectory" — because what could be better for one's wiki-prospects than to clumsily block a sitting arb and an Admiral? Going places over here! PSS: Also adding ping of annoyance, just to even the odds a bit more in my favour. El_C20:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SR, just as a follow up, because I think you missed it, but I did actually soften that statement a few minutes later in the interest of accuracy. Anyway, hope you get to see this. //Salsa dance!El_C18:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that I did find that Lilipo25 had, in fact, lived up to that informal prohibition after I explained it to her in those terms (expressly so), as I also noted soon thereafter (diff). Finally, the conclusion to that entire ordeal, along with some twists and turns, may be gleaned on with my recent statement a few hours ago (permanent link). El_C18:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, SR! Oh, how I wish I was a member of Batucada Amazonas (YouTube Channel, which, ouch, only has 30 subscribers? That's a crying shame.) Man, would love to party with them! Anyway, that is actually Tomer Raz, the group's founder, who is super-into the whistle, which I love.//A taste!El_C23:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please replace Mika's copy of her suggested text, which you deleted from my talk page, or at least replace her surrounding message. Thank you. PamD18:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PamD, replace with what? I'm not sure I understand. But regardless, it's your talk page, absent copyvio concerns, you may adjust anything as you see fit. Regards, El_C19:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, hope you're fine. I just noticed what is written on the bottom, however, I wanted to ask your opinion and advice on an issue (I waited even two weeks to come up, since I have been as well very busy after a strained period, which lasts still :( )...I listened a few of the musics offered....please tell me when I may have your attention, or when I should return...at least I hope with you everything is ok!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Heya, the postman always ring the bell twice also here :D. There has been a discussion which has been closed, but I debate the result and the conduct, which has been a blatant witch-hunt and violation of several conduct and good faith, but the most concerning is the outcome is as well semantically erroneus. Your time would be consumed of reading that discussion, and after opining and advicing me here what to do. Of course, it you don't have time now, I am willing to wait any long (I don't think there is a rule that a closed discussion may be challenged only within a time).(KIENGIR (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I think it is not long in regular WP terms, especially compared to almost online chat-like ANI threads or a one-time "Polish-round"....([166]), here you may overview in blue, as an approximation. But again, you don't need to rush, if you say let's return later (even weeks), no problem. I honestly need your calm and sharp vision and understanding, because I get very disappointed and sad, so I reinforce I am willing to wait for you, any time.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Flattery will get you everywhere! Honestly, I don't really envision returning to the usual grind in merely weeks —and I've been at semi-grind for a while now, anyway (haven't even loaded my watchlist once in, like, 3 months)— but remind me in, say, a week or so, because this week I really am trying (trying!) to take it easy, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. El_C15:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your kind words at least it gives me power to withstand. Have a nice time, will return as you outlined. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hi El C, hope you're well. I would like to ask you if it is possible to semi-protect the Tayna article, there have been several IPs making disruptive edits in the last months. I would welcome your response, thanks!--Lorik17 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned user was TBANed by you under AA2 sanctions, and has since edited in Articles in the area that he was sanctioned [167][168] (I tried to provide ordinary diff instead of mobile diffs). I think that he didn't understand the "Broadly construed" part of the sanction, he might need a bit of guidance on this. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not really taking new requests here, as noted below.
Second, even if I were, just linking to that user's many, many contributions (today alone), isn't enough for anything. Always cite the actual diff in question. I'm not gonna go through their, like, what?—500 or so edits in the last 24 hours, just to find the one which has that Romania de/link (I wouldn't even go through 50; maybe 5). I submit to you that you're asking too much with a request this poorly-documented.
Third, RC's answer is probably right, though (if I were to simply guess, just by having picked a diff at random).
Ok, sorry. Thank you very much! I have corrected and he seems to make the same mistake over and over again. Is it normal not to allow any link? The user Biruitorul also re-edited the contributions of MB. And most of his edits were against Romania only. Look at this also, no more link to the country of Egypt? Lake Manzala, in the article. .karellian-24 (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to ask if you could help with a repeat vandalism on Somalia, previously you gave the same user a 48 hour ban for removing sources. They are doing the same thing again, I have reverted back to the official source for the time being.
Hurbad, that edit doesn't seem like vandalism to me (per WP:NOTVAND), but a content dispute that ought to be resolved on the article talk page. Unless a related consensus regarding this was already reached recently, then, indeed, it would be problematic, and possibly, a cause for further sanctions. El_C17:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed spoke about this in the TalkPage and the Talk page of the User but I got no response on the Somalia TalkPage and The user's talkpage was deleted as a whole. I do not understand why? but I will try again. I assumed it would count as repeat vandalism as the previous ban was related to this. I will try building consensus again and see. Will keep you informed if he/she starts to delete sources again. Thank you for your time Hurbad (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I had wanted to start a conflict of interest discussion about Tenebrae, I would not have since I have been told that the Arbitration Committee is looking into it. Although my question was prompted by the accusations against Tenebrae, it was, as I clearly said, a general question. I have no idea why you would want to mention Tenebrae in that context. You pretty much said "It's Tenebrae who did all that bad stuff mentioned earlier". What were you thinking? Mo Billings (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mo Billings, it's on the record and is obvious enough that no pretense is warranted. Such is my assessment as an uninvolved admin. If members of the Committee feel that calling attention to it was inappropriate, of course, I'll take note. But, otherwise, I felt that full transparency was the best approach. Why you couldn't wait with that query until the Committee concludes their investigation (which I get the sense will be soonish), is what puzzles me, in fact. But it is what it is. So, maybe take a step back from all this, for now...? (Excluding, of course, your own investigation and/or private communication with the Committee, if applicable.) El_C18:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if Tenebrae did what they are accused of doing, using their employer's publication over another choice of source is hardly worth mentioning. It wasn't a question about him. It was a question about the general case which ocured to me in the context of those allegations. I posed the question because I didn't know the answer. I don't think it's entirely ethical but it is understandable that a print or web journalist might use their own newspaper or website as a source. Does that rise to a conflict of interest, though? As you say, I probably should have waited. As for taking a step back, that might be difficult. Mo Billings (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, probably should have. And, really, nothing prevents you from taking a break from this on-wiki starting now, again, at least until the Committee concludes their investigation. El_C18:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there El C - per WP:OUT, I really think you should redact the username you posted in COIN - doing so makes it very easy to find the article that links a person to that username. Without the username being posted, the description in the original COIN post is generic enough that it would be quite difficult to find the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BubbaJoe123456, I don't think that, with everything that already happened and that is still happening, for a specialized venue like COIN (i.e. regular patrollers therein), this actually counts as OUTING, as I've also noted above. The real on-wiki exposure, anyway, would come from the addition of that news piece to the article talk pages of Frank Lovece (diff) and Maitland McDonagh (diff). But COIN? Meh. That said, if you feel that strongly about it, feel free to {{redact}} my comment as you see fit, with the added note that I've given my permission to do so. But, again, though I don't mind, I don't think it's really needed. The genie has long left the bottle, is my read of things. El_C15:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We both semi-protected ANI, within 1 second of each other, and both for 6 hours (which isn't a dropdown default). Great minds think alike (or summat like that, I forget). Black Kite (talk)01:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a social website, we moderators agreed that (bar a rare sighting of Trollus jocosus, a threatened species) we could always be funnier than trolls. The site had an age limit of 13, but required an explicit admission of age before we could take action. One annoying but not sanctionable user, to emphasise how obvious his political points were, started signing his posts "six-year-old boy". Who was I to argue? Narky Blert (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert, for sure, it can serve as a great canvass for comedy. And when the gods of chance throw us an extra bone or even a double (like in the exchange with Black Kite above), it's pure bliss. El_C23:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you semi protected Pop Smoke's article back in September 2020. It looks like it expires in a few hours. I think you should semi protect it again as he has new music and his debut posthumous acting for Boogie is out in the United States now. [169][170][171]The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mind extending the protection a wee bit (there's a posthumous film the subject is involved in, at least until then, and then maybe a bit more). The subject recently died, and an editor on talk page has reasonable concerns that it might get IP vandalism and infobox warring, so... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing double here — four Pop Smokes! Anyway, sorry, The Ultimate Boss and RandomCanadian. I'm not sure I view this as a candidate for preemptive protection (WP:ARBBLP-wise). I don't know that this has the hallmarks of partisanship and/or fringe. So, any influx may well turn out at least okayish. I don't feel I'm in the position to decide otherwise at this time. Also, noting that it has been, like, 10 hours and there has been only one edit, and it was from Uncle Sandstein (no ping of annoyance — afraid). El_C14:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way you can semi-protect Pop Smoke's article indefinitely? Savh and HondaGang had to revert 81.33.96.99 over three times for vandalizing his article. I'm not going to let a bunch of troll accounts and IP addresses ruin Pop Smoke's article with their stupid crap. It is going to be a pain in the butt to have to revert these trolls who vandalize a deceased rapper's article every day. If you or another admin could please semi-protect his article, that would be amazing. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Ultimate Boss, no, not at this time. Not even a temporary protection right now. There's only one IP, which until now only the bot has warned (blue), but now I also have (red). One disruptive user is not enough to justify shutting the article from all other non-confirmed accounts. If they keep it up, they will be blocked. If additional disruption from other non-confirmed accounts occurs, then a temporary semiprotection may be in order. El_C22:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the article history now. Troll accounts and IP are vandalizing even more! Now put that Pop Smoke was born in Canada... Pop Smoke is American not Canadian. 00:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi EI C, hope you are doing well! There is a problem on the Croatisation. Now there is an edit war there. The banned puppet account added pov content and as you can see here they have an agenda against Croats. Your inout on this situation would be welcomed. I usually see the same editors defending puppet edits mass wipe edits by other sock accounts that get blocked ignore whatever the content is. Much appropriate. OyMosby (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for locking but the latest edit restored the blocked socks additions. Could you revert to stable before Booth sock?OyMosby (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On another page There is also a pupoet IP solely removing info they don’t like on the Bleiburg Reparations Page page referring to Chetnik Genocidal atrocities and numbers as “ranting”. I’m beyond words. Also deleted Reliable sources while complaints of “not sourced” caims even though they are. Please take a look. Thank you. OyMosby (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, OyMosby. Doing well, thanks. But sorry, as the notice at the bottom of my talk page states, I'm not really accpeting new requests at this time. So, you should probably turn to another admin or a noticeboard if the problem is acute. Now, I've fully protected the article for one week, just to put an end to today's edit warring (I counted like a dozen reverts), but I'm probably unlikely to follow up on that. Good luck! El_C22:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not really wrong version so much as it’s all sourced by an initial sockpuppet. This isn’t a disagreement between two editors. Isn’t it normal to do “cleanup” after the puppet is banned? I respect your views however! OyMosby (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the socking, itself, is something that you will need to demonstrate elsewhere, like on a noticeboard or at WP:SPI. Again, it's doubtful I'll be following up on this in the immediate future. El_C22:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually seeing established editors who also reverting to that version, so I disagree that WRONGVERSION doesn't apply. But feel free to convince another uninvolved admin to revert the fully-protected page back to your version. I have no objection to such action. El_C23:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vacant0 agreed to go back from his last edit.. He is an established editor. Not sure what you mean? Both of us consented to going back to my revert but being the page is locked we cant. Just wanted to make sure you were aware he isn’t against it. However I respect you decision. Take care and thanks again for stepping in! Stay well. OyMosby (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if the last good edit can be restored on the page so that we can discuss the edits made by the person that got banned for sockpuppeting. I primarily wanted to fix the article after I undid the edit which I later did but I would prefer if we can settle this down first before implementing these changes to the article. Vacant0 (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Vacant0: for helping to explain. Your edit is pretty good but I think needs further analysis. Hopefully El C agrees to do the change. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are ine of the few editors on here I trust and see try to make things better in these battleground areas of Wikipedia, @Vacant0:. Glad you are here. :) OyMosby (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for WP:REVDELing those IP edits. I thought of requesting it, but couldn't remember the right criteria offhand. I also hate giving people an excuse to cry "censorship". But calling people "feminazis" obviously has no place on WP. Good call. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C I hope you're good. I just wanted to ask if you could help with repeated vandalism on Anxhela Peristeri. There are few editors [173][174][175][176] who try to add inaccurate and false informations related to the origin of the singer. This inaccuracy was taken from an interview here [177] during which she did not confirmed that however, there are also no reliable Albanian sources who discusses her "Greek" origin. Thank you!--Lorik17 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, thanks for your comment. I agree with you completely, but if - as in this case, which I think is crystal clear - the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, the underlying problem is that these are not applied from the start. I, who belongs to neither the Capulets nor the Montagues, (my only fault is having a page on my watchlist) :-) contacted an administrator a few hours before someone else opened a thread at AN/I against the same user, but all I got was a notice about discretionary sanction on my discussion page. 16:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. I only replied here because I don't want the thread in question to double in length again. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro57 (talk • contribs)
Hi, Alessandro57. Sorry, what is this in refernce to? I've made a number of similar comments at ANI about this recently (and many times prior in the long-term, as a perennial problem). El_C16:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A number? Oh-oh...in this case we have a problem. :-) He is Leechjoel9. In any case, me too, a (minor) contributor to the thread, have been wondering for a few days who would have the courage to read such a thing. The user in question, among his many virtues, evidently also possesses the ability to throw everything into a mess. (Literal translation of "buttare in caciara", Roman expression describing the tactic of creating a mess to make people forget the original problem. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamy Jazz, just putting it out there for the Clerks team: maybe there should be an WP:ARCA archive...? Because I've been struggling, at times, to find certain requests to cite for this and that. Thanks! El_C19:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of those edits are disruptive, as Serbian is recognised by the Montenegrin constitution and it the language spoken by the absolute majority in the country (see Demographics of Montenegro). It is going to be hard to go through all of those edits and see which are acceptable. I'm happy to help. cheers, Sadkσ(talk is cheap)23:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The account didn't change Montenegrin Cyrillic to Cyrillic as we've done some times to stop disputes or add Serbian to settlements where at least a substantial population consider themselves Serbian, they specifically removed Montenegrin from every article and replaced it with Serbian because they consider Montenegrin to be an invented language.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, there is no good solution for his edits. His comment is factually correct (it started to be determined as a separate language in the 90s, with some theories being introduced several decades before that) and it was not "recognised" by Wikipedia as eligible for an encyclopedia of its own), but with an unfortunate wording which is not neutral nor okay. I am not sure how to proceed. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)01:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not his fault really; you are giving enough good contributions to this project that your tp has become a special authority within Wikipedia. I have the impression that the number of discussions opened here daily rivals the number opened daily at ANI. Or is near that, at least. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, not flattery at all. You are really giving many contributions to the project. I just took at your editing history; you are contributing more hours than I stay awake every day. lol Being lazy while admiring hardworking people has always been my weak side. hehe Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C, I see that you've p-blocked Soyoko for two weeks. While I sort of understand, I also just wanted to note that I don't think a pblock is completely appropriate given the admin who left a final warning is also calling for an outright block. I also don't think two weeks is going to give them the necessary perspective and their disruption isn't completely limited to mainspace. Would you be willing to reconsider this? I get the impression that the pblock is not so much a "while under discussion" block based on the wording but if it is, please let me know. CUPIDICAE💕13:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prax, definitely open to reconsider extending the length further, but my immediate sense (only) was that getting them off of the mainspace would address the crux of the issues. But if that isn't the case, then a sitewide block would also be on the table. In other words, nothing is set in stone here. El_C13:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have mixed feelings on this like I thought I would. I do think that something more than a 2 week pblock is warranted. Could you add some wording to the ANI thread that it isn't meant to stop the discussion? (ie. a block is still on the table) As Ferret and others noted, they just dive into any area they feel like on any given day, as evidenced by their request at AFC/P, the RFA despite being told pretty much in no uncertain terms it's a bad idea, etc...CUPIDICAE💕14:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but just strange that an IP address would revert something like that after I got topic banned? The warning was given by Boud but an unrelated IP address reverts after my topic ban?Clownshking (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
maybe the IP address wanted to make sure the warning was visible to an uninvolved admin? I think there a link between this IP address and those who wanted a topic ban or block even if they stated otherwise?Clownshking (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
well that isn’t the only account I suspect. Can’t I still do an SPI just so Sockpuppets will be kicked out? How so if a user can be proven to be sock wouldn’t Wikipedia still block them?Clownshking (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me wp:undue issue in Jovan Rašković article. I have two sources[179] which say that mother of Jovan Rašković is Croat and father was judge in NDH. Can I do something to prevent wp:undue issue? Or for some reason such information should not be included in the article, maybe this information is not important or more sources for confirmation is needed? I don't understand entirely that rule, so explain to me in more detail if you have time. What exactly undue problem means in this case? Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are on vacation(now I have seen the last notification), but if you don't have time recommend someone to me who could explain this issue or if exist some noticeboard section for such questions. Mikola22 (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mikola22, as the notice at the bottom of my talk page says, I'm not accepting new requests at this time (the reasons are my own). As for recommendations, I don't really know. Possibly, WP:NPOVN...? El_C11:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, thanks for semi-protecting the Emraan Hashmi article and for deleting the BLP violations! I noticed that the article was pending changes protected when I edited and my edits were caught up in it until a bot had to approve my edits. Could I request the Pending changes reviewer rights to avoid this in the future pleae? (Some articles I've come across during RCP are also pending changes protected so this permission would help a lot too). Thanks! Some1 (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That said, B. M. L. Peters, I have a notice at the bottom of this talk page (in extra-large font) that expressly says that, for the time being, I will not be accepting any new requests. So, while that notice remains, please use WP:RFPP or any other relevant venues. El_C02:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C, I just applied a DS sanction here in response to this edit (exacerbated by the others around it), and logged it here. This is the first time I've applied a DS sanction - would you be willing to check that I've completed all the paperwork correctly? Cheers GirthSummit (blether)11:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Yeah, for sure, looks good. I usually add a WP:BROADLY in there, too, mostly as a sort of emphasis. Oh, and you should log that AE block for the sanction violation, as well, (as an indent to your original bullet point). HTH! Best, El_C13:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no un-logging. AEL serves as a permanent list for all recorded AE actions taken, so everything stays. El_C14:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, GS, just noticed this: you should not be closing requests at WP:ARCA (or any arbitration pages). That is the exclusive domain of the arbitrators and clerks. El_C14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, G — I'll take that save! (And hold onto it for dear life!) For sure, glad I could help (until I went to visit outer space, at least). El_C15:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A sentiment echoed by many, I'm sure, myself included. Hopefully, everything will end up getting resolved amicably on that front, somehow, and that this, too, shall pass. El_C17:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know who else I really miss, Gerda, though it has been a long, long time? Phaedriel. Wherever she is, I hope she's doing well and doing good, as is her nature. El_C23:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phadriel was the inspiration for the Precious, - much better: with a matching image and poem for each recipient. Click on yours, and scroll down to the bottom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that makes sense now that I think about it. The image for the award she gave me no longer exists, but I remember what it was — a shining star. El_C23:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, but today my music is this - I watched the live stream and loved it, and it's still available - more on my talk, which includes my first DYK ever --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Girth. I appreciate you letting me know about this ARCA — super-helpful seeing as I've been operating watchlist-lessly for a few months now. Anyway, important ARCA. Kudos for taking the initiative to draft it, and draft it in the way that you did. I've commented there already (ping attached). Best, El_C16:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know the pain of the non-functional watchlist - I'm at something like 25K thanks to CV stuff. Now that temporary watchlists are a thing, I've been intending to get round to deleting mine completely and then just permanently adding pages I actually want to watch. Haven't quite found the time yet though...
Anyway, thanks for the kind words about the request - it's the first time I've attempted to raise anything arb-related, I don't really know the etiquette so nice to know it wasn't a complete disaster! Cheers GirthSummit (blether)16:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So long as you don't close those Arbitration requests yourself! Wait, who am I talkingG to, again? Just checked: I'm currently at 99,771. Don't get me wrong, I love my watchlist (though many items fall through the cracks when the usual duration you set for viewing it is one hour!), but only when I have the time and/or inclination to patrol it! El_C16:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is watchlist envy a thing? Reminds me of a limerick by W H Auden:
Community guideline, which still has seen some ArbCom-related rulings. Very poor documentation about how it was established, though, which both WP:MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS do a spectacularly poor job in explaining outlining with any detail (whatsoever). El_C17:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I hope you’re doing well. Would it be convenient for you to briefly explain to me something about the ban on Balkans topic area? May I edit articles for the 2020 Summer Olympics, Eurovision Song Contest 2021, 93rd Academy Awards, 2021 ATP Tour etc? These events undoubtedly have participants from the Balkans, but by strict definition they do not belong to Balkans pages. Especially, am I allowed to update the results and other data on participants from the Balkans? Does the ban apply to Novak Djokovic career statistics and other non-political Balkans individuals (sports, culture, science)? Of course, I understand that I should not get involved in disputes about ethnic origin, controversial parts, etc. I'm thinking specifically of undisputed sports results, festival awards, etc. Could you please clarify this for me? I'd appreciate your reply. Best regards. --WEBDuB (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the ban is still somewhat recent, so I'm wary of there being a sliperry slope. Also, the ban isn't just about Balkans-specific pages, but also about any Balkans-related content (whatsoever). Pragmatically, I suppose simple and verifiable additions to song contests are okayish, but nothing else is, really. No sports, no sciences, no culture, no biographies. And no further such requests, please. I don't want to make this into a thing, for a number of reasons, some of which go beyond the scope of this. Anyway, I hope I won't end up regertting this allowance. El_C16:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking your time, I respect your position very much. This was not a request, but a question. There is no cause for concern. I'm reasonable and always ready to cooperate. I will not bother you further with similar things. I wish you all the best. Kind regards.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unfamiliar with the wonder of goats, I suggest the video: Are goats OP? Recently the general public has come to recognize the wonder of goats, with GOAT serving as a backronym for "Greatest Of All Time". Unfortunately, society still has a ways to go in recognizing the contributions of our caprine symbiotes. Like goats, your work here is important but underappreciated. Our sanctions regimes are functional largely because of your work to enforce them, and despite the flak you receive, your work is truly appreciated. Perhaps the "C" in "El_C" stands for "Caprine", and you were a goat all along? Either way, enjoy the new lawn mower accompanying goat!
Now that my IBAN partner has left Wikipedia, and then been indef blocked and had TPA revoked for NOTHERE behaviour - including personal attacks in violation of the IBAN - I would ask that the IBAN between us be voided. That would allow me to edit certain pages without going into convolutions about their edit histories. If the editor in question is unblocked for some reason, I will consider myself under a voluntary 1-way IBAN while awaiting further developments, but given the circumstances of the indef, I do not see this scenario as likely. Anyway, you could just let me know here, at your leisure, what you decide. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, hope you're fine. I just noticed what is written on the bottom, however, I wanted to ask your opinion and advice on an issue (I waited even two weeks to come up, since I have been as well very busy after a strained period, which lasts still :( )...I listened a few of the musics offered....please tell me when I may have your attention, or when I should return...at least I hope with you everything is ok!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Heya, the postman always ring the bell twice also here :D. There has been a discussion which has been closed, but I debate the result and the conduct, which has been a blatant witch-hunt and violation of several conduct and good faith, but the most concerning is the outcome is as well semantically erroneus. Your time would be consumed of reading that discussion, and after opining and advicing me here what to do. Of course, it you don't have time now, I am willing to wait any long (I don't think there is a rule that a closed discussion may be challenged only within a time).(KIENGIR (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I think it is not long in regular WP terms, especially compared to almost online chat-like ANI threads or a one-time "Polish-round"....([180]), here you may overview in blue, as an approximation. But again, you don't need to rush, if you say let's return later (even weeks), no problem. I honestly need your calm and sharp vision and understanding, because I get very disappointed and sad, so I reinforce I am willing to wait for you, any time.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Flattery will get you everywhere! Honestly, I don't really envision returning to the usual grind in merely weeks —and I've been at semi-grind for a while now, anyway (haven't even loaded my watchlist once in, like, 3 months)— but remind me in, say, a week or so, because this week I really am trying (trying!) to take it easy, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. El_C15:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your kind words at least it gives me power to withstand. Have a nice time, will return as you outlined. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
No, Commander, Miranda may be upon discussion if we completed our mission :-) So I'd be happy if you'd read the blue box, tell your opinion and upon changing our ideas...(we will have time until the Reapers don't come and a new cycle won't start...)(KIENGIR (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Okay, I'm not sure I can handle this turning into a Gerda-level Riddle Mastering... Because, incompetent.El_C21:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's turn more serious then (however, the music is very good, you deserved in return), the diff is above, please read the case (blue box meant that, as a closed discussion).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks, glad you like! I've mostly fond memories of the Mass Effect series, so that brings me back. Anyway, yes, in all seriousness, and having already been aware of "Virginia" discussion a while back, I don't understand what it is that you're asking of me here. Probably best to spell it out at this point... El_C02:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Thanks, I did not know you already read it, I thought you would add a preliminary opinion, but ok, I'll spell out then my problem (or better I summarize since it should seem obvious). Well, I just noticed they will renew the trilogy, with the most advanced graphics, correcting bugs, and to convert the first parts control system akin the second one...although would be happy if Andromeda would continue in a better shape, if they really abandoned the original storyline...
Back to Sol, Earth:
- "In general": I was very sad of the witch-hunt I suffered, nobody really wished to have serious arguments, I've got mostly ad hominem or emotionally motivated arguments towards the subject as well, and pure straw-man argumentations almost for every professional demonstrations, furthermore the number & actual stance of participants a discussion should never influence it's outcome, if it is not well or thouroughly discussed, or the problem solved in accordance our policies and guidelines (as well). Hence the very early closure, even wished to be boosted by AN was execptional, given there are less "core important" discussions taking much more longer and there have been not such a fuss (but even important ones, in ten years I experienced even week/month long threads)
- Problem 1: Majority of the participants erroneusly considered the subject would be denying the connection between Fascism or Nazism, and they adamantly tried to prove something that was not even the catch, the closer's comment perfectly reflected this error - and suggest he did not read/understood the discussion -, so I contest closing (even this "Virginia" remark is hard (?) to be interpreted, since such user/username did not participate in the discussion, if it was meant to be a(n) (pejorative) insult, twice as bad, since would be a pure boomerang). Nazism is a form of Fascism (as well here Nazism is a subcat of it), and the first defining, appropriate qualifier to designate the ideology/system etc. Since the Elton John example was ignored, there is even better, beetle is a subgroup of insects, but it does not mean that ever insect would be beetle, similary if I wish to define a human, it's enough the designate with the first-defining order mammals, but I don't have/need to add that it stems/belongs/subgroup of Tetrapods.
- Problem 2: even is Problem 1 is enough to demonstrate the error, the discussion went to that direction what the sources say, a user after a hard digging shown two sources containing Fascist state...after I have shown three sources contanining Nazi state....according to our rules - since they preached we say what RS say - they should have either accept or make a scrutiny which is more prevalent and go on, etc.! This did not happen, but I've got serious deterioration and straw man arguments, and an overly pressure to falsely identify my conduct as a problematic behavior (= translation: they identified this was of argumentation with RS may result the same boomerang as before, so all efforts was put on charge on my witch hunting, like I would not hear/accept the other users opinions and what I would do would be disruptive and tendentious, etc., despite I also disproved all of such trials, since a content dispute is a content dispute, not a beauty contest or an exit poll, especially if I follow those policy line they introduced)
- Problem 3: after I came to realize the Jolly Joker - after the discussion has been unfortunately successfully deteriorated from the point -, besides Problem1&Problem2, the whole addition to the Government parameter of the infobox was in fact even semantically erroneus, since a government is not a state ([182]), hence regardless of the other points of the debate, it has to be reverted, but they've got very mad at me and the ad-hominem campaign has been intensified, like I would be the bad who should revise his thinking because so many users are disagreeing, blabla and the same panels, they've got so afraid that started to rush to close the discussion ASAP (= translation: "since it cannot happen one user would make a fool of all of us, after this already strained hotch-potch against him, since the decoy was taken by the majority already that he is "baddish"...)
Epilogue: I became very sad and I feel like this, very disappointed as a said, since any good-faith/professional editor who knows the subject and/or have an elementary logic, or just even conduct or practises of guidelines/policies in WP about content issues, clearly identifies my argumentations and points are valid and correct. What happened here, could not happen at Chess or Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm articles. Etc., I don't explain further, I think/hope you fully understand me, and I need it very much, since this issue has to be remedied...this bold edit was the cause of everything ([183]), unfortunately contrary the edit log, the user added someting else, the problem :( .(KIENGIR (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Why did I omit the word brief?(!)¯\_(ツ)_/¯Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus! Anyway, Just Breath. Right, so, the awkward camera angles/pauses on her backside are said to have been removed from the remastered relaese, which some brainiacs seemed to have taken a strong exception against (idiotic).
Look, I don't really want to get into the content weeds of this definition (don't really have the stamina to do so, gotta conserve it for more pressing matters in my life right now) — but I will say that, as a professional historian who, at times, had both studied and taught the subject in university, your position seemed odd to me. Because, to me, the matter can be condensed to a fairly digestible axiom, which the Hebrew Wikipedia's פשיזם expresses quite succinctly in its opening sentence of a section devoted to Nazism. It simply says: Nazism is fascism that was developed in Germany, with added racist principles.
Which isn't to reduce from the wealth of historiography on the subject, but for our purposes, I think that really sums it up. BTW, myself, I prefer the way the Hebrew Wikipedia treats that infobox parameter of גרמניה הנאצית, which simply says: Fascism, Nazism — that's it! Anyway, again, as someone who has studied and taught the subject, through the prism of Holocaust historiography and beyond, that description aligns with what I know to be mainstream scholarly consensus (myself, I place more of a stress on the role of class in my own analysis, but that goes beyond the scope of this note at the moment).
I don't really wanna address the tone and tenor of the aforementioned on-wiki discussion (due to... reasons, which also includes stamina, again), except to say that the vehemence you encountered was a likely product of most participants thinking as I do: that the Nazi state was also a Fascist state (again, with "added racist principles"). Which I believe to be an absolutely pivotal mention, though, again, I prefer the Hebrew Wikipedia's approach than what we currently display here, at en.
I mean, though from an academic perspective, I don't view your position to be an historically revisionist and/or Nazi-sympathetic view, because it just isn't in a theoretical sense. I believe it to be a wrong view (though not necessarily wrongheaded, if that makes sense), but one which isn't outside acceptable bounds of historical and political scientific inquiry, But, I do think it was rather naïve of you not to expect there being fallout related to the more contemporaneous political dimension of Nazism and Fascism as labels. That is: Nazism → bad + Fascism → bad = Nazi Germany (as a more amorphous construct) portrayed in an otherwise worse light. At the event, the labels do match reality, so I don't think that there's a dissonance there worth expounding on in this limited context (i.e. in the realm of theory, as opposed to wiki-stuff).
Probably not the response you'd have hoped for, but I think sometime it's just best to be blunt, so as to help one to become realistic, which is likely to spare much grief and confusion, overall.
Well, since you did not have an initial comment, hence I summarized, as a brief-ing :-). Thank you for enlighting me about the phrase as well, still I consider the closers remark inappropriate, added the second part of the sentence as is. The video you sent is not accessible for me (I think yt may limitate access per location), so I was unable to check an extensive (M?)Ass-effect :D...about what you said really disappoints me, without that how could be this planned editions as Legendary?? (maximum the 40 DLC-s integrated they claim)...yes idiocy is a great danger in nowadays society, when people cannot kill the time with useful thinks but inventing -***(censored)***- is permanent...at least it seems there is a hope [184] (just run into it, they heard my plea? Seems not Andromeda will be continued)
Based on your background (which I did not know in full details), I knew I came with my problem the right place (hence noone could accuse me I would seek remedy where I would expect obvious advantage). About stamina (still I have enough), more pressing issues in life (I have and should better care that as well) we agree, though I faced many bad faith rallies or grouping against me as I dare to enter heavy subjects, and despite keeping all rules with good faith according to my best knowledge, some think it's easier to tackle me with non-related spurious claims. Then we start to think over if years of work would be damaged or lost if we would care less, who'd protect the undisputed achievements? If there is noone how dared to stand on them, we may not solve unsolved issues (you just don't know how much it meant for me when Gerda awarded and acknowleged me near 9 years after, but then I was the bad-witch...so I should believe my work won't be futile...).
Hebrew unforunately I cannot read, hence I cannot analyze approriately the Hebrew wiki. I am happy we agree on the classification - in theory -, they are related, but not identical, as Nazism is a special form/expressant. The encountering vehemence, as I expressed I get used to, I'll always get it several areas, mostly from non-academic/experts directions, which judge mostly by emotion or superficial knowlegde or urban legends...which gives power, that as well a selected members of our community, the wiser one acknowlegde and justify me sooner or later, or at least understand these problems, however without me they would not enter to debate/discuss (lack of stamina, or fear of stigmatization). But we need pioneers, otherwise ain't we'll construct once Mass Relays? :)
Btw, your position is clear, in favor of the current alignment, though not identical as you cited elsewhere, the semantic issue you ignored (govt vs. state), I still have to add relation to Fascism could be explained in the core as pivotal instead. My naivity would be general, as I don't care a priori stigmatizations/beliefs (as your equation perfectly symbolizes), I follow better a scientific/engineering approach, in which things are exact (and I am happy you acknowledge those who's try in a lame way accuse me with revisionist/sympthatic/whitewasher as a carte blanche - which is always easier then to enter professional arguments - have no chance).
That all said, hope humanity will preserve this discussion between a frontline soldier and a true SPECTRE, and once the Council will take this in consideration to remedy better once (even with intergalactic involvement). I wish you could/would have the time/stamina to participate and cut unneeded directions of the discussion, and would indicate witch-hunt is not a solution, but professional arguments, I think all the case would ended in a better solution like now. We should fight together against I-N-D-O-C-T-R-I-N-A-T-I-O-N, Commander...it's been an honor, logging you out, Shepard...FTL initiated!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks goes to Wikipediocracy for the interesting pointer to the "CR&S Office Hour" Zoom meetup back in June: YouTube link, which I had missed. Thanks, especially, to Vigilant for the OP and to SR for the bump. It's about an hour long, but well worth viewing in full. Possibly, everyone else knew about it except for me...?
BTW, Osborne, not sure why you're spreading misinformation about me. I was was opposed to SR's original siteban, as well as having supported their appeal a couple of months ago (first to do so, in fact). I was dissapointed that the appeal did not succeed, but remain hopeful that one day it will. Anyway, sometime, it's best to state the salient facts, for the record, especially against patently false assertions. El_C17:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pandemic/Wartime-like economic rescue plan to counter against a likely economic collapse and/or extreme stagnation.
To that: one last chance to counter against an eclipsing Chinese economy.
A preemptive countering against the Christian fascists, who may well end up arresting or otherwise significantly imperiling key neoliberal politicians and plutocrats (known unknowns).
Hi, El C. To the best of my knowledge, we have "hashed-out" all issues relating to "unbalance" in the article Beit She'arim (Roman-era Jewish village). Therefore, can I ask you to remove the "Unbalanced tag"? Since the tag was first placed there in January of 2021, more than six editors have worked on the article to alleviate the "perceived" problems.Davidbena (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David, I'm not sure I understand why you've come to me with this, asking me to make an edit on your behalf. I mean, if the basis for the tag is resolved or otherwise is no longer being actively attended to, it may be removed by anyone. But why would I do so? I know absolutely nothing about whatever that dispute was about. Nor do I even have a passing familiarity with the article, in general. I remember having visited Beit She'arim on a field trip once, but that's about it. This request is quite confusing to me. Best, El_C02:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Partly done — page deleted (inapprorpiate, especially retaining it for this long), but decline the second request. Those are not suitable candidates for revdel. Regards, El_C17:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, re this edit. Removal of the {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}}, essentially reverting these edits, was OK if Mikehawk10 (talk·contribs) said that it was OK. But rather than adding a new {{rfc}}, which caused Legobot to assume a totally new RfC, you should have reverted this edit (so that the same rfcid was used) and immediately inserted your relisting comment between the original statement and original signature. Something like this:
Should the Rev Cleaver ending his prayer in Congress with "amen & awomen" be added according to Wikipedia's three content policies, neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research policies? RfC relisted by El_C 15:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC), originally raised by Grahaml35 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so when re-listing just use the original rfc id, then? (Please confirm.) That I think I'll be able to remember. Yes, overturned at AN (link) as well as then also being voluntarily vacated by the closer. Thanks as always. El_C22:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the same value for the |rfcid=. A number of processes use this as a unique key, for example to decide if a user should not be sent a WP:FRS message (because they already had one). So if Legobot generates a new rfcid, people might be messaged twice about the same rfc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who is not taking any new requests for help, you seem to resolve more editor conflict problems in a day than I do in a week. You can't help yourself but help out people who come to you with problems, can you, El C? Don't worry, I won't tell anyone. We're lucky to have you. LizRead!Talk!05:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you ECP protected this article, but I don't think that was the correct decision. While the organization is opposed to intermarriage and is an active org, it doesn't have anything really to do with the IP Conflict. Sir Joseph(talk)13:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care too much to appeal but the calls for segregation is to segregate from non-Jews and in Israel that is primarily the Arab citizens. Not every conflict in Israel is related to the IP conflict. It's about assimilation and intermarriage, not the IP conflict. Sir Joseph(talk)14:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then that should apply to specific parts of the article, not the whole article. We should in general not lock up articles when not needed. Otherwise, as I told someone else, I can probably connect any article to the IP conflict using BROADLY. Sir Joseph(talk)14:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I'm concerned about the activity of the new editor, Traineek. Their first edits were a series of extremely POV and unsourced (or poorly) sourced information ([185], [186], [187] just a few examples...) which were all subsequently reverted. They then edit-warred far past the limitations of WP:3R and continue to exhibit serious battle ground behavior on The talk page. Surely something can be done here?? Aza24 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also think that Goguryeo needs to be brought back to a stable revision (I don't know if I could tell you when that would be from...) until the editors form consensus on the talk page. Aza24 (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, I'm sorry, but as the notice of at the bottom of my talk page states, I'm not accepting new requests right now, and I gotta draw the line somewhere. Unless it is a genuine emergency, like BLP, defamation, harassment and other serious matters that are of an urgent nature, you're best to seek assistance elsewhere. El_C18:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I think I miss interpreted the "requests" as something to do with the music above. Best to you, and thanks for the work you do here. Aza24 (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy St. Patrick's Day! I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations. Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk
Timothy, funnily, I was just watching Brad Jones' St .Patrick's special Leprechaun 3: Las Vegas a couple of days ago. And, damn, that Leprechaun can take a beating (much like my liver). And he's also such a dick, but extremely cheerful at the same time, somehow... El_C18:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And also requesting to visit Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları, an article is about Ottoman times female slavery with a special focus on the state of non-elite common women slavery in those times; and help expand the same if you find yourself interested in the topic.
El C, thank you - funnily enough, I came across you at recent changes when looking for an active admin because you had unblocked a user :-) Pahunkat (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug your but I have a general question regarding the scope WP:BLP. The policy states that it applies to all Wikipedia pages. Does this include talk pages? My reading is that it does, but I wanted to check with a much more experienced person to make sure I am reading it right.
Hello. Can you please Semi-Protect his article for a while? It has recently been vandalized by a handful of vandals, in addition to suffering from unsourced/misleading changes. The article also covers an unfolding natural disaster in the United States, so it's probably going to continue drawing attention for a while. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. But LightandDark2000, please take note of the notice of the bottom of my talk page. Unless it is a genuine emergency, please direct such requests to RfPP. Thanks and all the best, El_C15:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That page was hijacked. I had restored the correct version and requested protection. Are you sure it should have been deleted? MB16:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Grand Central Station, Roxy. Even when under renovations, traffic remains... prohibitive. Ah, I see, MB. The sourcing is still extremely sparse (for the criminal), but I suppose that's a matter better left to AfD. Restored. El_C16:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider unlocking this page so disruptive editing cannot be made by those with Extended Protection status.
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tampered with the personal relationship section of both Gurbaksh Chahal and Rubina Bajwa by simply removing it outright. This user was later blocked on February 22nd (Per consensus at ANI (discussion); violation of civility-related editing restriction) after he made his changes.
For Gurbaksh Chahal, on January 18 his reason was →Personal life: no current source
For Rubina Bajwa, on January 18 his reasons were →Personal life: noncurrent gossip, no significance indicated
I did not know just because he saw a citation of article that was not recent enough, he had the ability to remove relationship status in its entirety? Their relationship status has been reportedly quite heavily in Indian media. Was there ever an article mentioning a break up? This was clearly done not in good faith.
I was able to revert the changes for Rubina Bajwa but since I do not have EP status, I could not make the changes to his page. I have requested others to revert the changes, with no luck. I believe it is only fair to open up this page so it can be monitored and protected by the entire wikipedia community when any user makes changes that are considered disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like every few months, an IP comes along to ask for me to lift or downgrade the protection for this bio. I'll make it crystal clear (again) that this isn't going to happen pretty much for the foreseeable future. I guess you can try your luck at WP:RFUP, but I will object there, too, on the usual WP:BLP/WP:SPAM grounds. The article talk page is open to all, so you're welcome to bring up any concerns there, including by making edit requests. El_C17:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, why don't you just revert the changes of the blocked the user, since you are adamant about keeping this protected? If you don't want to remove the disruptive editing, then apparently there is some inherent bias in your thinking. You only want to keep this protected but won't fix any changes when someone with extended protection does disruptive editing to the page? 03:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.106.82 (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I can see that you made an ordinary (non-WP:ER) request yesterday. And now an WP:ER one after writing the above. That isn't a long time to wait for something that isn't urgent. But regardless, I'm not interested in attending to your request, nor should you see me as the go-to person for edit requests regarding that page, in general. Your overall tone is unwelcome, so please refrain. El_C03:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing about this is that heralds tend to precede their main event, whereas SineBot would let the entire apocalypse happen and then follow up with something like " — Preceding unsigned death and destruction added by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (talk • contribs)". DanCherek (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For protecting thousands of pages, for endlessly leaving comments at AN and ANI, for being valuable to a whole admin area that very few can bear to edit it, for other things. Courtesy of WikiProject Giving Users Barnstars Because They Deserve Them. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!10:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I take a dim view of such exclamations and I intend to have a word with BMK as soon as I submit this comment. That said, I don't know enough about the subject/edit to feel confident enough to revert the fully-protected page back to your version contrary to m:Wrong version at this time (even with the edit summary being that stupid). Again, the full protection may be a fleeting measure until the matter is sorted. Query about the Romanian study on the article talk page (calmly, please). If there isn't a substantive response within, say, 24 hours, I will restore your edit to the protected page. Will revdel. El_C19:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the edit can be redone. I feel my suspicions of a personal bent are confirmed. BMK does not likely have a prejudice against Romania, but holds such strong acrimony toward editors with different opinions that they are willing to disparage a nation to make that point. Outing WP:TAG TEAMs tends to get messy.--Frobozz1 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Though, honestly, I've known BMK for years and that is totally out of character for them. For whatever that's worth. In any case, I've issued them a warning at: User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken#Derision_toward_Romanian_scholarship. Beyond that, I'm sorry, but I don't know if I'll be able to find the spare time to follow up on this too intensively. Maybe. We'll see. But, again, if you query the article talk page about that Romanian study/edit and there isn't a substantive response in a day or so, I will restore your edit to the protected page. That I will follow up on, if you're interested. El_C20:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In consideration, you may or may not know they have been targeted many times causing two name changes, once for exposing a sockpuppet farm. It would be understandable to tend toward a general mistrust of others now. They have also entered a voluntary ban on themselves, which is noble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs)
Yes, I am aware — long (albeit interrupted) institutional memory over here. But I'll say that I am finding it quite odd how you waver from being gracious toward BMK here, to being attacky against them elsewhere soon thereafter. In any case, I've commented on your talk page about this and other problems, so best to limit that discussion there. El_C13:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I just saw the text on your talk page about not accepting new requests right now, so I'm sorry if my recent ping on the Talk:Zangezur Mountains page was one of those requests that you're not open to at the moment. One of the editors in the discussion pinged me and asked for help to get admin input and so I thought I'd ping you since you dealt with a dispute concerning the involved editors previously. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the advice! So do you have the time to take a look at the discussion or should I create a report on WP:AE regarding it? The discussion is a bit messy so I'm not really sure about how I would structure the report and to be honest I wouldn't mind excusing myself from that particular discussion. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the requester's edit. He is the one I complained about in the talkpage. If he is talking about what he reverted, and was reacting to my note on his talkpage (to which he did not respond - though he responded to later notes there), then it is hard to AGF.
His revert - that I complained about - added BLP violations.
When I complained about them, his approach was to ask you to protect the page? So that I could not edit it, while he could?
Doubly troubling, on top of his introduction of BLP violations.
I can't speak to the requester's reasons, but that particular dispute was unrelated to my protection. Edits such as this, for example, is what prompted me to protect the page. Anyway, you're welcome to try to convince other editors to support your position on the article talk page. Myself, I'm not really interested in getting involved further with the article at this time. You may also report BLP violations at WP:BLPN. El_C23:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that vandalism. It appeared to be a lone item - and unlike the complainant's edit, not a BLP violation asserting a living person did actionable things that the refs do not say. I didn't realize that we protect any article on the basis of infrequent vandalism. Is that the case? Thanks for your advice - hopefully someone will respond to my note on that page - rather than it end up languishing. 2603:7000:2143:8500:245F:81DC:F4FB:745E (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't call it preemptive exactly, but that WP:AP2 page merits erring on the side of caution, I feel. There were also multiple revdels earlier in the month. El_C23:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's very slow going at BLPN. Though it has been determined that the editor whose request you acted on has indeed made BLP violations there.[190] The first two of them have been reverted. Others remain - including very bad ones, as indicated, still awaiting review. Given that the editor that asked for "protection" is the one making these terrible BLP violations, might it be perhaps rational to consider that the request was bad faith, to assist him in keeping the BLP violations in the article - as still remain the case for ones such as groping under a dress. And perhaps more good than harm will occur if protection is lifted, as the significant threat here is that of an editor who is not walled off from the article now, while those who might revert his edits are? 2603:7000:2143:8500:C198:5222:3CE2:FBCC (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP, again, this wasn't a BLP-driven protection, but an American politics one. While you, as an IP, being restricted from editing the article may be an unfortunate collateral, it isn't grounds to lifting the protection. Grounds whose basis, again, was due to different issues, including some preemptive components related to the nature of this developing story (specifically, the NY governorship). Beyond that, I doubt that one editor will continue to violate BLP for that page/person, but if they do, that would be a cause for sanctions. Anyway, if you register an account, I'm happy to confirm you immediately so that you don't need to wait the few days required — so, let me know. But I do note that waiting less than a day at BLPN isn't "very slow" or even just slow, it's a standard response time for that board. El_C03:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed the issue at ani in the past hour that resulted in a warning for outing. I just wanted to point out that on the "outee"/ reg'd account's tp is a comment that clearly and easily leads anyone to an edit by the "outee" stating that they are also a specific ip user. Why do I bring this up? First, (jtbc), I have nothing to do with that ani, any of the user's or pages involved. I just noticed it while posting at another ani just above. I was just curious if, given that you now have this disclosure info, is that warning still justified? Did user "jb" still violate wp:outing? (I don't blame you for warning them at the time as you didn't have this info then.) The only reason I ask is because if I find a similar disclosure between an ip and a reg'd account, and I then warn them about ewlo, I wouldn't want to run afoul of outing myself. Sorry about the lengthy post. Any feedback would be appreciated. Cheers - wolf23:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned at ANI, I find it "borderline outing" to geolocate the IP of someone whom one is in dispute with, then greet them with mention of their school. I consider it creepy and uncalled for, at the very least. El_C23:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points and ftr, I'm not planning on doing anything creepy like that, and this is in no way a criticism. (and why I asked here, I didn't want appear to be challenging you in the open, especially at a snake pit like ani.) I didn't know if you were aware of the disclosure, but that was what prompted me to ask, that and concern for myself, not any of any of the parties at that ani. Given such a disclosure, if I were to warn an editor for EWLO, thus making a connection between their registered account and the IP address, could I be in violation of wp:outing? Would you warn me? Thanks again - wolf00:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in locking the Rubin Carter page, you are leaving an edit which not only reverses a long standing edit that had already gained talk page consensus, but which removed the very notice of the talk page consensus, which I suspect, is the best possible outcome the vandal could have hoped for 69.116.78.233 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you'd like to know it was delicious, although there was a last minute switch from the chips to mushrooms. It's a shame that you kept it off ANI but I understand. 90.209.118.28 (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C -- I saw the request for an uninvolved admin to have a look at this debacle discussion and just got done reading through it all and the relevant offshoots (I think). I saw you've taken a few administrative actions, though, so I didn't want to step on your toes if you were planning to close. Seems there's consensus at least for a topic ban; less convinced a block is going to do the trick. Conversation among other editors on the article talk page about the content dispute (insofar as there is one without him) seems like it can continue. I'm happy to dive in and close it as such, or I am happy to defer to you, or I can butt out entirely, or if you think there's a better path forward, I'm all ears. Just seems to me this has taken enough of everyone's time. Best, GoPhightins!00:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C. Earlier in March you enforced a Post-1992 US Politic T-Ban on me for 6 months. While patrolling new pages, I accidentally tagged a non-notable article with PROD (And still should be PROD), but I didn't read in detail and Fram messaged me on my talk page. He apparently was a canadit in an election in 2020, which made my PROD notice a violation on the T-Ban. I am sorry for that. I don't want to violate the T-Ban again so I won't link the article in question (See my talk page to see message from Fram about it). I did self-revert the PROD notice on the article since it was a T-Ban violation. Can I ask for the edits to be "swept under the rug" and become hidden edits? It was an unintentional T-Ban violation and my recent edits show that, however, I know there are users that will use that to get me in trouble well after the T-Ban expires. Thanks for the help or any advice you give about this. Elijahandskip (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elijahandskip, trying to hide a minor mistake like that probably calls more attention to it than it otherwise warrants (even by virtue of this very request), but in any case, that isn't a suitable candidate for revdel. Also, this isn't some procedural ruleset game — you could have (nay, should have) linked to the article in question here, if only so I could weigh in on the actual violation. By failing to do so, you are, in fact, coming across as someone who has something to hide. Which isn't a great look. Just sayin'. El_C11:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit (not a revert) by a protecting admin that precedes the protection action results in no absence (diff) — 10 min interval. El_C15:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revert (rollback) by a protecting admin that precedes the protection action results in no absence (diff) — 15 min interval. El_C16:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian has given you a bonbon! Bonbons promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bonbon, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Huasteca, a Mexican-based user and nationalist who mainly and frequently targets El Salvador's ethnic composition and edit these pages according to his own personal racial views, yet only apply these views in the Salvadorans pages and not the Mexican demographic pages, he neglect to answer why he makes exception to all Latin American pages except for the one's relation to El Salvador. This user makes changes in the Demographics of El Salvador as well and removes sources that don't fit his personal racial agenda despite advices to find better sources rather than going into a erasing rampage. I tried to act civil with this user but he persistently keep editing Salvadoran pages with valuable information for weeks. When confronted with reliable sources he dismiss these and begins on a edit warring rampage over and over again. When Sources are presented, he erases them out of spite. This user seems to be infatuated with race in El Salvador and seems to be bent on erasing African, Indigenous and European contributions in El Salvador. Cobaltous (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Cobaltous, but as the notice at the bottom of my talk page states (in large text), I am not currently accepting new requests here. Perhaps there's a noticeboard that could be of assistance...? Regards, El_C02:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Commander! I won't be lenghty. What prompted me to write you is this ([191]), but this is the premilinary ([192]). One user still did not answer me who sent the e-emails to co-odinate against me, as well I don't know their content yet, will wait still. However it's better if more administrators have insight, I am really fed up that a novice user hounding me with a bogus campaign, I have been quite patient, however the recurrent denial of basic policies, or not understading them today already reached that point that is untenable. To prevent @Ymblanter: of any concern, please also overview, or follow the events. Lying is a WP civility issue as well, which I graciously ignored to use against the novice user, better with extreme patience I tried to explain and enlight of the things with good faith, but had no success. Enough what is enough. If you have any questions just ask, very sad again, that instead of useful editing I have waste time on this :/. Have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Will try to review this soonish (days rather than weeks), but certainly am too busy today, I'm afraid. El_C14:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it's enough you know about this. The bad faith moves are continous from one direction, so events may escalate, of course not from my direction. Now you have all the clue, this issue is anyway clear. Cheers! (KIENGIR (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I'll just state the usual, that if it becomes a matter of some urgency, a noticeboard may be the way to go, because I don't know when I'll get to this, or that if I do, how much time and energy I'll be able to devote to it. Also, I'll emphasize that off-wiki stuff is for the most part ArbCom's exclusive domain. El_C14:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I won't waste my and other editors/admins precious time to write reports (I avoided these as far as possible), until not really necessary, it's not my style (and a sign of good faith towards editors who are acting bad faith towards me). For me it is enough for now two admins will learn the issue, so in case any further bad faith move may not mislead a steal more time from our community. About the off-wiki case, I will soon remind the user about my question, if he will not disclose at least the sender, we may mind ArbCom. I am patient, but sad like Samara in the void of eternity.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry for intruding. From my experience, I can totally understand editors who become upset with KIENGIR's behaviour. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups (starting 14:15, 22 November 2020), we were discussing whether the definition of Germans as an ethnic group is one definition among others (my view) or the main definition (their view). The discussion was continued at Talk:Germans. I was constantly asking them to give their reasons, but they constantly refused, using aggressive language. I took the case to ANI/3RR, with the result that both of us were warned not to make further reverts to the lede of Germans. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rsk6400,
shame on you for your repeated attempt to mislead editors. All professional reasons were given, there was not any aggressive language, you repeatedly tried to attack with spurious claims editors who diasgreed with you, you even reported to the ANI Krakkos as possibe Nazi just because he dared to argue that Germans are an ethnic group as a principal meaning as well. Your only aim was with your reports to "solve the problem", and get editors out of your way, and you did it despite your claims and wished modifications have been though implemented even a more extensive extent as necesary, as a courtesy. However, your repeated trial of such behavior are included in the diffs, and if you wished with your intrusion to deteriorate El_C attention of the true reasons, it won't be successful, just a matter of time, since the discussions you linked contradict you. I am really sorry you increased your bad faith moves, but at least justified partially what's going on.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I did not quote from you that literally, however, it is clear what kind of accusations the user sufferred incorrectly. I kindly ask you do not intrude more here, diffs were given, so we have no more to add.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Could you two please take your dispute elsewhere. I don't really wish to host it on my talk page, which isn't a noticeboard (all appearances to the contrrary notwithstanding). No follow up responses are needed. El_C14:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just got my answer, the user won't willing to disclose the off-wiki email sender, so as per your note, we should go to ArbCom regarding this. What should I do exactly? Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
You should, first, respect, El C's request to do this elsewhere. And second really reconsider whether jumping straight to ArbCom is necessary (even ArbCom cannot tell you the recipient of an email, especially if it was off-Wiki) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I respect his requests, that's why I asked what to do exactly (you probably misunderstood he referred only the Rsk issue, not my original request). "Off-wiki" I meant not openly visible in the platform, but inside the WP mail system, as he seemed understood the same way, obviously.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
The email interface does not hold records of the recipient (as it clearly says if you've ever used it), only the sender, so ArbCom can't help on that if you don't know who sent it; and then if they knew that they could only confirm (if that did not violate privacy) if it was sent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sender is enough, and it was sent, etc. I kindly ask anyone from now on not to intrude (no impoliteness, just because of the sensitivity of the issue) in this discussion, if someone wish to add something, with a good faith feel free to share in my talk page, but plese let this section not to be flooded and the two us do our job. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hey there. I see you have fully protected this article. While it does seem like there is too much of an edit war (although I am not justifying Random Haste's EW or use of unreliable sources inn the article), it is basically DE by returning socks of Fly787. Please see this. If you notice, these users have suddenly jumped into this article out of nowhere and have started citing many guidelines like WP:OR and WP:BURDEN. New users would generally (not always though) not know much of some guidelines esp something like WP:BURDEN. These socks have returned right after the recent block of one: Sayswalk. — LeoFrank Talk18:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LeoFrank, sorry, but I don't know if I'll have time to follow up on this further. Even if I did find the spare time, I've protected well over a hundred pages via RfPP during the past week — it just isn't that practical for me to devote a lot of time to even a small number of these. So, barring some urgency, I gotta ration my time wisely. Regards, El_C20:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I am not contending the protection per se. In fact, it's good you have protected the page given the amount of disruption. Just informing you of the socks in case you come across another or the same article in the same situation. — LeoFrank Talk04:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"if you remove my comments again, I will revoke your talk page access, again "
[193]I watchlisted this user because they are obviously grinding an axe, so I was not the least bit surprised to see they were blocked, but surely you are aware that per WP:BLANKING they were in fact allowed to remove those comments, and also your revert did more than just restore your comments. Please be more careful. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's isn't my understanding of appropriate behaviour of a user while blocked. I mean, I could add it to the block template, so what's the difference? Seems rather wikilawyerish. But you're the Arb, so I guess what you say goes. You do whatever you see fit with that case, Beeblebrox. I'm out. El_C15:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't behavior that is going to help them get unblocked, as I tried to tell them. It's petty and pointless, but not really harmful in any real way. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that as soon as their month block is up they're going to just copy their version over the article and we'll be back in the same boat of dealing with paranoid attacks against everyone editing the article. It's clear from their use of the talk page they're continuing the behavior that got them blocked in the first place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I did not see the notification about you not doing protection request right now anymore on your page! So I humbly request, I would like to say indefinite semi-protected status is required for it, due to controversy we get a lot of IP's editing Sinn Féin and removing sourced content or changing the article based on there WP:POV, to straight vandalism due to the controversial nature of the page, this page has been worthy of protection for awhile now, however no admins really edit or check in on the page. You can view the history of the page and see! I am here to request "indefinite semi-protected" status for the page Sinn Féin, as upon lifting of the protection, I believe the same issue will arise again, if you can possibly do this, that would be amazing! B. M. L. Peters (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I've had the same request on my talk page overnight, with the same timestamp! I've looked at the page, and am not seeing that there is a serious problem that isn't being handled by the normal editing process. Looks like a case of admin shopping. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sorry for bothering you
I saw you from your block on Chris O’hare page
You blocked him for a week but now he is continuing his disruptive editing
I provided the sources on Jacques Saadé talk page and dourved my edits
Now he removed it and is threatening that he’ll report me
4353Phone (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chris intimidates Wikipedians by saying that he’ll report them. Just like he did to me multiple times, This leads some editors to avoid reverting his disruptive edits because they don’t have the time arguing for hours.
[195] - Can I edit pages that are within my general areas of interest and were not visited by this user for a few weeks? Just to be extra careful, I would first post/ask something on article talk page. Whatever you might think, the discussions between this user and me were generally polite, honest and on the subject. The only action that was wrong on his part I believe was his submission of AE report. But this is now a "dead horse" territory I hope. My very best wishes (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here I do not mean Poland, but rather Ukraine-related subjects (I should say that the anti-Ukrainian bias on certain WP pages exceeds the bias on same pages even on ruwiki). And sure, I understand your advice. I just do not want to be suddenly sanctioned simply because I started editing page X with intention to improve the page (I do not care who and why edited these pages before). And in any event, I think it would be best if another uninvolved admin rather than you would exercise a discretion if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I'm declining it. Because why would I grant it based on, well, not anything? As for your original query: without specifics, I've no idea. Just use your best judgment, I suppose. In any case, I'm not waiting for a misstep to happen to pounce, if that is what's hinted. By all means, feel free to solicit review from any uninvolved admin, for anything about anything. But I'm not gonna preemptively deem myself disabled from acting in an admin capacity with regards to this due to some... again, non-reasons. There's no sense in that and I don't understand it. El_C03:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, like, what else is there? There's no blanket prohibition against you editing the same pages. In the worse event, if there's a complaint about hounding, the evidence will bear out what's what. A bogus complaint will also have consequences. But all may well be well, so here's hoping for that. El_C04:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify my question with example. Should Right Sector be labeled in the infobox as a neo-fascist organization, i.e. exactly as Putin's propaganda claims? Note that even corresponding page on ruwiki does not do it. That has been discussed on talk here. The consensus edit was implemented by user Darouet ("... Nevertheless, on the basis of Dervorguilla's objection, I've removed all but two [qualifiers]"), i.e. no "neo-fascist". I am not sure who included it, but it recently was not there [196]. Can I start/continue discussion of this on talk page of this article? I would do it, but I can't based on your comment/warning on my talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I've no idea. I've never even heard of this 10,000-member political party before any of this to know much of anything about it. Certainly, working it out on the article talk page would be the way to go, so not only is that allowed, but I encourage you to do so. El_C05:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Right Sector is famous. The narrative about Right Sector being a spearhead of "Ukrainian fascists" was the centerpiece of propaganda in Russia to justify military aggression against Ukraine. They even invented a new slur word that was lacking in Russian language to disparage them, "правосек" [197]. My very best wishes (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, in that case, I'm sure I read about it at the time, but the name (Right Sector) isn't something I remembered. It's been a while since I refreshed my memory about modern Russo-Ukrainian tensions and hostilities, though. El_C13:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a valid arbitration enforcement (of ARB EE? or whatever: protecting such an article about a subject dear to rightwing extremists and other internet trolls seems like exactly the required answer). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C! As you are the protecting admin, Twinkle told me to come here first. I think it would be appropriate to reduce/remove the extended-confirmed protection on Dark Emu (book). Talk page discussions appear to have died down and there has been little recent disruptive editing (or editing at all). Perhaps semi-protection to keep IP vandals out, or complete unprotection. Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI but the protection you issued for this article expires April 2nd. I noticed because the BLM page had the same general protection period and it just expired.
By the way, it's a little confusing to know where the bottom of this page is to leave a message. You might use a larger header for the bottom portion that is not really part of your talk page. LizRead!Talk!01:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Liz. By all means, please Feel Free to extend the protection/s further. I'm not really stepping outside the confines of this talk page, for now (resting). El_C02:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...could you please look into this Talk page comment? You blocked the editor from Pentagon UFO videoshere, and although that notice did not explicitly mention the article Talk page, the user has indirectly returned to the page with their promotion of fringe content fully intact. I suspect a broader block is needed. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
if you were joking with the edit summary of "some nonsense about a feed store (I dunno)".... Sooooo, just in case you really didn't know - though, of course, I know admins know all about everything possible that there is to Wiki-know - but, just in case, this thread could help. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PedigreeWWEFigz87V2, thanks. I think this may have been during a recent day-long MusikBot II outage. I remember needing to go back and add the tags manually, but I guess one slipped through the cracks (hopefully, no other ones did). El_C21:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that EdDakhla is back (you'll never guess which article they are targetting). The IP they are using is from the same geolocation as ones they used previously (listed in the SPI). Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, feel free to add it to the list, but myself, I've blocked a handful of EdDakhla socks without bothering to otherwise log these. El_C03:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not a requirement, especially seeing as all three of us can pick up on EdDakhla socks easily enough. Certainly, recordkeeping would be a good thing (as it generally is), but as far as should goes, I'll leave that to both of your respective discretions. Myself, I have no expectation of additional logging. So long as the socks are deterred promptly and effectively, I'm good with whatever. Objectively, will this approach prove to be lacking in foresight, or instead, just a manifestation of WP:NOTBURO? I can't really tell at this point, so myself, obviously I'm going with the lazier option! El_C14:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's the end result that matters. The SPI that was started following a request by Drmies is for those who are not familiar with EdDakhla. Whether adding IPs to it is worth it in the long run remains to be seen. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you but looking to see if you can put your editor hat on and assist with potential translation issues of Maimonides at Talk:Messiah_in_Judaism. If you can not assist, can you direct me to another editor that can help?
Would have preferred not dropping this message on an admin's page as not looking to drop a hammer of doom on the well-intentioned editor (though that may happen regardless), but you were the first editor I could recall that was bilingual. Slywriter (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was recently doing a review of all the page restrictions I've placed or taken ownership of over the years, and I noticed that a majority of the pages were no longer battlegrounds and didn't require restrictions anymore. I was looking backwards a couple of months on the article history and talk page looking for major diputes, and for the most part things were pretty quiet. I've removed the BRD restrictions from about 70% of the articles that I had put them on, and the 1RR restrictions from probably 90% of pages.
I figured while I was at it I might as well try to track down the other pages with active sanctions and see if the admins who placed them might also be interested in doing a similar review. The following list might not be complete, but it's the best I could come up with by tracking usages of the American Politics AE template. (Perhaps you can compare it to whatever system you have for tracking your active sanctions.) For convenience I'll put links to the edit notice page and the talk page.
I'm hoping that removing some of these restrictions can help restore some sense of normalcy to the topic area. In any case I hope this list is helpful. ~Awilley (talk)23:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Awilley. Yes, I noticed your AEL spam and I commend you for the effort. Absolutely, lift or otherwise modify the sanctions for any of these pages listed. Again, I applaud your diligence, and welcome you bringing any additional items for similar review. These stale sanctions are a burden and a hindrance, and the sooner they are dealt with, the better. I'm with you. Thanks again! El_C00:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, will do. And for what it's worth, I won't be replacing anything with BRD like I did in 2018...just removing this time around. ;-) ~Awilley (talk)00:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, EBRD and CR monsters are tearing this town apart — we need Godzilla (Bishzilla?), stat! Anyway, yeah, sounds good. Also, in answer to your question: I don't really have a system to track my AE sanctions besides AEL — couldn't really conceive of one, tbh. While I'm inspired by your important effort to also review other AE sanctions of mine for staleness, such a task seems daunting to me right now. But hopefully, I can muster the stamina to give it a crack, uh, soonish...?El_C00:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the work is in tracking down the pages. I've been using transclusions/categories of the templates and then diving into the Edit Notice histories to see who originally placed the sanction. It would be nice if the template just recorded the name of the person who originally placed it. ~Awilley (talk)00:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. All I had in mind was ctrl. f'ing my name at AEL. In any case, I'm sure there are more than a few stale sanctions of mine lingering, and not just AP2 ones, but also ARBPIA, ARBIPA and ARBEE, just by virtue of sheer volume alone. El_C00:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I mostly just use the standard ones listed at the bottom of T:DSA. Sorry, too long ago for me to remember the context there. But I doubt it involves a stale sanction, anyway. With the Andy Ngo page, it seems to ebb and flow. El_C03:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I ended up removing the sanctions from all the pages except 2: Michael Flynn and Turning Point USA. Those seemed to have somewhat recent disputes that you were active in mediating to some extent. Not sure if you want to do anything with those or give them a couple more months.
Unrelated note: I noticed that you have indefinitely semi-protected some pages, logging the protection as an Arbitration Enforcement action. Doesn't that just create unnecessary paperwork for everybody? It kind of booby traps the articles for any admins who might want to raise or lower protection temporarily, and all requests at RPP will need to all bounce directly to you. Even after you retire it could still leave some poor future admins scratching their heads. Why not just indef-semi the articles as a normal admin action? ~Awilley (talk)23:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because then I get to avoid going through incremental increases in protection durations (i.e. before reaching a "perennial problem" stage), when that isn't what's called for due to AE matters. For better or worse, there are AE protection items which are difficult to put a clock on. Also, for best recordkeeping practices (related to that and beyond). Anyway, it's not a trap and it isn't my understanding that logging these AE protections, which they are, hinders other admins from up/downgrading or lifting them when that makes sense. The common practice at WP:RFPU is to ping the protecting admin, unless inactive. So, what's the issue exactly? Is there a problem? Has there been a problem? Because I have yet to encounter one. El_C00:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same location (Tabriz) and similar content removals (Kurdish-Mede connection) made me think that the blocked user who created strawman "Kurdish" role accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dirokakurdi) in the past (for the same Mede - Kurdish thing) probably evaded his block.
IP, I'm still not seeing anything that isn't Stale. Is there a course of action you're after that involves a recent matter? El_C14:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unfortunately, the suspected sock ip (just like his other suspected ip sock) is now stale. Unfortunately I noticed them today, weeks after their edits. However, I believe it does not change the fact that the possibility of block evasion. Is there a way to confirm it technically? Such as a match in their geolocations? I checked the link in your block entry (arbitration case) and I noticed that much less disruptive users are completely banned from wiki, while users like this one is only blocked.
IMHO, if someone creates a strawman socks to manipulate a discussion, that means that he or she is not here to improve the pages, but here to push a certain POV. As evident in arbcom link you added to the block entry, the topic area has been suffering from innumerable pov-pushers for years, no need one more.
IP, I believe these instances to be too stale for technical data to be of any use. The best thing to do is to make reports in a timely fashion. Myself, as you correctly intimate, am unlikely to remember any of this in like a month or two (certainly, passed that). I'll note that WP:ARBKURDS now offers additional remedies, though this disruption may not be nuanced enough to warrant that type of action. El_C15:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right but unfortunately I have just noticed them today - weeks after their edits. It's pretty unfortunate that this confirmed sockpuppeter and pov pusher jumps from the fire everytime because their suspected socks are stale.
Hi El_C, at the Battle of Chawinda, there is no actual edit-warring going on. All my editing has been on issues unrelated to the dispute. I had reverted the disputed content only once. The discussion is proceeding on the talk page, as it normaly should.
After you set Radio Free Asia to protected status until the talk page discussion concluded, some uninvolved users appear to have come in and significantly altered the intro to the article. Should those be reverted until discussion concludes? I am not extended confirmed and relatively new so I apologize if this is inappropriate. Deku link (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there El C, Just wanted to let you know that I'm working on the 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf' since it's currently a hot mess. I have shared my thoughts here on why that article is in its current state and started a discussion on how to fix it to comply with Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, as it's apparent from the article history that it's a chaotic edit waring ground I sincerely believe that the vandalism is a symptom not a cause in the current state of the article. In the talk page I've discussed why the grouping list doesn't comply with WP:Notability, how the article is confusing cultural, geographical and socio-political identity. And most importantly why it doesn't adhere to WP standard especially when compared with other regional socio-political organizations articles (The EU being the best example). A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there @El C! I know that you're not interested in the 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf' article or its topic. But I wanted to let you know that I've made it my current wiki-objective to fix the article and minimize the WP:Warring by addressing its core issues in a multi-part series. I have opened part one of the series in the article talk page. Developing the discussion layout on Wikipedia processes like WP:ARA and WP:DR. I know it might seem excessive for a discussion but I feel it's very necessary to reach a consensus and document the process for future talks. I've also included field research alongside a wiki history on the article. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad(💬 Talk)03:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, A Contemporary Nomad, but as you acknowledge in your opening, there isn't really a reason to update me about content developments for that page. So I confess to being a bit puzzled that you still did so. I mean, there's no harm, but it just isn't necessary (i.e. gently asking you to refrain). Regards, El_C03:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mishary94, I've partially blocked the range from the article and talk page for a year, since they've been disrupting that page for quite a long time, I noticed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Regards, El_C10:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
any chance you could take it back to it pre-edit war state? It seems to have at least had some sort of consensus at that point. Rev id was 1015510845 106.69.53.60 (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't really know what's going on to be confident enough to circumvent the m:Wrong version maxim. But if the IP fails to substantiate, they will effectively be forfeiting their position. El_C11:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You asked IP 136.158.59.173 for reasons to delete the speed claims section and they lied to you, repeating the same lie as the sockmaster Sennen goroshi in the threads above, that the manufacturer never pushed the absurd speed claims. The argument that the article has a long history of controversy is due only to the relentless trolling by several sock puppet accounts. The bad faith demonstrated by that is reason to indef block the IP and definitely revert their last deletion instead of giving them what they wanted. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also how many reverts was that? They blew past the 3RR by at least three reverts, and for that reason alone the article belongs back on the stable version, not the one they edit warred to achieve. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Bratland: a couple of things. IPs are never blocked indefinitely. The socking claim should probably be pursued at WP:SPI or WP:ANI. I looked at Special:Contributions/Sennen_goroshi, but saw no wholesale removal of content by them for that page. Also, was there confirmed socking? Because that account isn't tagged as a master (or anything). You're not really giving me a lot to work with here. Finally, edit warring isn't usually a factor in full protection version non/preference — it is not meant as a punishment/reward action, even if it may have that effect. El_C16:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sennen goroshi admitted being the sockmaster in AN comments that were deleted. They managed to get an IBAN between me and multiple sock puppets, until I was finally proven right. I don’t know if there’s an archive you can find the deleted comments in. Do you see the links to the evidence they are lying to you about the speed claims? This came up again and again in the threads above on the talk page. As it stands the lead says they made the speed claims in press releases, but the references are all deleted and the ref list is full of red error flags. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since that version placed the article into a state of disrepair, I have reverted the fully-protected page back. But as for the socking/content disruption claims, you'll have to take that elsewhere. I don't feel equipped to handle it single-handedly (time-investment alone), certainly with the (zero-links) information you've provided. El_C17:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider unlocking the Brian Gallagher article as now the disruptive and opinion based edits are locked in place. I edited to remove opinion and biased sources leaving just the AP link with all necessary background information. To leave the quoted opinion up in particular is not appropriate. Param3ter2 (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I thought it was locked as opposed to just requiring review. I do have some concerns about the impartiality of the reporting being cited that I can take note of and discuss with the other editors. I did not plan to open discussions on anyone's personal talk pages, but another individual did so on mine and continued the back and forth for a long while. I understand that I was participating there, but so so were they so what is the logic behind warnings for me and not them? Their edits have focused heavily on United Way pages and their account has only been in existence since Sept 2020. I am wondering what the connection is. Param3ter2 (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not editorializing when the article is well cited and representative of the rest of the article. Appealing to editors with the same privileges or greater to override El C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:c001:4a40:d87c:717c:a09d:1c84 (talk • contribs)
Hi there, El_C! I'm wondering if this kind of reply [[198]] can be considered unacceptable as part of a content dispute? I really admit it's not the most productive way to conveince the community during a wp:BRD process, especially when the same editor displays wp:NINJA in various cases.Alexikoua (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua, El C warned you twice with topic ban/sanctions due to inappropriate comments [201][202]. As seen above, you are making such comments again. Maybe El C indeed should proceed with sanctions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against the inclusion of controversial information supporting (either Greek or Albanian) pov in terms of ethnic background of the said individual. The case should be discussed in a productive way. @Ktrimi: why you insist that I'm making the same comments? I was replying to claims in talkpage that the individual's family (Bua) retained the ethnic identity for centuries though bibliography objects this point.Alexikoua (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you do not seem to be "against the inclusion of controversial information supporting (either Greek or Albanian) pov in terms of ethnic background of the said individual" because there you removed his description as Albanian and at the same time added his description as Greek. As I said twice, the best way is to keep both "Albanian" and "Greek" away from the lead. Nothing justifies such personal attacks as accusing fellow editors of supporting "ethnic purity". Both you and Iaof2017 should reflect. Idk if El C has the time, but "ethnic purity" claims after two warnings with topic ban/sanctions should not be ignored. A strong final warning or sanctions should be applied, IMO. A strong warning to Iaof2017 too should be made too. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed here and then [[203]] the inclusion of Albanian without replacing it in this very introductory part with Greek, which I'm glad you agree with. I'm against claims that 15th century families still retain the same ethnic identity today as expressed here: [[204]] since bibliography is against this point.Alexikoua (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua's comments about "ethnic purity" have to receive strong admin oversight, in my book, not so much as an issue of civility - which is reprimandable - but in relation to an underlying problem about the use of bibliography. The bigger problem is that Alexikoua is instrumentalizing few sources which refer to a person's birthplace in Greece as a means to put forward a particular narrative about ethnicity of the Bua family. A year ago he put forward that the Bua are of Aromanian origin[205] before becoming a historically attested Albanian family. And Khirurg was saying that Yet here you are, using sophistry and other forms of intellectual dishonest to suppress information that would be of interest to our readers Alexikoua in 2020 put forward that they should be called of Aromanian origin instead of just Albanian (an implication that ethnic origin has a functional meaning beyond historical ethnicity) and in 2021 wants a particular Bua to be called Greek and accuses others of pursuing ethnic purity OR. A very particular narrative is being pursued for the past year and every time different use of bibliography is being instrumentalized (first Aromanians, now Greeks). I don't think that Iaof2017 should have reacted to him like that but when you come into contact with someone's contradictory theories for a a long time it's not always easy to keep it cool. To recap, the main problem doesn't have to do with civility, but use of bibliography. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So if Iaof misbehaves, as he has been for a LONG time (what a crimeit was fine in that order!thanks for trying to hide facts), it's always someone else's fault? Pretty obvious attempt at deflection. You may want to read WP:NOTTHEM. Issues related to interpretation of bibliography are supposed to be hashed out at the talkpage. Which is precisely what Alexikoua is doing, and Iaof is NOT doing. In fact, he is doing anything but trying to resolve things in the talkpage. It's just reverting, bad-faith assumptions and SHOUTING in ALLCAPS from this user, literally all the time (STOP STALKING STOP REVERTING EVERYTHINGSTOP STALKING ME AGAIN), over the absolutely lamest things (order of names, infobox junk, capitalization, etc.). I can't find of a single example of Iaof calmly discussing things in a talkpage, but I can find lots and lots of examples of flame-warring, incivility, and bad faith assumptions. How much longer is this behavior going to go on for? Side comment: If you really want to "protect" this user, you would best do that by giving them some advice on their talkpage. The more you scratch this, the more attention will be drawn to their behavior (and there is a LOT of evidence, believe me). Khirurg (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of Alexikoua's edits today added to Stratioti[206] that The Venetian commander of Nauplion, Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483), stressed that the Albanian stratioti were unreliable contrary to the Greek units which he considered loyal. I checked the source (details) and the author wrote that The Venetian commander of Nauplion, Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483), didn't trust the Albanians because they created problems unlike the Greeks who were more obedient. In the notes of the same page: Sometimes Bartholomeo Minio speaks favorably of the Albanian stratioti Alexikoua left out some parts of the source because they didn't support the particular narrative which he put forward to the article. I consider myself too old to get frustrated about it, but I do understand without supporting it why someone who reads Alexikoua's comments about ethnic purity and then reads his edits might respond like Iaof2017.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua's rendition is actually quite faithful to the source. We're not supposed to quote sources verbatim due to copyvio. You on other hand, in this edit [207], dropped the word "Albanian" that came before "unreliable", changing Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483) stressed that the Albanian stratioti were unreliable contrary to the Greeks to Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483) appear to be considered less trustworthy because they caused problems to the Venetians unlike the Greeks. Shall I accuse of you of "misusing bibliography" now? Shall I SCREAM at you in ALLCAPS, because I am not "too old"? Interpretation of bibliography is subjective. SCREAMING in ALLCAPS is not. Ant it will stop, either the good way, or the hard way. Khirurg (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Alexikoua left out of his narrative that Sometimes Bartholomeo Minio speaks favorably of the Albanian stratioti in order to keep only a very specific part of the source. Is that a faithful rendition? Side comment: The authors writes Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483), didn't trust the Albanians because they created problems unlike the Greeks who were more obedient. and I cited it as considered less trustworthy...
Except you left out "Albanian". By the way, in this edit [208], you also left stuff out, but luckily I checked [209]. Don't accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of. Khirurg (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote Some families intermarried with each other, while other times disputes erupted as in 1525 when both Greeks and Albanians asked to served only under the leadership of their own commanders.In the reports of the Venetian commander of Nauplion, Bartolomeo Minio (1479-1483) appear to be considered less trustworthy because they caused problems to the Venetians unlike the Greeks. I forgot to add "they" to make it correct in English, but I didn't leave out any part of the narrative of the source. You're comparing a grammar mistake with a radical division between the source and the edits. Alexikoua kept only the part about negative attitudes towards Albanians and didn't write anything about the positive part which created a more nuanced narrative. Alexikoua used the source to reproduce specific narratives about attitudes towards Albanians. And you think that the real problem has to do with Iaof2017's replies - an Albanian who has read many times the same use of bibliography and narratives by Alexikoua. I don't support strong verbal reactions because they won't change Alexikoua's editing, but I understand the source of their frustration. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are turning this discussion into another wall of text nightmare, but since you raised an allcaps issue: Khirurg, why did you "scream" at me in allcaps yesterday and to Calthinus too? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your usage of allcaps is not different from that of Iaof2017. You did not need to use allcaps to me and to Calthinus. WP:SHOUT says that ALL CAPS and enlarged fonts may be considered shouting and are rarely appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases but should be used judiciously. Italics are often used for emphasis or clarity but should be avoided for long passages. Do not do that again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows the difference between capitalizing words for emphasis and SCREAMING in ALLCAPS. You're not helping your credibility by making ridiculous accusations. But don't let me stop you. Khirurg (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can say whatever you want, the diffs are there for everyone interested to see. If you do that again, a report will be filed. To return to my discussion with Alexikoua: El C, if you read this, look at how Alexikoua claims he did not add "Greek" while removing "Albanian", although he obviously did that. If one does not want to accept his own edit.... Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is an old diff from years ago. I have been reflecting on many things, hence my Wikibreak status and off- and on- activity in recent months. From when I started my "period of reflection", I have done nothing wrong, and my edits have been appreciated by editors that I have had disagreements with such as Sadko and even Alexikoua above. Btw, I hope you too will start to change your editing behavior, and stop using personal attacks and allcaps. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You just made a threat just now. Some "reflecting"... You should apologize. I can and will use whatever font I feel is appropriate. You don't have the right to give orders and tell others what to do, then make threats. You should adopt a more collaborative attitude. Cheers, Khirurg (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I made a threat, report it. Threats should not tolarated or ignored. The same kind of warning I made above is made by you every now and then in content disputes against editors who disagree with you. If you do not like that, then do not do it to others. I am again asking you to not use allcaps when discussing with me. I see it as shouting and indeed it is. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "if you do that again a report will be filed" is a threat. Don't do it again. And stop pestering El C's talkpage trying to have the last word. Bye. Khirurg (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a threat, and you do the same kind of warning in content disputes and even edit summaries. If you do not like it, then do not do it to others. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan. When I have time free after work, I'll create a new one. Unfortunately, I foresee some fresh material to present. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C)18:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not allowed to make any of these edits, per this. I've already blocked you for 6 months for violating your topic ban, so why are you still doing it? It seems like a flagrant violation, so what am I missing? Please respond here prior to making any further edits to the topic area (which, again, my understanding is that you are indefinitely topic banned from).El_C02:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, I misread. But I caught it quickly enough. Anyway, for Shach, use dispute resolution. For Ben Gurion, no, that is not allowed. Added: Because how would he have gotten pork? Christian Arabs, I presume...? I'm concerned to what that could lead to. El_C02:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify: "For Ben Gurion, no, that is not allowed." Is it not allowed because of my ban or because he could not have got pork? Chesdovi (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the ban. I've no idea about the pork bit. But I'm saying that, if he did, it would have probably come from Christian Arabs, no? Though I guess he could also have had it on an oversea visit... El_C21:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I need to understand where and where I can not edit, because some will then claim Elazar Shach is also under the topic ban. Kindly advise, as I was under the impression that I was allowed make edits to pages which contain sections about Judaism or the conflict so long as they were not related to the conflict or Zionism itself, while you now are suggesting that it is a problem if the article itself contains any allusions to the Israel-Arab conflict, in which case Rabbi Schach which like DBG has material on Israeli politics is also off limits? Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's your first time back after a ban, perhaps it's best to stay away from that topic for a bit. That was the advice I gave you when you asked about removing the ban. Keep in mind you have more than one ban in place, so if you aren't 100% sure about it, it's best not to edit in that area. Sir Joseph(talk)22:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked El_C for his advice, not yours. And you never told me to stay off Rabbi Schach. In fact, I am still waiting for an answer to this: [212]. I am sure what I am allowed to edit. It seems others are not. Chesdovi (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi, oh, I didn't realize (or remembered) that Zionism was also off the table. That effectively takes away a whole host of Israel-related topics. And much of Israeli politics that deals with enemies of the state (and peace partners, for that matter). Again, the DBG pork thing, it feels like trouble to me. But feel free to get a second opinion. I don't mind being superseded in that decision. If another uninvolved admin thinks it's okay, then I'm good with that. El_C13:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an afterthought: upon reflection, perhaps Zionism would be included in any ARBPIA ban (certainly BROADLY) by definition. I've never really thought about it. Feels like a yes. El_C13:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is El_C, is that for some editors Zionism = Judaism, so am I precluded for Judaism as well? You banned me for adding pork to DBG. I want to know why. On 10 June 2020 SJ informed me "Editing in David Ben-Gurion is a violation of your TBAN most definitely" and used 4 diffs relating to DBG to demonstrate a violation of the T-BAN. But regarding my edits to Palestinian wine, Darkfrog24 said: "The article itself doesn't seem to contain any allusions to the Israel-Arab conflict." It would indicate therefore that WP:TBAN "broadly construed" includes edits to articles and categories about the I-P conflict but not those pages which include sections relating to the conflict. That was the guidance received from EdJohnstonwho stated: "There is now a school of thought that people under an I/P topic ban like Chesdovi are allowed to edit articles with the ARBPIA template on them so long as they don't modify anything related to the conflict. T. Canens who issued the TB thinks this is OK." All the edits I made to DBG were related to his personal religious beliefs and family. Please clarify for me if I can continue adding DBG ate pork. Chesdovi (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi, sorry, but this is starting to be taxing for me. Again, maybe get a second opinion. I'll go with whatever. Not really interested in engaging the nuances of ARBPIA right here right now (beyond what I've already written), I'm afraid. Good luck. El_C14:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sir, one of my new section on Sasha Banks article was removed by an extended confirm user [213]. There was nothing problem with the section. I also included reliable sources. You can see Becky Lynch also have similar section, Charlotte Flair's article also have similar section. I don't think there's any problem with the section. If they think grammar is problem they should correct it without removing entire section. I request you to re add the section. Thank you Rtyggu (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rtyggu, you can't keep adding that promotional material to pages. This sort of advocacy isn't allowed here. An article about a person isn't intended as a hagiography. Otherwise, use dispute resolution to seek clarifications on respective article talk pages for anything outstanding. El_C13:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How that's even promotional? That's literally facts. And not removing section from Becky Lynch's article. And in Charlotte Flair's Achievement section only have repetitive content. Rtyggu (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If they want to remove these type of section then they should remove it from articles not only from one. My every statement in that section was fact Rtyggu (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rtyggu, yet that is my assessment. If you wish to seek a wider review, by all means, that option is available to you. Any uninvolved admin is permitted (expressly) to take any action they see fit in this matter, including by undoing mine outright. I need not be consulted or even notified. El_C13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They should talk to me in the matter. But that guy not responding me. I just want if I add the section in the future. They should not remove. Rtyggu (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rtyggu, Wikipedia is not a chat room. Delays in responses to content disputes are often in the days rather than hours. Please be patient. El_C13:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, I have looked at that discussion and I don't think WP:BANEX applies. This is your second TBAN violation in two days. As an admin, I really expect you to exhibit better cognizance. Frankly, I'm at a bit of a loss now and am thinking of just bringing your case before WP:ARCA, so that the Committee can take over any and all enforcement or otherwise actions. Ymblanter, not to impose, but maybe you can find the spare time to do that...? No worries if it's a no. El_C14:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why consider ban exceptions when I haven’t written anything to do with the topic? I haven’t mentioned the subject matter or any content dispute, merely pointed out egregiously inappropriate behaviour by another admin. —MichaelZ.14:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that any "egregiously inappropriate behaviour by another admin" should be brought before ArbCom directly. But I'll note as well that you are (also?) the [other] admin!El_C14:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C. I have say thank you for protected this article for 6 months because of high level of IP vandalism in State v. Chauvin. But, you must think again, you protected the article under WP:ARBAP2 sanctions, but in the talk page, the article is under WP:ARBBLP sanctions, so you arbitration enforcement log placement is wrong because the article contains about Biographics of living persons, whenever is alive or dead, and the article is prone to violations of BLP policy by adding cause of death, gender, etc. So, you should re-log the article again under BLP DS. I hope you can read the message. Thank you. 36.77.95.2 (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm writing to you as you have advised that a single disruptive user is not a sufficient reason for page protection. The vandalism continues, so what would be the right way to stop it? Alaexis¿question?05:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to drag this on, but besides User:Rtyggu's gaming of the system, "User:Bashar Rehman" emerged from nowhere to push identical "greatest" puffery at Sasha Banks (just as User:Rtyggu's vision was being rejected by other editors).[214][215] After extended protection was instated, "User:Mhenry01" appeared on the talk page to push for User:Rtyggu's reviled "legacy" section to be restored; User:Rtyggu soon emerged to promote the same cause. This all seems incredibly blatant. Cloudbearer (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shalom! The title of the articles you protected is less important, but the fabrication in the content is important. User:Maudslay II's edits are introducing a fabrication in this article that sources do no support:
[217], says Israel planted a bomb. But the Washington Post used as a source says this is a claim by Shiite leaders, while Israel denies this and cites an internal Shiite rivalry.
Hi, I really do not want to engage into an edit war with the Belarusians, therefore I suggest to lock the article of Pahonia once again as they persistently inserts information unrelated with Lithuania into the section "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" (e.g. Muscovian/Russian seals of Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy) and this way starts an edit war. See these edits: one, two, three. There are absolutely no doubts that they are purposefully pushing propaganda when they mix the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Moscow, and Novgorod Republic in a "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" section of an article about the coat of arms of Lithuania. These three massive states were not related with each other (they almost constantly were enemies, rivals) and term Pahonia is exclusively associated with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Saint George (widely used among the Ruthenians, Muscovians) is not related with Pahonia as Pahonia developed independently in Lithuania from a soldier/knight and evolved into a horse rider. -- Pofka (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Pofka, I still can't make sense of your explanation (verification-wise), and I'm not really inclined to study it further, to be honest. Regardless, please do not edit war. Use dispute resolution. Added: Also, calling your opponents in the content dispute "Belarusians" (seemingly, as a pejorative) strikes me as inappropriate. El_C04:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Thanks. When some Wikipedia users have Belarusian language templates in their user pages and desperately tries to prove that Lithuania is not Lithuania, then it is clear with whom I am talking. I'm not a racist. I fully respect all my neighbors who have sane minds. However, in the recent years some active fanatics (they are called as Litvinists, while their propagandic ideology is called as Litvinism) in Belarus spread even wider and they try to prove that Lithuania is not Lithuania. I'm not surprised that it is difficult for foreigners to understand it as some of these fanatics arguments are shocking to the Lithuanians as well. Mixing the Lithuanian and Russian/Muscovian rulers in the same section of an article is one of these insane examples, as one of these Litvinists demonstrated yesterday. -- Pofka (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, regardless, this isn't something I wish to take on single-handedly. So, I hope there isn't going to be the expectation for me to do so, because it's not going to happen. Please note that this is an WP:ARBEE-covered matter, so you may seek assistance at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. PS: shortened section header. El_C17:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: The matter of the coat of arms of Lithuania needs to be solved once and for all as I guess that the Lithuanian-Litvinist war might intensify in the future because the Litvinists activity greatly increased following the 2020–2021 Belarusian protests. I fully understand that the Belarusians are searching for their national identity, however attempting to humiliate their neighbors and dawning of maps in which part of Lithuania is presented as a historical region of Belarus (e.g. this map, which is already nominated for deletion and is a fine example of the Litvinists philosophy) are unacceptable practices of building a national identity. So the Arbitration enforcement is the right place to seek for a precedent as I see that my report in the noticeboard was archived without any solution? Does the Arbitration have neutral arbiters or is based on the majority vote? The Lithuanian community isn't large in the English Wikipedia, so we would be most likely outvoted by the Litvinists, however it does not mean that their "truth" is the real truth. Or it should be discussed in the request for comment instead of the Arbitration? We really, really need a valid precedent in this question, so which one would better: Arbitration or Request for comment? -- Pofka (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: By the way, as the report to the administrators is now archived, why Kazimier Lachnovič received absolutely no punishments for his humiliation of other Wikipedia users? Or does that mean that referring to him and other Litvinists as chauvinistic rubbish (1, 2, 3) comply with the rules of Wikipedia? It was already proved by Ymblanter that he used word Nazi/Nazism (4, 5) to refer to other Wikipedians as well. Such aggressive personal attacks of his are disgusting. -- Pofka (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pofka, we don't sanction users as a "punishment," but rather to prevent disruption. For my part, that AN thread just became too long for me to follow, so I sorta gave up on it. Relatedly, one advantage WP:AE has over WP:AN or WP:ANI is that there is an actual word limit, which I find is often quite helpful in getting a given dispute properly reviewed. About your RfC versus AE query: I don't really know enough about the dispute and its current state to answer that with any confidence — perhaps Ymblanter (ping) would be able to advise on that...? Good luck. El_C10:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I noticed that you blocked one Lithuanian Wikipedian a few months ago (Itzhak Rosenberg) for "bigotry will not be tolerated" for unlimited amount of time (who also was attacked by Kazimier Lechnovič previously). I'm not familiar with the Itzhak Rosenberg's blocking case, however I can't see how calling other Wikipedians as chauvinistic rubbish or as Nazis does not qualifty as bigotry or similar. His phrases were fully intended to humiliate other Wikipedians and it violates "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, so I can't see why this case should slip away. He intentionally flooded the report with questionable quotes of unreliable sources and this way masked his disgusting actions. Please tractate fanatics actions equally. -- Pofka (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pofka, I've blocked over 8,000 users, so I don't appreciate your insinuation. And I think you've now outstayed your welcome here. El_C11:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: With all due respect, but these two users (Kazimier Lachnovič and Лобачев Владимир) do not learn and today began yet another edit war, censorship. Please finally stop them. I reported them once again to the administrators noticeboard HERE. -- Pofka (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: You, as a administrator, warned not to start another edit war and they don't care about it, therefore I informed you about it as well. -- Pofka (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C. Hope, you are keeping well.? This title is salted. Can you unprotect to allow promotion of draft into mainspace? Draft:Smile Foundation is well cited. I have checked it for notability. It should be moved to mainspace after some minor copy-editing. --Gazal world (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gazal world, nice to see you. Long time. In answer to your request: sorry, I don't feel confident enough to do that. I realize $8 million goes a long way in India, but as far as scale goes, it's seem pretty borderline. Add to that that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smile Foundation was closed as delete in Sept 2020, and it leads me to think that a wider discussion is probably warranted. But in any case, I wouldn't do it without touching base with the protecting admin — to that: ping Seraphimblade. Best wishes, El_C18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gazal world, I am some admin — what I'm saying is that I'm not sure how the WP:AFC and WP:AFD dimensions interplay together for this particular subject. So, a discussion involving community (rather than admin) input might be due. Then again, if Seraphimblade sees fit to undo his own protection, then I suppose that would be that. Hope that makes sense. Best, El_C18:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article has been written with reliable sources. It has some language issues, but not major. It can be moved to mainspace after some copy-editing. It satisfy both GNG & WP:ORG. --Gazal world (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me then; what it primarily needed was review by someone without a COI, and you've done that. I've unprotected so you can approve it; if anyone thinks it's still not there, then that can be settled at a new AfD. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back on 2020-06-02, you blocked Seguro64 from Killing of George Floyd and George Floyd protests. The first page has now moved to Murder of George Floyd. A few days after that partial block, George Floyd was created. This user has apparently been causing a bit of disruption on Talk:George Floyd. A quick look shows it's exactly the same sort of disruption as lead to the original block, but I'll note your block wasn't on the associated talk pages. That user has also blanked the notice to you, as is their right (though... it's a bit untoward), here. At this time, I'm tempted to simply leave things be. What are your thoughts? --Yamla (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. While their article talk page contributions in this area do seem rather tendentious in nature —exhibiting a lack of understanding about super-obvious things, like the role of jail in relation to convictions, for example— I don't think it rises to the level of enforcement at this time. In any case, this is unlikely to be an area I'd wish to attend to at this time, myself. As for blanking whatever from their talk page, I wouldn't read anything into that (Che would say, I suppose), basically, as a matter of principle. Regards, El_C11:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C, I wonder if I can get your help controlling an edit warrior (current talk page, archive). He has edit-warred over practically everything ever since he came on the scene. The latest dispute is at Talk:Anglo-Manipur War#Background section, where again he reinstated the problematic content twice without changing anyting. He also gives me edit warring notices, probably copying the text of my own notices.
Hey, Kautilya3. Sorry, but I'm not really doing "complicated" right now. Maybe take it to WP:AE as an WP:ARBIPA matter to be assessed for enforcement action...? That would be my immediate recommendation if things are trending towards the acute. Regards, El_C11:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis does not read. Clearly, he was left told that the changes were endorsed by an administrator and came back with his message-excuse that he has as now like a tool, of "Rv [[wp:sandwiching image]]", "per very recent", "per "previous". User seems to have a serious problem with the issue of colonization of the Philippines (considering that it is the vast majority of the history of that country). --Pedro158 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Minor self-correction: looks like I did actually attach a link to the 2nd report at the time. Just a reading comprehension fail on my part today.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C11:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, completely forgot about this but just popping in as a reminder. I can go through and reduce them to basic temporary semi-protection for, say, six months if you think that's suitable. Anarchyte (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Otherwise, AWOL'ness (mostly) remains, but am hoping to be back to regular(ish) form soon(ish) (ish) (ish) (ish). El_C13:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and whatever it is, I hope it's a good thing. If not, I wish you it's as limited in duration as possible. But if it's a good thing, take your time for it! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at it. I think the reason that many editors supported ECP of the talk page is that disruption is coming from off-site - at least Twitter and likely people coordinating on other sites and/or in real life with each other to disrupt the page. These people know the "10-4" rule for semi-protection, and while I'm sure they know the 500-30 rule, the disruptive accounts have basically all been over the 10-4 but below the 500-30. Furthermore, it's much easier for someone to remember to come back and disrupt after making 10 minor edits on one day, then being able to edit 4 days later than to remember 30 days later and make 500 unproblematic edits. You're right that this wasn't very well articulated by any of us so I don't really have a fault with the close. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I got the sense of urgency about Twitter-canvassing from the main thread and the AE one that preceded it — RE: AE, seems a bit weird, because I did stress to RC recently (I believe at RfPP) that COVID19 is a GS rather than an WP:ACDS matter. In any case, I'd reiterate the benefit of starting with a lesser sanction and escalating if it happens to fall short. Thank for the note. Regards, El_C14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for trying the lesser sanction and only increasing to ECP if the semi doesn't stop enough disruption - I'm also leery to block potential good editors from the talk page - which while outnumbered by disruptive new editors do still exist. But on the other hand, something needed done to try and stop us having to repeatedly tell people that no, we are not going to treat it as non-fringe. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all counts. I think I'd put it this way: from an enforcement perspective, it's an WP:EXTRAORDINARY action, so it makes sense to temper it when the strength of the case proposal arguments for it do not sufficiently reflect this (enforcement-EXTRAORDINARY nature). El_C15:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's fair to assume the lack of discussion about semiprotection was because the editors didn't consider the possibility. Most possibly problem editors tend to be autoconfirmed but not ECP confirmed, and the problem isn't driveby vandalism/commentary but rather slightly more committed SPAs. Still, probably the point should've been made in the discussion for community consideration, as it is a community intervention. I'm not going to close challenge it but do ask you to reconsider. While it doesn't exactly hurt to have the discussion again if semi doesn't help, it would take up time to do the discussion all over again. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that, if I'm shown shown evidence that convinces me the semi isn't working as intended, I'd just amend my close by upgrading to ECP immediately. But, if I'm not convinced (feel uncertain, whatever) about it, then, yes, the discussion would have to be updated/resumed. Not sure there's really a way around that. Still, semi may well work, or of it doesn't, that may well be obvious enough for me to act with immediate effect. Regards, El_C16:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So long as you'd be willing to do that (reevaluate down the line, if problems persist), and take actions without requiring bashing through another discussion (via GS, amending your close, or otherwise), then that's totally fine with me. My biggest concern was if we'd need a discussion all over again, as I sense people (certainly I) are getting a bit sick of the issue and hearing about it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, I promise to try. Seriously, though, I do hope to be able to adjust as needed with minimal friction and time sinking. That's the hope. El_C16:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really around right now, but even if I were, I don't really wish for my talk page to become an WP:RFPP spillover. A protection request has to be of a rather exceptional nature (volume of disruption and/or especially egregious) for me to attend to it here, by individual request. Regards, El_C13:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since this case is clear cut, I thought of bringing it here instead of opening a full-fledged AE report.
User:Jasksingh has been disruptive from the get-go and has been also blocked for sockpuppetry. He continues to make disruptive edits too often. The most recent examples are here:
29 April: Reinforcing what he said above on the main article without gaining consensus contrary to advise from ANI.
26 April: Adds content with a misleading edit summary. His edits concern misinformation spread by those who don't represent government on an article that is titled as COVID-19 misinformation by governments.
Unless a 0RR restriction or a topic ban can be added, I don't see any chances of him making any improvement given his own talk page is full of unheeded warnings. Azuredivay (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to answer every thing point by point:
29 April: When I raised the same point with the user Wareon (who had made the edit) on his talk page [221], he never gave any reference of any wikipedia guideline to prove that "opinion of most scholars" can be presented as a fact on wikipedia specially when the source itself uses the language "opinion of most scholars". The reference of WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP is provided by Azuredivay today only and was never provided by Wareon. Even these guidelines nowhere mentions what Azuredivay is trying to claim. Whereas I have already provided reference of WP:NPOV which clearly says "Avoid stating opinions as facts".
29 April: I was advised in ANI that I should try to reach to a consensus on the article's talk page which is what I exactly trying to do now [222]. There was a gap of some months as I was busy during that time and couldn't start this thread on the article's talk page. Till we reach to a consensus nobody can claim that only his point of view is correct. So, I reverted previous edit done by Wareon but he reverted my edit again. I didn't began edit warring and I am now waiting for result of consensus. If no consensus is reached then I will reach to content dispute as advised by ANI.
26 April: This is completely my fault as I completely oversaw government word in the heading. So, I unconditionally apologize for that.
28 April: Wareon claimed it as WP:SOAP of a poltician in his revert of my edit. I didn't reverted his edit after that. So, I don't know how I was wrong in this case.
Apart from that, Azuredivay is bringing up irrelevant points of warnings etc. on my talk page whereas I have always tried to address any warning/objection raised on my talk page and many times reverted my changes myself in order to address the objection. Example: [223]Jasksingh (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Azuredivay (and Jasksingh): I'm not really taking on complex cases (which AE requests often are), here, on my talk page right now. If you're wary of launching a complaint at WP:AE, maybe find another admin, one who'd be willing to investigate the dispute single-handedly...? Because I'm not the person to do so at this time. Regards, El_C13:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
M.Bitton, I'm unavailable to handle requests (here) for routine admin actions at this time. I don't really want my talk page to supplant noticeboards right now. Unless there's something exceptional about the given request, I'm unlikely to grant it and will just refer you to AIV/ANI/Wherever (my responses to the two sections above this also give you a sense of where I'm at right now). Regards, El_C14:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responded at EFR. I'd also note that pings, in general, are not a reliable way to reach me right now. Some items seem to be falling through the cracks more than usual, for whatever reason, so to make sure I'm notified about whatever, best to post here. Then I'm pretty much certain to see it. Regards, El_C15:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C! I recently blocked the above-named editor, as well as 9 other accounts, on the Simple English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry and abuse. Noticing that you have blocked this account as an LTA, it seems pertinent to inform you that some of the accounts I've blocked on simplewiki have edits here as well:
I am unfortunately unfamiliar with this LTA; is there a LTA page on this project I could look at, or a common name of the sockmaster? Best, Vermont (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Vermont, I seem to have forgotten to apply the action component of my response. Scattered stuff. Anyway, indeffed all. El_C12:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. Not familiar with these works/publications, written in a language which I do not command (in the slightest). I see that you queried the user about this April 26 edit today (May 6), so maybe wait for them to respond...? They seem to be around today. Anyway, it isn't clear why they removed the content (edit summary only reads "clean up," which I find a bit cryptic). I'm not committing to following up on this, but that's just my impression based on a 2-min glance. If there's an impasse, there are noticeboards like WP:RSN or WP:ANI, that you may seek relief at. Regards, El_C16:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C. I am Ken. I would like to request you for the restoration of the article Guruvayur Padmanabhan, which was deleted by you under the G5 criterion. This article was kept at AfD, and is about one of the historical elephant from Kerala. This article passes every notability criteria. So, I am ready to take full responsibility of the article, and hereby request for a restoration. Thank you. (Deletion Log) KenTonyShall we discuss?18:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
So I would like to offer a few reasons to why I am appealing the t-ban.
So to start off with, since my t-ban started, I started 11 new articles, all in compliance with my t-ban rules, and I am currently working on a new draft. This is significant since one of my problems before the t-ban was creating current event article stubs, including stubs based on US politics. That was a major problem that lead to multiple ANI's pre tban. I have overcome that and have learned to not create any stub until multiple RS (Normally following WP:THREE, unless it is something that is a major event like 2021 Nigerien coup d'état attempt, which I started with 2 RS, one being AP News.) have put out articles on it. No matter what, after my tban (Appeal or waiting), I will never create any stub based on any political news.
So I am fully admitting, that I did violate my tban a total of 3 times since it was imposed on March 2, 2021. One time was a violation on my user page[224], which is completely my mistake and I learned my lesson. The other two times were mistakes (One was a genuine mistake [225] and the other was me not really thinking or remembering the tban [226]. When you look the violation edits on the articles, there were constructive edits for Wikipedia. If I didn't have a tban imposed, they wouldn't have been questioned. So in my books, I had 1 'bad' edit, which was the edit on my user page which was a clear violation of my tban. I shouldn't have done either of the 3 edits, however, that one was the only 'non-constructive' violation.
Semi-continuation from number 2, but the tban, in short, is actually preventing me from improving Wikipedia for the better. I did deserve it, but I believe I have proven that I can separate myself from US politic articles. An example of my tban actually prventing me from improving Wikipedia is my edit [227] on Colonial Pipeline cyberattack. I actually started that article. When I started the article, it had nothing to do with US politics, (See this edit) so I actually was improving Wikipedia and being extremely helpful. However, President Biden got involved in the ordeal, which eliminated me, the creator of the article, from editing it (per the tban). I fully understand why I deserve the tban and such, but now that I have learned and proven that I can be separated from politic articles, the tban is preventing me from doing constructive edits.
{Second example of number 3} - Lets look at my other 'constructive' edit violation. [228] I was watching new pages and I stumbled across an article that was mainly about a guy who owned a burger joint if I remember correctly. I cannot verify as the article was deleted. It didn't seem to pass WP:Notability, so I placed a PROD on the article. What I missed was the guy ran for, if I remember right, like 2 weeks for US president in 2020. Thankfully, Fram caught my edit and alerted me and I was able to quickly undo it. During our conversation, he even said "No, I don't tend to try to get people blocked for what seemed like a genuine mistake." Even the editor who caught me believed it was a genuine mistake. 0 bad intention was behind it and other than the fact I had an active tban, the edit wouldn't have been challenged.
Since my tban being imposed, I have done around 700 edits, and to have really only 1 'unconstructive' violation edit, I would say that is good evidence to show that I have changed. I am sorry for the problems and multiple discussions I caused on Wikipedia and I promise to not even think about creating US politics articles. In all reality, I am more of appealing the ban to be able to edit articles that I can improve and not cause disruption. In theory, I cannot edit majority of weather articles and even articles I started all because a politician did something like declared a state of emergency. I love editing weather articles...I even get pinged for weather discussions/!votes [229] and I started Tornado outbreak sequence of March 24–28, 2021 post tban. But because of Governors doing things like states of emergency's, those articles are now off limits to me. I don't want to cause problems in the realm of US politics, but honestly, the tban is extremely sad for me, knowing I am able to create articles, then a few edits later, not be able to edit the articles I want to edit due to a 100% uncontroversial thing like a state of emergency being declared.
In closing, as I have said already, I promise to not cause any disruptive edits in terms of post 1992 US politics on Wikipedia and I only want to help improve Wikipedia for the better. Thank you for reading and considering my appeal.
Blocked indefinitely. El_C 03:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
El_C 01:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Austronesier, cool, thanks — sounds good. El_C 23:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Mz7 (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
El_C 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow, St. Martin, Idstein has quite a captivating look to it. El_C 20:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. Now mainspaced. And you did need an admin to move it, unless you were to copy-paste move. Anyway, congrats! El_C 15:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 03:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. El_C 14:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Already done. Already a step ahead of you. El_C 03:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Warned. Warning issued to Alexikoua. El_C 15:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- just saw this thread! I fondly remember the good ole days: And so the admiral ordered, Weigh anchor and hoist the mizzen! The crew responded, Aye, AdmiralEek!! But where's our captain? The admiral responded, Taking a caulk. The captain was a bit squiffy, so heave ho or you'll hang from the yardarm! Atsme 💬 📧 14:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Unprotected. Sure, no problem, Wowzers122. El_C 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
El_C 19:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
Likely. Same IP, slightly browser. IP Seems to house a few other probably-unrelated accounts. SQLQuery me! 00:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Stale. Anyway, thanks for bringing this to my attention, IP. El_C 05:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Stale are used for. So, that IP, for example, I didn't bother blocking it since its last edit was over a week ago. Of course, if it's used again for that purpose (unlikely), it will be instantly blocked, once reported (or re-reported). Best, El_C 08:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C 18:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
. I will be out of pocket for most of the day CELEBRATING. Atsme 💬 📧 17:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C 18:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C 18:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Already protected by administrator The Earwig. El_C 00:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Like — noted for future plagiarism! El_C 16:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Done. El_C 23:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Just checked: I'm currently at 99,771. Don't get me wrong, I love my watchlist (though many items fall through the cracks when the usual duration you set for viewing it is one hour!), but only when I have the time and/or inclination to patrol it! El_C 16:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
El_C 21:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Partly done — page deleted (inapprorpiate, especially retaining it for this long), but decline the second request. Those are not suitable candidates for revdel. Regards, El_C 17:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Already done. Looks like ToBeFree already got to it. El_C 02:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
done. El_C 14:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Bruhsmillah. Left a message for you (in case ping does not go through) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)