User talk:El C: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Precious

Three years!

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

Nice. Thanks, Gerda! El_C 08:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ah, good ol' ITNC —where I got no credit for being the first to have  Posted the Corona virus outbreak, but upon (admittedly, perhaps somewhat prematurely) doing the same for the Kirk Douglas RD got a what-the-fuck-barbeque— it's a magical place! El_C 11:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

February flowers

Alte Liebe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for tagging me, El_C! Concerning Dimash: Oh wow, I really didn't expect that! But I'm happy you enjoy it! It's funny, it's not even a genre I usually listen to. But the first time I heard him 2 years ago, I immediately loved his music. I love his voice, his emotional interpretation; and his vocal skill, range and versatility are just enormous. And he seems to be a very nice and humble guy, which makes it even easier to like him. PS: "eclectic and esoteric variety"? Wow, that sounds interesting. Jasmin Ariane (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello El C

I understand that you recently closed the discussion of a page move from Communist Party of China to Chinese Communist Party. I strongly oppose this decision but missed the end of the one-week discussion which ended up almost unanimously agreeing on the move. Most arguments were about how the acronym CCP and Chinese Communist Party are more commonly used in comparison to their official terms. One argument about Google results about genocide is both shocking and funny. Sources which present an anti-Chinese view WOULD DEFINITELY talk about mass-genocide being prevalent in China.

My issue with the term Chinese Communist Party is this. Its use has become very common over the last few years, mainly being spread by American officials and media. I know I may sound like a "wumao" or a "Commie" or a "CCP troll", but that's the thing isn't it. Any view that remotely supports, defends or justifies China or even Chinese culture is met with this retort. If you search up uses of the phrase "Communist Party of China", you can see that it is overwhelmingly replaced by American news sources as "Chinese Communist Party" or "CCP" in recent years. Despite this, usage of both terms is still dominated by "Communist Party of China" as shown in Google Trends USA (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F02189,Chinese%20Communist%20Party). But the term "CCP" which is constantly used by the US Government (especially Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump) started to increase rapidly in Google searches in the last few years. This is propaganda, no doubt about it. The term "Chinese Communist Party" puts the emphasis on "Chinese" and "Communist", which creates fear and anger as well as putting a race label on it. For typical Americans, this is as basically the same as "Russian commies" or "pesky Russians". In other words, propaganda by government officials. Am I a conspiracy theorist? I wouldn't say so. I mean if I were talking about China, I would be called a political analyist. As for use in news sources, it dominates American news sources while it's starting to trickle into other Western news sources. Living in a smaller country known as Australia (aka The Lucky Country or The Best Place on Earth), I've noticed my government broadcaster, the ABC start to use CCP instead of CPC which was previously used for a long time. However, it still remains mostly unbiased despite the term change. This is in contrast to blatant taking of sides by American newspapers including the "reliable" New York Times, "right-wing" FOX and "left-wing sympathesiser" CNN, which all use biased language including CCP.

I have deep concerns about Wikipedia using this term. No other political party that I have researched in Wikipedia uses its unofficial term in its title (GOP, Tory, Libs) which are still used in the so-called HQRS. This is excluding the Nazi Party which has a much longer official name. Do we really want to use a term that was coined by anti-Chinese and frankly, likely racist people of the likes of Mike Pompeo? This is what the American Republican Party (ARP) wants. Using a much shorter name which instils fear into the world's population in order to rally everyone against the country which poses a threat to its superpower status. Am I being a conspiracy theorist again? No. https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/us-secretary-of-state-calls-on-free-world-to-unite-against-china/news-story/f39ceb9eba1668358f2372f22be64460. That's exactly what Pompeo did. Please remember that everything Wikipedia gives to the world goes into a positive feedback loop. If we encourage the use of this term, it'll become more and more commonplace.

After my rant, I hope you start a review of the move. Despite my apparent support for China, I do not support and am not affliated with the Chinese government or the Communist Party. I just believe in treating it like we treat every other nation. The government's tough measures on Chinese people of Uyghur ethnicity is not morally right, but then again nor is the US government's measures on Mexican refugees. All in all, every nation has its issues but we shouldn't dismiss one nation's policies as "their domestic affairs" while scrutinising another nation's to the finest detail. This applies to Wikipedia as much, if not more than reality. This online encyclopedia stores history, politics, society and life in general. It's a time capsule, and it should give and tell the whole story. Not just the Americanised version of it (English-language sources only is the main argument for Americanising Wikipedia).

Thank you for your consideration JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't close that request — I just moved it for the non-admin who closed the request. El_C 10:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also say that I think this move discussion was closed too early and after too much over-simplistic argumentation of COMMONNAME. --Soman (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to launch a move review. If the close is overturned, I'd be happy to move the page back to the original title in the interim. El_C 11:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello what do you mean by un sourced edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waligorahim (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content needs to have reliable sources attached for attribution. Those sources are necessary to verify that the content is factual. El_C 11:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just or briefly explain where I'm comming from - it seems to me if a consensus is formed that a link to the subject of an article is warranted, we'd need a particular policy reason to remove the link. Which happens - local consensus doesn't override policy. But it seemed to me that you were suggesting that you would remove the link irrespective of whether or not there was ultimately consensus for including it. I don't care about it one way or the other, but I just want to be wary of wording. - Bilby (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting that, which is why when quoting the GS in question, I included the bit about consensus (in the parenthesis of the quote), which this proposal clearly lacks. El_C 13:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I misunderstood the "I'll nip this in the bud" comment, and the "I am adding this as a prohibition — just so there's no confusion. Any addition of the direct link can be viewed as disruptive and may be reverted on sight, reverts which will be exempt from all restrictions". I understand now that you didn't mean for that to be read that the link couldn't be added with consensus, but I think it was open to misinterpretation. - Bilby (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I disagree that it was, but I'm glad this confusion has been alleviated, in any case. El_C 13:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I tend to be overly cautious in these articles, as there has been a tendency to allow BLP violations and similar to creep in. People have justifably strong feelings, but sometimes those feelings have made it difficult to sepearate what people want to say from what we are allowed to say, so I try to be very narrow regarding how I read policy. :) I certainly don't think that has ever been an issue in regard to you, but it makes it a difficult area to manage in every direction, and can lead to misunderstandings on my part as well as from others. - Bilby (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for sharing your perspective. El_C 13:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any relevant revisions at Talk:Facebook please, and hide the edit summaries if appropriate. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)[reply]

Done. El_C 15:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on a filter when I get back. :) Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's worse than just the /64 See also this stupidity. I'm not sure what we should do going forward but I'm guessing a filter is going to be best. Praxidicae (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Yes, that is one determined LTA — I support any measure to further DENY. El_C 15:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the revertion, I mis-clicked - Arjayay (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please have a look at this user's first edit after their partial block. This obviously isn't an isolated: here, they have been reverted for doing the exact same thing to sourced content. M.Bitton (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 20:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the intended sidewide block wasn't applied (a perfect rope), the editor ignored the warning and is back doing the same thing[2][3]. They obviously have no intention of complying with the rules. M.Bitton (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, looks like I made a technical mistake by simply re-applying another partial block. Now  Fixed with the originally-intended 2-week sitewide block applied. El_C 13:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, would you look at this topic removal? [[4]]. Based on the discussion here I think all involved are OK closing it but I think it's a violation of Refector to simply erase it. I've raised the concern with the editor who deleted the discussion but with no success. [[5]] I would rather see this restored in part because I think we should be following the rules and in part because I don't like my comments removed without permission. Thanks Springee (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and closed. El_C 09:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you have a look at these already blocked IP's, they seem to be the same User:114.57.236.194,User:118.99.100.30,User:103.119.230.242 is there anything that can be done like a range block or something. Thanks! Bingobro (Chat) 10:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that LTA is using different ranges and proxies. Maybe a filter...? El_C 10:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you suggested to User:Joserchmuser here[6] that continued infractions would result in an indefinite block. He's returned from his block and gone back to removing the same content as before [7] Would you be able to take action to prevent another edit war? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 20:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Quick action! Thank you. Appreciate being spared the time and effort of going through the formal procedure again. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something to address [8]

• Another one to look at [9]. Thanks   // Timothy :: talk  08:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 08:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Could you look at the edits of User:Verman1 who uses unreliable sources for his making his own conclusions? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[10], [11], [12]

Maybe if there was an attempt to communicate about this matter outside of edit summaries, on both of your parts, the edit warring could be avoided. For my part, I cannot tell whether their source is reliable, so their edit does appear a bit suspect. El_C 13:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, As you might have noticed already, user Konli17 is on a POV crusade. See their long history of edit warring in many articles. They moved several town names in Syria to their Kurdish names (here, and only discussed in Talk pages after being caught and reverted. Please go through the materials they removed in Syrian Kurdistan and tell me if there is anything wrong with the content, context or sources I used. Konli17 simply does not like to know the history of this area and is trying to hide the recent past as it does not suit their narrative.

On the Democratic Union Party (Syria) page, they removed sourced material from American think tanks here, here and here, simply because it shows PYD is Syrian wing of PKK. I have warned this user multiple times but they won't listen. In addition to a recent block, there was a recent complaint about them that was left unclosed. I am planning to report them again. Finally, may I politely request you to restore the material you deleted from the Syrian Kurdistan page. I am willing to discuss the points at the Talk page. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, you do not need to split the discussion. As I mention on your talk page, you need to respect WP:ONUS and use dispute resolution, with an emphasis on bringing more outside input to the dispute/s. El_C 20:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, I know you are overwhelmed, but since you recently showed interest in a similar case (Syrian Kurdistan) edit-warring by the same user, please see editor Konli17 latest RV here, despite Talk page (me removing one ref. they objected), and overwhelming evidence from a number of sources, all from 3rd party, neutral western policy centers/think tanks. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about edit warring by you. Why are you still not respecting WP:ONUS? What dispute resolution steps have you taken rather than edit war yourself? El_C 20:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? What edit-warring did I do and what WP:ONUS I did not respect? Remember, Konli17 was the person who removed sourced, relevant content, not me. Please visit the Talk page of Syrian Kurdistan to witness that I am fully engaged in the Talk page with all the details and answers necessary, but obviously Konli is only saying they won't be convinced, despite the overwhelming evidence and sources presented. Still, I have refrained from re-adding my initial edit. All Konli is doing is reverting other users' edits (Syrian Kurdistan, Kurdistan, Afrin Region, Jazira Region, Makhmur, Iraq, etc.) and edit-warring against several other users. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, user Konli17 is arguing against four other users in the Syrian Kurdistan article, let alone other users in other articles. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, no evidence — no consideration, still. Have you even read WP:ONUS. Do you know what it is about? I'm not sure you do. El_C 21:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my friend, I read it, and this is why I mentioned in my earlier comment that the information is relevant, and that the dispute is not between 2, rather one (Konli17) against four. Again, I an not the one who started the reverts. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please indent your comments. No, I am not convinced. You lack the evidentiary basis for your claims, still. That is just a fact. Again, what dispute resolution steps have you taken aside from reverting? El_C 22:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been actively involved on the Talk page of the article, and your Talk page. I guess I will start a request at the dispute resolution page, although we almost have a semi-consensus on the Talk page, and one user against that. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, if you have to go through a few dispute resolution requests so that it becomes clear what's what, then that's what you do. I, for one, am curious to see what's what. Yes, you've been active, but there has been a consistent lack of diffs to accompany your various claims. That's my problem with your approach to this, the lack of documentation. Please update, if needed, but again, try to include documentation of utmost accuracy. El_C 23:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've a general question on the ARBPIA and IPAK remedies. I figure you might be the person to ask. Does the 500/30 rule also prohibit article creations in these topic areas which are created in draftspace then submitted for AfC? If yes, how are these cases typically reported; are there appropriate templates to request administrator action (eg deletion), or does one need to make a section at AE / ANI (respectively)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any pressing IPA problems can be reported at those noticeboards. I find the IPA GS to be redundant to the DS. The latter already give admins the discretion to apply WP:500-30. It's just a split log. Oh well. El_C 17:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on closer observation, there's an actual prohibition. I was not immediately aware of that. I'm not sure how actively it is being enforced. I don't know how well known the GS actually is among editors to request enforcement from admins (only one GS applied this year). I mean, the page was already on my watchlist, but frankly, I forgot it existed. El_C 17:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hmm, specifically with ARBPIA, does that also mean making articles in draftspace and submitting them to AfC is prohibited (for non-EC editors)? So, notwithstanding exemption #2, any admin can delete an article in the AfC queue by a non-EC editor (even if not problematic)? If yes, in practice are non-problematic articles in the topic area by non-EC editors reported for deletion by NPPs (or should they be)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding IPAK, I'm confused on the point of the short-term ECPs in the log, since that part of the authority seems within the scope of the DS, and if non-500/30s aren't meant to edit it anyway I'm not sure why it isn't just indefinite. Though there's an actual prohibition it doesn't seem to actually be enforced like ARBPIA's 500/30 is. Most the entries in the log seem to basically just be normal DS actions. But that's a very different question, I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not preemptively ECP ARBPIA entries anymore — a practice which had seen consensus among admins for a while now. Problematic ones should be reported as an IPA violation. I don't think the GS needs to be invoked for that (IPA problems are IPA problems), but I suppose it could. The DS gives us admins enough latitude, including any prohibitions we see fit to impose. This is why the GS does still feel a bit redundant to me. To that, perhaps the reason there's only been one such protection this year is due to partial blocks now being available, reducing the need for such a severe step as ECP. The fact is that no admins are actively using the GS (this year, at least). Likely, I will continue to ignore it (and will forget about it again soon enough), unless there are specific requests which invoke it. El_C 17:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. One more question on alerting out of curiosity, unlike DS it doesn't seem like community sanctions have (codified, at least) a strict alerting requirement. Older sanction pages seem to use the word "can" alert (rather than must) (eg WP:GS/CASTE), an older version of another GS page noted that it isn't a requirement, though I think (as enforced now) it is treat as one. In practice, do all community-authorised GS require the same notification standards as DS, i.e. that there must be an alert before any sanctions are placed? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that more recent GS have tended to streamline an alert similar to the manner in which WP:AWARE is applied to DS. El_C 19:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, just onneee more question (hopefully), WP:AC/DS § Page restrictions says that to sanction for breaching page restrictions an editor both needs to be WP:AWARE and there needs to be an editnotice on the page? But the talk notice says editors can be sanctioned for breaching page restrictions (like 1RR) "without warning" and "on a first offence". What am I missing here? What decision/section allows the 'no warning required' part? Doesn't this motion stop such applications? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader,  Fixed. Good catch. To quote from WP:ARBPIA4: Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing the area of conflict whilst aware. El_C 16:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! Can you make the same change at: {{American politics AE}}, {{IPA AE}} too? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 17:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more... Regarding 1RR restrictions on the blockchain topic, the community authorised restrictions in May 2018, but the ArbCom motion to strengthen editnotice requirements was passed in Jan 2018, so for avoidance of doubt the amendment probably applies to indefinite WP:ARBPIA-equivalent general sanctions on the topics of the blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed. WP:1RR will also be implemented on these pages? In which case, I'd imagine an editnotice is required on all pages with 1RR DS talk notices, to be able to enforce that restriction? If so, we have 72 usages of the template, but only 16 editnotices. Similarly, with the Syrian Civil War we have 475 usages of 1RR talk notice, but only 81 of the editnotice. With ARBPIA, there are 1800 editnotices, but 2600 talk notices. I'm assuming on the ones that don't have both, 1RR can't be enforced? If so, is this a problem? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a perennial problem — I'm not sure there's a practical solution to it, however, except to attend to each article individually on a need basis. El_C 19:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, is a bot for this a bad idea? Where a 1RR talk notice exists, bot adds edit notice. If talk notice removed, blank edit notice and/or tag it for deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my view. The problem is with the templates themselves. Because editors should be able to be informed about DS/GS on the article talk page without there needing to be an escalation to 1RR on the main article. El_C 21:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, do you mean not a bad idea in your view, or not a good idea? For the 2nd part, not sure I follow, do you mean the awareness rules shouldn't require an EN? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that there are article talk page DS/GS notices that by default announce the article is under 1RR, when that is not the case, and where 1RR may not be necessary, anyway. El_C 21:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I think I get you now. I have some vague ideas for that, but for the ArbCom DS system they'd all require template edits, which I can't do since they're ArbCom's templates. For what it's worth, the revamped GS system ({{Gs/talk notice}}) supports suppression of the 1RR alert using |type=mini (or |brief=yes in wrapper templates), example at {{Blockchain GS talk}}, in doc. But GS makes up a relatively small number of sanctioned pages, compared to DS, so this is probably not that helpful and likely to be forgotten about. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I guess with ArbCom's templates, one can use {{Ds/talk notice}} directly (which support each sanction area), rather than the 1RR wrappers, for those articles where 1RR shouldn't apply? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, though a sizble exception is that many non-admin editors use {{ARBPIA}} over the standard recommended {{Ds/talk notice|topic=a-i}}. Which has led to confusion on multiple occasions and likely will continue to. El_C 14:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is not a problem with {{American politics AE}} vis-à-vis {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}}, where the application of the the DS talk page notice is left exclusively to admins. El_C 14:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, re the ARBPIA template, I stumbled across Special:Permalink/963673040#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4. How does this relate with {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} specifically? At a glance seems to be a bit of a contradiction of Special:Permalink/820600857#Clarification_request:_Discretionary_Sanctions. Looking at both clarification requests, I feel like what the committee was getting at is: if an admin adds 1RR as a DS remedy it requires notification, but if the 1RR is a case remedy it doesn't? But I'm just guessing at a glance, really I don't know. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is too arcane for me to make sense of. El_C 03:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a friendly note that I filed an ARCA to request clarification on the issue here. I didn't list you as a party, as I don't really think you're 'involved', but just dropping a note to let you know. Arcane indeed. And to follow my assumption down the hole leads to some weird contradictions, so some Arb clarity would be nice. Unrelated note, and re. recent events, expressing my thanks for all your comments above & your wider admin work. You're a solid admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, ProcrastinatingReader — and for the kind words. El_C 16:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: El C, I have moved my comment from yesterday about Newimpartial, and all of the discussion that followed, from the previous section [13] to a new section at the bottom of your page because I wasn't sure if I had done the wrong thing by adding it to the previous section from weeks ago and think maybe it kept you from seeing it. I have not altered it in any way. I hope I haven't done anything wrong in moving this, and apologise if i have. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I have avoided Newimpartial as you told us to and not engaged with them at all on any page. There is currently an RFC about PinkNews as a Reliable Source. As both of us have argued in the past about the reliability of PN, both of us have commented there but I did not respond to any of Newimpartial's numerous comments or refer to them in any way.

Newimpartial, however, not only made a point of replying to mine, but is once again being WP:UNCIVIL and making personal attacks by mocking my literacy (That certain editors lack the literacy skills to understand what a source is saying does not make that source unreliable) [14].

I do not know how much more of this I'm expected to take from this user; if I fight back, I am accused of being a difficult woman and overly emotional, etc. This is beyond exasperating. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And AGAIN. I did not respond to Newimpartial's previous personal insults or their comment at all but instead replied to someone else, so Newimpartial jumped in and replied to THAT with more sarcasm and WP:UNCIVIL [15]. This is just BULLYING at this point - I am not even speaking to them or about them in any way and they keep replying to anything I say to anyone else with rudeness and insults.Lilipo25 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Newimpartial - first of all, how did you find the RSN discussion at this late date, if not by HOUNDING? By the terms of any interaction ban, you should just have left it alone. Secondly, your literacy in these matters does not need any further commentary on my part, but your interventions here and here were based in complete misreadings of the source you were !voting on at RSN; at least I held until after the second one before making comment. And my final comment was in relation to a three-way conversation where the other interlocutor continued to elaborate using terms I had introduced and Lilipo's response still made reference to my argument. This business of "I'm not talking to you, so you don't get to respond to my counterargument" is not really WP policy AFAICT.

Lilipo, I have never accused you of being "a difficult woman" or used any other gendered term. As far as the literacy skills business is concerned, I have made very similar comments regarding Guy Macon; there is nothing personal - or gendered - about that. If it seemed UNCIVIL to you, I apologize, but that whole RSN discussion has been rather heated, as you could see before your recent intervention. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EL C, I have refrained from responding to Newimpartial's bullying on the RFC and I will only say here two things:

1. I have NOT been on Newimpartial's page at any time, nor did I HOUND them - I "found" the RFC because I was on the Reliable Sources page to check if another source (Metro UK) had been deemed reliable and saw that a notice and link had been placed on the Pink News entry stating that it was in dispute and "under discussion". I had no way of knowing that Newimpartial was in the RFC when I clicked the link, and there is no reason for me not to comment in it, as i have a history of arguing against the reliability of Pink News as a source. I don't know why this is being treated with such hostility.

2. I hope that just for once, someone will note that Newimpartial has repeatedly made UNCIVIL remarks to me that constitute clear personal attacks (stating that I lack "literacy") when I have in no way engaged with them at all, and is now doing the "sorry if that seemed uncivil to YOU" that is not an actual apology at all. They are trying to taunt me into a fight, and it is extremely hard to have to constantly take this kind of bullying and not be permitted to respond. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not now, and never was, "trying to taunt you into a fight". I'm sorry you felt attacked. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, you should not have responded to Lilipo25, anywhere, for any reason. Monopoly of pages or discussions do not usually accompany an WP:IBAN. If you address Lilipo again you risk imminent sanctions. There is unlikely to be another warning about that (should be taken as a final warning). El_C 19:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Newmpartial is STILL going through my user page! I do not go on their page, I avoid them, and here a few minutes ago they posted a comment from MY user talk page in an ANI I have been participating in [16] in order to use it against another user who left the comment there. I strongly suspect they found the ANI I was in by checking my user contributions in order to follow me there today, but of course, I have no way of proving that isn't just a wild coincidence. But there is no way for Newimpartial to know what comments are on my Talk Page in a discussion in which they were NOT involved unless they are reading through it. Is there some way I can block Newimpartial from my page? This is ridiculous. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, you also should see this subsection of the ANI thread: [17] I believe this is further harassment on Newimpartial's part. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to Crossroads is here; I believe it is all in order. As far as the Daz Simpson diff is concerned, I saw that at the time it happened, and did not reference (or cast ASPERSIONS upon) Lolipo in providing it at ANI, where I believe it was relevant. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's Lilipo, not Lolipo! Anyway, I don't see where Newimpartial has interacted with Lilipo, but referencing her talk page is not ideal. Newimpartial, for the last (last) time, can you just not engage in anything Lilipo — broadly construed, please! El_C 20:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they know it's Lilipo. Since no matter how many times Newimpartial violates the order to leave me alone, all they ever get is one "final warning" after another, I am giving up ignoring them when they insult and bully and hound me and will respond. There cannot possibly be a rule anywhere on Wikipedia that says one editor is allowed to continually do this crap to another and the other one just has to take it. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. I'm setting a one-way IBAN against Newimpartial. Bare with me as I navigate that incredibly cumbersome template. El_C 20:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ban imposed as stated (logged). El_C 20:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, the link for the discussion giving rise to the AE action shows up on my talk page as [18], which is a broken link for me. Am I right in assuming it refers to the discussion here? Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. El_C 20:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And is it your impression that this edit would have violated the IBAN, had it been in place at the time? If so, I would like to hear why, since I don't see how it meets any of the criteria here and it was a highly relevant contribution concerning *another* editor, the one who authored the diff. Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, the ban has been imposed. It is not going to reversed. Avenues of appeal are listed on the template. Effectively, nothing should change except violations about mentioning or interacting with Lilipo in any way are now subject to enforcement action — action that, like the ban, will be logged as a discretionary sanction. El_C 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the first step in. this process, I am asking you to reconsider your original decision, in light of:

1. That I have apologized unreservedly for, and have not resumed, the original problematic behavior on my part and 2. I will continue to not responded to Lilipo25, anywhere, for any reason, as per your previous recommendation/"final warning". Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, decline. The more I think about it, the more that linking to her talk page comes across as provocation to me, after everything we've gone through. The ban has been set to curtail that from reoccurring. El_C 21:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended as a provocation, and I am sorry that you have interpreted it that way. Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it, but I still think you should have been more cognizant. El_C 21:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please block user:124.170.11.80 ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 02:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was so easy. Let's see... um, could you please block Jimbo Wales ASAP? EEng 02:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Soviet Russia, I block Jimbo? El_C 02:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Life of Lele Pons is still getting 5,000 daily page views and vandalism resumed as soon as the month semi expired. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does an article with 5000 page views a day have only 8 watchers? —valereee (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Including the three of us, I presume. Wow. El_C 02:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) It's pop culture. 'Nuff said. - BilCat (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, not the type of article I usually watch. El_C 03:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again, she has another article at Best Kept Secrets with Lele Pons which is getting hit similarly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected that for one month. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Infinite Patience
		I hereby award you the barnstar of infinite patience. I don't know how you do it but it is appreciated.   // Timothy :: talk

Thanks, Timothy! Infinite patience — I like that. El_C 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This notice comes to inform you that I have submitted an appeal to my Topic ban in the ARBPIA area, which you can see here. I was asked by the administrator EdJohnston to inform the previous administrators involved in my earlier topic bans when submitting a new appeal, which I take the time to do now. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, David. Best, El_C 02:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say, I've appreciated your efforts to cool disputes around here, particularly by temporarily protecting pages so edit wars could cool off. I haven't always agreed with the version that got protected, but discussions on talk pages have generally led to decent consensus versions being worked out in the end, and it's probably helped several users avoid getting blocked for 3RRing each other, and so be able to go on improving other articles. (I waited to make this comment until time had elapsed since the last time I saw you act on a page I was watching, so this wouldn't be taken as a response to a particular page/dispute.) -sche (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, -sche. That's a really nice note. An appreciation from a quality editor such as yourself is always inspiring and reaffirming. Best wishes, El_C 02:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping with the IP address I reported on the incident board Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Happy to be of service. El_C 04:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August

Sunflowers in Walsdorf
building bridges

The Sibelius discussion came up on my watch list yesterday, and hope I can keep my promise to self not even to look. Waste of time (like mutual accusations of stalking, yes Hal333 just came up on my watchlist). 5 years ago, I wrote a few articles about his compositions, including Islossningen i Uleå älv, with a good DYK ;) - This year, I wrote Credo and Haroun and the Sea of Stories (opera). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great articles, as always. El_C 08:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't counted how many I wrote of the cat "can't get composer as I want, write composition(s)", really many for Sibelius because the discussion was so frustrating. Last year only one, Antigone oder die Stadt ("We pounded at the doors of the mighty; unheard remained the heart-wrenched agony, our people's mournful fate!"). I do hope that this year's two are the last, but (see above) I really hoped ice was broken in 2015 already ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless, am looking forward to more of your excellent contributions! El_C 08:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Featured list to appear 21 August, Vespers for TFA 1 Sep, - flourishing. I just prefer to be driven by free will and inspiration from others than pure defiance, as the ones mentioned. Today, the TFA is by the first of the outcast, DYK? - We wrote Kafka together, his idea, - which - thanks to the google doodle - made it to No 1 TFA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[H]is idea — sorry, who is he? El_C 09:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somewhere above (Impact?) I explained the cabal of the outcast, founded by PumpkinSky (blocked) and Br'er Rabbit (banned), joined by a few others soon including me. PumpkinSky and I wrote Kafka, his idea. He had written today's Scouting article much earlier, as Rlevse, the one who passed Awesome Wikipedian the longest. After the Kafka success, he went for another RfA (linked above) which made him leave again. - Well, better looking forward. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Indeed, onward and upward. El_C 10:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sure: "to fight for freedom as a higher goal than fortune, fame and pleasure" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff of heroes and heroines, for sure. El_C 10:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what, my first edit day, reminding me of my first article, deleted in minutes, but appearing on DYK not much later (for 6 hours at the time), thanks to great helpers. In the context, I remember Bright Angel, nicely connected to hero, - in this case age 9. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. You're a true Riddle-Master, Gerda! El_C 20:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, - that's what DYK is about. I imagine father and son on that hike - of which I only managed the second portion, and was never as exhausted before or after. The father was the bassoonist in the chamber orchestra in the premiere of Britten's War Requiem at the new Coventry Cathedral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also have fond memories (of awe) from my own visit to Grand Canyon National Park... El_C 20:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of awe, did you know that "the finest editor that Wikipedia has seen" and I share the day of having been called awesome, 10 years ago, and today received a Featured project. Hard to believe. Leon Fleisher died, and in admirable collaboration his article grew from this to something I believe is ready for the Main page, wp:itnn as usual. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a day, indeed, Gerda — in more ways than one! The More You Know. El_C 20:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a day, today, your fist edit day. Also - less nice - the day when I received a 3rr warning, because I reverted what I thought was a bold edit. If you have the time, see my talk, or Psalm 149. Just when I though the infobox wars were over ... - Don't miss the top of my talk, for joyful music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Watched, DS alert issued. Ode to Joy. El_C 15:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Betovi! Seriously, In case that remains an issue I think we need arbitration clarification. At least one of the arbs who wrote the case admitted that removing a longstanding infobox is also a disruption. I have no idea how one voice against some infobox, more than 2 years ago, would constitute a "100% consensus" not to have one now. The one thing we don't need now is another fruitless repetitive discussion. The psalms are in the process of being improved, and all improved ones have an infobox. These are musical compositions, not biographies. Psalm 149 was the first, on 1 January 2018, as a program. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another great person died, wp:itnn Erich Gruenberg, in my program not to leave them with tagged stubs. Today another one, but just detagged, not for recent deaths. Too bad humour ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added Sgt. Pepper to Gruenberg's lead, quite unique! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli and German convergence — what I thought! I hope you will enjoy the show! El_C 20:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have friends, he's from Israel, she's from Germany. His son is an actor with a page here. No link, or I gave too much private info ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non/name-dropper. El_C 20:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just came to my mind with Isreal/Germany. Did you see the other violinist where it was even stronger? - I enjoy the show (posted) - "It's getting better all the time" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a world history in a life. RE: "It's getting better all the time" — I think someone forgot to tell the pandemic about that. El_C 21:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was distracted because a dear family member died (not where I live, and not the virus, but cancer, and yes had to come, but still ...) - I met a nice new user and welcomed them, please watch. I don't know how I'd react to people telling me first thing that they don't trust me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Gerda, I overlooked this comment (user talk page watched). Deepest condolences for your loss. El_C 17:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She would not have wanted us in sorrow all the time. - Today's DYK is about enlightening. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm Is It! - remember, I had the idea to expand that stub on this talk page? - Did that on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So cool, Gerda. Just incredible. El_C 23:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this page Religion_in_the_United_States. There may be edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manabimasu (talk • contribs)

Watched. El_C 19:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user Visnelma is improperly using the minor edit check box. They have made sizable and significant edits to articles like the Fall of Constantinople and have marked them as being minor. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their talk page is currently a red link (i.e. see {{uw-es}}). El_C 19:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

distruptive IP at the subject, ignoring talk, misleading edit logs, however interesting what he/she means by we will address this issue officially (legal threat?). Btw. I kept the source added, but even pushing identical entries at more subsections (legal stuff...)...please look on it. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 19:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello El C, as someone who is familiar with the individual involved, this report [19] may be of interest to you. Regards, Khirurg (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know if I'll have time to investigate this report in the immediate future. El_C 03:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadko, who you logged in April at AE for misusing a report he launched against Mikola22, now joined a report about Ktrimi991 (after Mikola22 did) and then launched a series of personal accusations about several editors (including Mikola22). He even went so far as to say that Ktrimi991 in RL would instantly get fired for Mobbing. If someone wrote that in my talkpage, I would even go as far as to ask for it to be deleted as a personal attack, but to make such comments in an admin noticeboard of all places requires admin oversight in that discussion because it has been derailing to a WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's obvious that Sadko knew exactly what he was writing and that it is a personal attack against Ktrimi991 because in that same comment he also said that I expect that some of the mentioned editors will report me because of my comment and explain how I am “the bad one”, no problem with that. [20]--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still don't have the time to, singularly, give this rather lengthy report the well-rounded investigation it may deserve. Please make use of AE for all of your Arbitration enforcement needs. The report has already been closed by another admin, so you may wish to bring the matter to their attention. El_C 17:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, I am not quite sure why you have removed the 2 paragraphs from the Ching Hai article.

I am the editor that inserted 99% of the scholarly citations in this article. Many of them are critical of her. So I don't think I can be accused of advocacy. I feel the Paragraph describing and quoting her own initiation is complementary to the paragraphs prior to it, discussing and inquiring her own initiation.

The paragraph with the word "gutsy" is a quote from a peer review academic journal, written by an expert in the field.

Please have a second look. Bigbaby23 (talk)

You simply cannot quote so much. It borders on WP:COPYVIO, even when attributed. And I am concerned in instances where it isn't and there is simply WP:PARAPHRASING — and no, "gutsy" is not up to par unless it is part of a direct quote, which again, is an area which you are vastly exceeding, anyway. Please write your own original prose. Summarize the sources briefly and concisely. Because these are not how Wikipedia submissions —especially about living persons— are supposed to be. El_C 13:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrowl24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - this edit at Ungulate and this one at Armadillo gives it away. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 14:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the interruption, I known you're hard at work earning another Barnstar of Infinite Patience, but here is another one to look at [21].   // Timothy :: talk  17:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 17:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've pinged you to an explanation of the title I've chosen on AN. As one with a developed political conscience, but (presumably) on the other side of the issue - that of a majority group, that is - I'm interested in your thoughts. If you've something to say (as a person, not as an admin), ping me. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere, I received no pings from you today, so I'm not sure what comment this is in reference to. El_C 19:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, templates don't work in edit summaries.[22] Sorry. François Robere (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere, I still don't think you bringing up your perennial dispute with VM was appropriate. Otherwise, I'll reiterate that you are entitled to draft a well-documented report about it that stands in its own right. I am not preventing you from doing anything of the sort. El_C 19:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I found the whole incident... aggravating, for the reasons explained in my comment to Nosebagbear. That, and Wikipedia's machinations in general, are more interesting to me than VM on his own. That's what I was asking about, but it's okay if you don't want to develop that discussion.

As for VM - thanks for your reassurance. I may yet do so at some point in the future. François Robere (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, a user you blocked and closed the 3RR complaint against is back to the same old edit-warring game. They just removed the exact same sourced, relevant quotes from the Tell Abyad article they were sanctioned for. As a reminder, we had opened a DRN case about the quotes, but the user paradise did not like the suggestion of volunteer user Nightenbelle, and decided to remove two SOURCED quotes (2-3 lines each) from the Washington Post material and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They even removed the material during the DRN. The material in question describes the political situation of the town after it was captured by YPG militias (one of the belligerents in the Syrian civil war). Both works are VERY relevant; the Washington Post story is a field investigation done by an American journalist sitting across across the border from Tell Abyad. Fabrice Balanche (with the Washington Institute) is an expert in the Syrian civil war and author of Sectarianism of Syria's civil war reference work. Balanche is quoted in so many articles on WP and elsewhere. In the beginning, the user was complaining about just one word (unilateral) in one quote, but after all their arguments were debunked now they are talking about some strange quote guidelines that do not really apply to our disputed quote, but they are using the guidelines a s a pretext to remove the material that goes against their POV. The user has just come back and removed the two quotes they didn't like, really undermining all WP rules (DRN, Talk page, NPOV, etc.). I have engaged extensively in the Talk page and DRN page and provided lots of details why these quotes are true and important to the page. I hope you can look into this. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DRN was not ideal for this dispute. A more conventional dispute resolution request (WP:3O, WP:RFC) is recommended. El_C 19:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have your eyes on this one? They made five series of reverts in 16 hours at China: 1 2 3 4 5 and are now reverting two others across multiple articles to re-insert their pet pro-Falun Gong China Tribunal source: Xinjiang centers 1 Xinjiang 2 "Organ harvesting" 4. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another admin has already blocked them. El_C 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure if that might be considered a Topic Ban breach if I requested page protection so I’m just letting you know here what’s going on. Rapid reverts. [23] - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. El_C 13:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elc, eruthelord has started to remove sourced contents on his own, without discussion. Pls look into it, Devendrakula velalar and devendra kulathan pages are being attacked by the same person. He doesn’t seems to understand and keeps repeating the same thing. Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should use AE to submit a proper report as I presently lack the time to investigate the state of this perennial dispute. El_C 18:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was concensus in talk page sitush directed him to remove certain sources and associated statements . He neither removed it nor gave any explanation. EruTheLord (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bro, can you protect devendra kulathan page as well as sources are being removed without explanation Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you requite protection, the correct place to request that is WP:RFPP. El_C 11:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Partial blocks. On second thought, it's probably best that both users cease edit warring and engage the article talk page to seek resolution. El_C 12:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you help me with this user? Thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can also change the actual semi-protection with an extended confirmed protection--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend an attempt at communication of some sort, actually. El_C 22:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, could you semi-protect my talk page for 72 hours, or some other appropriate action? I'm having some trouble with harassment from an IP. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 22:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to close it as well or should I take it to ANRFC? [24] Crossroads ^-talk- 16:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no immediate plans of closing that request. El_C 17:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the protection you put on Battle of Paštrik expired, one of the editors involved in the edit warring resumed it again against two other editors Take a look at it when time permits. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Partial block. El_C 13:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Although I am not involved in the content dispute, I opened some weeks ago a talk page discussion with an invitation for involved editors to sort out the disputes there. It is sad that while the Balkan area has few editors, a good part of the newbies resort to practices that do not solve a dispute. Hopefully the editor will reflect on the issue, and will be able to sort out their disagreement on the talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you putting an admin lock on the Richard Stallman article, but can you please revert it to Masem's last version per the NPOV discussion here? He took the time to rewrite that section and then daveout reverted it back to his own extremely biased version just before you changed the protection level. Thanks! Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are outstanding BLP concerns, I'm not inclined to edit the protected page. I have not followed the discussion and am otherwise unfamiliar with the dispute, which dissuades me from taking such action at this time. El_C 19:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are outstanding BLP concerns. Masem edited the page to resolve them, but then daveout re-added the problematic sections back shortly before you locked the page. @Masem: are you able to explain further or revert back to your version? Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to thank you for protecting the article. My last edit on it attempted to correct a grave flaw: NO reliable source states that Stallman attempted to 1) ‘’rationalize’’ Minsky’s assault allegation; or 2) ‘’Defend’’ Minsky. Claim 1 is present on Lazer-kitty’s version; claim 2 is present on the version before my last edit. Lazer-kitty keeps claiming that the article is biased but doesn’t bother to explain why exactly they think that. Comparing both versions, the only significant difference is that in Lazer-kitty’s version there is a cropped and deceivingly framed quotation:

• Stallman defended Minsky by claiming that "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing"

My revision presents the full quotation (which reveals a completely different message):

• ‘’We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that. […] We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely wilting. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.’’

For some reason, that editor doesn’t want readers reading the whole thing.

Additionally, I want to apologize to Lazer-kitty for being somewhat harsh on our previous discussions. By seeing their talkpage, I realized that they are a beginner trying to understand how wikipedia works and making (many) mistakes on the process (they were just recently blocked). I should be more patient and didactical when dealing with beginners.daveout ^(talk) 20:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are outstanding BLP issues, perhaps it's best these are taken to BLPN, as I don't know when I'll get a chance to investigate this further. El_C 01:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please for the love of god revert to Masem's version. This is not a joke, this is an editor using this supposed encyclopedia for propaganda purposes. You are enabling that. Furthermore, daveout's above comment is egregiously obvious trolling. Please do something. Please take action. None of this is acceptable. Lazer-kitty (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an explanation, that's just a personal attack. Please don't engage in these again, or you are likely to face sanctions. If you have an argument to make that isn't merely a wrong version argument, you are welcome to make it. But you need to otherwise restrain yourself. The version in which the page was protected was random. I am not really looking to involve myself further in your dispute beyond stopping the edit warring at this time. If there is an emergency (like defamation), any other admin can revert the protected page as they see fit. El_C 05:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if that came off like an attack. But here's what happened. I reported this article to the WP:NPOV noticeboard for being incredibly biased toward the subject of the article. An administrator there reviewed the report, agreed with me, and rewrote the section in question to be much better and unbiased. I thought this was the end of it, but then daveout decided to revert the page yet again and reinstate his own biased edits. And immediately after he did that you locked the page in place. That you did this "randomly" is not an excuse; you contributed to making a problem worse, whether or not you realize that. It would be very easy for you to fix this problem by reverting the page to Masem's version. But involving yourself in a dispute, making it worse, and then saying you don't want to be involved - I don't understand that logic. And to be clear, I'm not trying to attack you or accusing you of actively doing anything malicious or in bad faith. I understand that you simply saw an edit war and tried to stop it. But I have explained to you the unintended consequences of your actions and I cannot understand why you will not with one simple click correct those consequences. You don't even have to involve yourself further. Simply revert the page to Masem's version and the involved parties can continue our NPOV discussion.

Maybe I haven't explained well enough the actual problem with the page? This isn't a minor content dispute, or someone thinking a page has too many tables, or something unimportant like that. This is an editor co-opting Wikipedia to take the side of the subject of an article and advance that subject's own argument, in obvious and direct violation of what an unbiased encyclopedia is supposed to be. This is not something where it should be acceptable to sit on our hands and wait for the wiki machinations to arrive at whatever conclusion. We are actively disseminating misinformation. Time is of the essence. I am begging you to please help. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration I have reverted the protected page as requested. I'd rather err on the side of caution in a matter this sensitive. El_C 14:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daveout, your comment isn't that great either. It's convoluted and condescending. I did not learn much from it, either. Certainly, nothing useful in terms of defamation, which would be my principal concern. This is not how dispute resolution is supposed to be. El_C 06:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I have opened an ANI regarding this and related incidents here. Lazer-kitty (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but I’m in need of advice. Ever since I was partially blocked for edit-warring, I’ve decided that would no longer edit that page anymore (even when my block expires) and that I would voluntarily limit myself to only discussing it on talk pages and forums. Previously, you’ve said that I should resolve this dispute at DRN, but now that Lazer-Kitty’s preferred version is in place, they have repeatedly refused to even discuss it (they even attempted topic-ban me at the ANI without presenting any further misconduct on my part).
This doesn’t feel right at all. There is no discussion and no consensus happening, even when I offered LK to correct, as they pleased, any bias in the version that I’ve suggested. Isn’t consensus-building an attempt to accommodate everyone’s concerns? The concerns of at least 3 editors regarding style\wording preferences are being ignored simply bc LK refuses to collaborate.
It has also been suggested that I am not allowed to even discuss the article because I'm temporarily blocked from editing it, and that I should be reported to "Arbitration Enforcement". Are they correct? I was never banned from discussing the article...
I really don't know how to proceed and I feel like all my concerns and opinions are simply being ignored by everyone. — Daveout ^(talk) 16:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would let it go for at least three months. Richard Stallman attracts various kinds of misguided people, mostly in real life (or at least, online off-wiki). People cannot understand the literal meaning of what he writes and they seize on extracts. That situation is unlikely to change and battling it will only generate frustration. Regarding your question, the whole point of a partial block is to stop the editing of a particular page (Richard Stallman) while allowing continued access to all other pages. You are welcome to discuss it on the talk page but doing so would not help anyone: it would only harden views making possible change in the future less likely. Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Thanks for your answer and advice. And I agree with you. Maybe you could help us out a little (if you have some spare time). We have been disputing a better version for the section of article dealing with the whole Epstein controversy. Two version have been proposed and you can find them side-by-side in my sandbox (it’s a very short reading). Afterwards, you could give your impressions at Stallman’s talk page discussion that is taking place here. Unfortunately, very few people are interested in this, that’s the major problem. :\ — Daveout ^(talk) 01:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at your talk. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Amr was advised that the Syrian Civil war articles were under the 1RR rules in 2014[[25]] and also 2015 [[26]] Today is 2020 and ok, not every admin checkes the edit history of a talk page before coming to a decision. You made your evaluation, and it's ok. But still, the edits Ibn Amr did, were at least for some people about the Syrian Civil War. Ayn Issa would hardly have become the capital of the AANES, without the Syrian Civil War. And even if there is doubt, there should be a revert, according to the rules. Anyway, this is a long way to think and probably more appropriate for one who is really into the matter. But, we would really appreciate if an admin who'd enter with arguments into the dispute.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I tend to approach both DS and GS rather formally in the sense that there has to be an article and article talk page notices to consider the sanctions being in effect. As for arguments, I think my participation in mediating the dispute at Talk:Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria)#Removal_of_sourced_content was quite successful, but this isn't something I can commit to doing for each dispute in the topic area where I opine or intervene in an administrative capacity. El_C 01:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He ussed his rollback rights during content dispute/edit war. He violates WP:ROLLBACKUSE, can you at least give him a warning? Peacetowikied (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who this "he" is in reference to (no diff). I'm surprised, however, that as such a new user you even know about ROLLBACKUSE. Still coming across as suspect, Peacetowikied, I'm sorry to say. El_C 11:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, he do this against other user not me. I just pointing it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacetowikied (talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence — no consideration. El_C 05:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[27] Peacetowikied (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that rollback was unfortunate, but it isn't a huge deal since the editor has made their stance known with the following edit summary, which read: "capital of the AANES since 2018." Not saying it's good, but it is otherwise not actionable. El_C 05:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Administrator! Hi. I would like to bring to your kind notice that a certain user named Kashmiri, has made edits to page Prayagraj that appears to be affecting the whole neutrality of the article. I do not intend to name any user in particular, I just need to bring to light some particular edits, done consequently one after one, that has changed some of the long standing status of the page. Firstly, the user removed the metropolis status off the page stating that it isn’t really a metropolis, without providing any reference to the edit made, while the Census commission states those cities which are in prominence, centred, administrative headquarters which have a population more than one million, are referred as Metropolis, and the population is already referenced. I have no intention to get involved in any conflicts with any user. I know and understand that he might have done that in good faith, I just would like you to only revert back the metropolis status of the page since the population of the city is exceeding one million, and it is a city of importance, I do not ask you or intend to add anything, I just want neutral data to be restored back. I even provided Government link for the city given on the Government Urban and Environmental Studies website about the stats of the city. Under Chapter 2, City profile, section 2.3.1 it clearly says ” Allahabad city comes under Allahabad metropolitan area along with Cantonment board and urban outgrowths. Population of metropolitan area is 12,16,719. Male constitutes 655,734 and female constitutes 560,985 of the total population.” http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/19UP_Allahabad_sfcp-min.pdf The user Kashmiri hasn’t participated in any talks on talk page, nor has provided any significant reference on why the edit that was long stable was suddenly removed from the page. Alongside, I also provided a media article link back in 2006 when Allahabad was mentioned along with 5 other cities in the states and given metropolitan status. https://m.timesofindia.com/city/lucknow/Six-cities-to-get-metropolitan-status/articleshow/2210886.cms We editors look up to you for everything. Kindly help. Harshv7777 (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow the attempt to discuss this on the article talk page to take its course before seeking further intervention. Good luck. El_C 11:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have doubled down on their 'anti-tankie' personal attacks, now citing your quotation of Lenin, without pinging you (hoping you would not notice). As if a single bleeping quotation amounts to "apologism for Lenin's anti-aristocratic campaigns"... *rolls eyes* CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 18:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect User:User:Hijiri88/Old sandbox. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 7#User:User:Hijiri88/Old sandbox until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're informing me about this. El_C 20:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, you recently removed my edit of the entry for ISO where I attempted to take out redundancies - you stated it was better to summarize than quote, then you proceeded to reinstate both the summary AND the quote. Please read the following:

Name and abbreviations The name of the organization in French is Organisation internationale de normalisation, and in Russian, Международная организация по стандартизации (Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya po standartizatsii). ISO is not an acronym. The organization adopted ISO as its abbreviated name in reference to the Greek word isos (ίσος, meaning "equal"),[6] as its name in the three official languages would have had different acronyms. During the founding meetings of the new organization, the Greek word explanation was not invoked, so this meaning may have been made public later, making it a backronym.[7]

ISO gives this explanation of the name: "Because 'International Organization for Standardization' would have different acronyms in different languages (IOS in English, OIN in French), our founders decided to give it the short form ISO. ISO is derived from the Greek isos, meaning equal. Whatever the country, whatever the language, the short form of our name is always ISO."[8]

Both the name ISO and the ISO logo are registered trademarks and their use is restricted.[9]

If you have any reasonable explanation, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm8233 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Dm8233, looks like I made a mistake and conflated the better version (yours) with the inferior one. Sorry about that. Self-reverted. El_C 02:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi elc, I would like to appeal for the sanctions Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the instruction on how to do so are listed on the sanction template on your user talk page. El_C 04:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove this warning by materialscientist, I can’t because it’s fully protected. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 10:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

In the past 24 hours, you blocked MatheusCaua890 for repeatedly adding unsourced content to South American articles. However, a new account, Germanylove789, is adding the same content back to the same articles. Can you please intervene? kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Materialscientist: who also indefinitely blocked Portugalbest a few hours prior to the block of MattheusCaua890; all three aforementioned accounts have added unsourced content to the same South American articles with no explanation, sequentially. Germanylove789 is still active. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El C, but I'm sorry to say, this person clearly has too much time on their hands:

• HermosaArgentina8976
• Luanograndepoderoso65

Both accounts share the exact same hallmarks of the other three accounts. These two edit the same articles as the three above, adding unsourced content, no explanation - evading an indefinite block given by Materialscientist on the first account (Portugalbest), and a week's block on their second account (MattheusCaua890). Can you please work your magic on them too? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I initiate an SPI? they're still adding unsourced content as I'm writing... —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on an SPI at this time. I've semiprotected the page, for now. El_C 14:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello El C, Maleschreiber (talk · contribs) has a nasty habit of using insulting edit summaries such as this one [28] (repeated in the talkpage for good measure [29]). He has a history of such behavior [30]. Would you say these are in explicit violation of WP:SUMMARYNO and contribute to the negative atmosphere in the Balkans? When I confronted him about it, he doubled down and played dumb [31]. What should be done about this? How am I supposed to resolve content disputes with someone who never admits fault? Khirurg (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's not even a hint of content dispute here - I just explained to you how definitions work in classical studies. You claimed that my edit summary: Appian (1st century AD) and Apollodorus are historians who present mythological constructions as many authors of their era do. Their works are not part of the corpus of "Greek mythology" which is a well-defined corpus of material of which Khirurg is probably not aware of in terms of definitions used in classical studies is mocking you and I explained to you that I never mocked you and that in general there's no mocking in highlighting things that someone may not be aware of (the exact phrase I used - nothing about you as a person in general) - when it's done in the context of information sharing and that you should feel free to discuss with me anything you want too if it bothers you. You, on the other hand, came to my talkpage and "promised" that you would report me in AE and that Don't play dumb. You know what you did. And if you do it again, you will be defending it AE instead of here. Promise. (User_talk:Maleschreiber#Don't_mock_users_in_edit_summaries) I then asked an admin @EdJohnston: to give some more insight about how SUMMARYNO works and he replied that This does not seem to be an issue worth taking to AE. (User_talk:EdJohnston#Use_of_summary_interpretation). But now, after that reply Khirurg is choosing to escalate a non-incident and try to create a big issue because of one edit summary that was never insulting or mocking in any manner towards him and that "at a minimum a warning is due" (a warning over what exactly?). Khirurg filed one seriously overblown report against another editor a few days ago which ended with no action and a warning for Khirurg too [32], so maybe he should calm down and not venture into yet another round of accusing other editors - this time over literally no incident or dispute. Editors in the Balkans over the last months have developed a habit of trying to turn anything into an issue over which they then ask for other editors to get blocked, banned or AE warned. This sort of behavior has already been logged in AE by El C about another report and the filing editor was warned to not weaponize AE in order to eliminate opponents of content disputes. I think that it should stop because it turns every situation into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and drains energy away from improving articles if everything is treated as AE material.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's WP:BATTLEGROUND is your incivility. If you find the need to defend yourself "draining", then don't mock others. And stop filibustering every thread. I am interested in what El C has to say, not you. Khirurg (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (talk page watcher) You've already posted about this at User talk:EdJohnston#Use of summary interpretation, so you need to be aware of admin-shopping. Personally, I wouldn't call the summaries insulting so much as slightly condescending, but he is assuming good faith in his own way. As an example, this summary is definitely insulting! BilCat (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is definitely a very disruptive comment! I even honestly asked Khirurg in my talkpage to tell me what was he considered to be mocking towards him to which I got the reply "Don't play dumb. You know what you did." I genuinely tried to address whatever might have bothered him in the way he interpreted my comment because I can't see how making a very brief comment about lack of awareness about a very specific detail in classical studies can be seen as insulting and a reason to report someone and ask for sanctions in AE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think he probably objected to being called out by name that way; some people might feel they were being "dissed". BilCat (talk)

Yes, exactly. That's against WP:SUMMARYNO, and he knows it. Edit summaries cannot be modified. He's done it before too, not the first time. Don't be fooled by his feigned innocence and deliberate obtuseness, he knows what he's doing. It's like those guys that say something inflammatory and are then "What? What did I do? Why are you overreacting this way?". Khirurg (talk)

You're making a lot of WP:ASPERSIONs there about what I did Khirurg and you really shouldn't. If you have a problem with being addressed by your username in the edit summary, you could have said so and I wouldn't address you as such again. It seemed self-evident though that I was referring to you and I didn't think at all that it could be an issue.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersions are what you make in your edit summaries, where you assume to know what is other users minds. How about you make a commitment to abide by WP:SUMMARYNO and never discuss other editors in edit summaries? That would resolve matters, and it shouldn't be too hard. Khirurg (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with not mentioning you in any edit summary if you said so when I asked you instead of replying "Don't play dumb. You know what you did" and "promising" to report me to AE. That has nothing to do with SUMMARYNO. The problem arises from the fact that after I asked an admin to clarify the situation (in which he could have replied either way) you then went into a series of aspersions which you explained as I was content to let the matter rest, but you came running here to get vindicated. Because it's not enough to let the matter rest, you have to win, don't you?[33]. Now, I don't think that asking admins to clarify policies is a matter of "winning" or "losing" and it shouldn't be perceived in that way. Have a good evening.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is your persistent behavior of attacking other editors in edit summarues. WP:SUMMARYNO says Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy. Not that hard to agree to abide by it, no? Or is it? Khirurg (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg, you have shown two edit summaries, and two edit summaries is not "persistent behavior of attacking other editors in edit summarues". Maleschreiber told you that his intention was not mocking. This waste of time and energy can be avoided if Maleschreiber does not use your username in edit summaries again, and you do not make assumptions about his intentions. This is a waste of time. People, move on and focus on improving content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (almost the same as the one I posted on Ed's tp) The process of editing Balkan topics has become virtually pointless and unproductive, as most of the time is spent on talk page conflicts. There is an ogoing effort to accuse other editors of real of unreal issues. It has become a cycle of accusations and opposition, and all of this involves a very large number of editors. I am staying away from editing controversial articles of the Balkans for some time as the area has become so tense and toxic that even responding to another editor might be a total loss of time and energy. I am focused on writing new articles these days and I am preparing some, and I suggest that other editors too do that. An editor is supposed to write and maintain content, not to spend so much time with clarifications, disputes and accusations. It is pointless. And I am repeating myself. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with everything you've said Ktrimi991 - and I've already clarified that if Khirurg is personally bothered by username mention in a summary, regardless of SUMMARYNO, I will not mention him again there. In one admin talkpage, the discussion has been closed [34], so editors should really move on and focus content. El C, in the course of our discussion Khirurg removed a POV tag that has been placed for many months now here. He was removing it back then too, but with your intervention the tag was restored and after a long discussion in which no resolution emerged you again explained how resolution could proceed [35]. Now, why would Khirurg in the midst of this discussion, go to a disputed page and remove a tag which reflects the disputed status of the article? To me it highlights a larger problem, when one editor makes extreme accusations, doesn't get a desired result and then goes to a page in which he has been in dispute (also) with the particular editor he's making accusations against in order to remove a tag which reflects the disputed status of that article as result of several editors not agreeing with each other. I don't want to continue a discussion which was totally overblown, so I'm just highlighting this last, small incident in the list of all the problems that arose in the course of the debate.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some pretty serious WP:ASPERSIONS there. You can't make impossible demands in a talkpage, tag the article, then walk away from the discussion because your impossible demands haven't been met, and then leave the article tagged forever. Doesn't work like that. Your behavior is consistent with someone who wants the article tagged as an end in itself because of WP:JDL issues. In other words, the goal is not to use the tag as means to an end (improving the article), the tag is the end. Khirurg (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:ASPERSION at all - you chose to remove the tag at the exact time that you continued the narrative of the "mocking summary" - which as was established had nothing to do with SUMMARYNO. Now, I've made many proposals to that talkpage and you've replied to none or reverted every edit other editors have tried to include in the article. Disputes don't go stale because they can't progress and tags reflect an article's disputed status - don't remove them again. I left that final message in this talkpage so that the admin who secured that the article didn't operate under WP:OWN status is notified about what you're trying to do.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the participants believe there have been policy violations, please feel free to file a proper report at a forum of your choosing as I don't know if I'll have time to investigate this in the immediate future. El_C 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at the actions of Peacetowikied. You asked them recently about previous accounts and made other comments on their talk page. This behavior from them frankly looks like trolling. And they tried to add it to the article even after an editor opposed it. They claim that picture is of them, but it was uploaded by Gayinspandex1. But Peacetowikied responded to you asking about previous accounts by only mentioning IPs. So are they hiding their previous account, or are they claiming someone else's picture is theirs and trolling with it as I suspect? It's dishonesty either way. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How time flies. El_C 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you do not have much time, and I do not want to take some of it with a repeated issue. It was actually me who originally added the POV tag, and at the same time I made a list of my concerns on the talk page. At the time almost no attention was given to the concerns and some proposals for solution I made, but now there finally a proper dicsussion with multiple editors has started. Since the process of solving them one by one has started, should not the tag stay rn? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion has resumed, then the tag is fine to stay in place. El_C 15:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for the clarification. Hopefully the group of editors involved, including me, will be able to settle the issues quickly, though there are many. An article with a tag in is lead is never a beautiful thing to see. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please care to help me here. Iam being threatened by this Sockpuppets. First Second, 3rd, 4th.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 17:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clean up my talk page as well? [[36]]Shadow4dark (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 17:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, not sure where to take this. This new user is constantly changing sourced information, whilst saying more or less the same random stuff over and over, almost like a broken record [37]. It's just generally bizarre comments such as this [38] or this [39]. So yeah, I'm not really optimistic that going to his talk page will help. The two most recent removal of sourced information being [40] and [41]. Furthermore, exactly around the same time two new users appeared and started imitating his types of edits [42] [43], a bit suspicious? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. El_C 19:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem he's gonna stop anytime soon [44]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 14:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El_C, I left a message on Guerillero's talk page here [45], but maybe you can add a word or two here [46] such as "A no-fault interaction ban". It is important to me. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, while I'm not pleased with the result, I don't really have anything to add at this time beyond the following. Indeed, my recommendation for a one-way IBAN was unfortunately not accepted. But all that remains at the discretion of the closer. I certainly will oppose any attempts to use that sanction against you when your appeal is submitted, since this was a bogus report whose closure should have made clear you were not at fault. I think the fact that the closing failed to note this is not to the credit of the AE process. Feel free to quote me on that. El_C 14:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you El_C - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elc, just letting you know Hsutis is a new user who is removing statements and proposing article for deletion pls have a look at it. Thank you Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I've removed the Prod from Agnaadi, and left a message on User talk:Hsutis. I've not checked their other edits as yet. BilCat (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only other problematic edit has already been reverted. BilCat (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please re-block 2601:152:4600:5320:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? They've been continuing to vandalize articles for 2 weeks now, even after coming out of 2 different blocks. Much of their vandalism happens to be on BLP articles. They were active just earlier. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 17:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumable IruTheLord is using a different account to vandalize caste pages again. I reverted some of his edits. Please look into this when you find the time. Thank you. The articles affected as far as I know: Sivakasi_riots_of_1899 & Nadan (Nadar subcaste) Mayan302 (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EruTheLord and their sock, Hsutis, blocked indefinitely for block evasion. Mamallarnarashimavarman has been blocked for 2 weeks for violating their topic ban. El_C 16:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caste relevant pages were vandalized again. Just like IruTheLord, he is either placing deletion tags to the articles or removing content with references. I believe BunnieCarrot and SadaikaThevar are socks of Iru. The articles affected as far as I know: Nadar climber & Nadar (caste). Mayan302 (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is currently removing content with references in the Nadar climber article Mayan302 (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More indeffs and protections applied. I get a sense that we are no near the end of this latest disruption. El_C 16:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. He doesn't seem like pro-caste to me. He simply enjoys disrupting caste relevant pages.Mayan302 (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you please re-block 174.255.128.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for at least another 6 months? They are also operating on 174.255.132.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), given the behavior. They've returned recently, and they've actually been abusing the ranges periodically for the past 2 years. There has been some serious BLP vandalism on the ranges within the past couple of weeks as well. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you could opt to block 174.255.128.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) instead, as it covers both of the smaller ranges, since this person can hop IPs across the entire /21 range at will (though this larger range has no prior block history). Their longest block length thus far was 6 months (on 174.255.132.0/22). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please also re-block 163.232.200.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? They've returned again, even after going through many blocks. This one is almost certainly a public school network. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please block and 110.70.0.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) and 223.62.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for at least 6-12 months? This is either the Korean Date LTA or some other LTA. Both ranges have been repeatedly abused, particularly the first one, which has been continuously abused for 2 years now. The recent edits on the first range are particularly bad, and they have been almost entirely vandalism for the past 9 months. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocks of various lengths applied. El_C 20:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also block 175.223.0.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) as well? It's the same Korean LTA as the above. This range has been consistently abused since November 2019. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 20:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please block 2600:6C55:4800:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for at least 6 months? This is a serial vandal who is currently engaging in rapid-fire BLP vandalism. They have been persistently disrupting the site since March 2020. This may be the infamous "BLP LTA" (or the Zodiac LTA, as he calls himself), or someone else with a similar disruptive intent. They're still vandalizing right now. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done. El_C 14:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, El C. I wanted to kindly ask you to close my appeal at AN before it quietly slips away without a closing resolution and is archived. It would be a pity to see all the effort come to naught.Davidbena (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I don't know that I can find the time to do so in the immediate future. El_C 14:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your edit on the above article. The IP address sourced from Indonesia. Use Pakistani English? No intention in appearing ignorant, I assure you, but there was no edit explanation. Seemed like flyby tagging from an IP with no prior or subsequent contributions. No harm done.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what reason there was to even look up the source of the IP, not to mention revert them with an edit summary that noted that. The event happened in Pakistan, so Pakistani English seems perfectly intuitive. And, no, I disagree with you — there was potential harm: it's called WP:BITE. El_C 23:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani English: I'd actually never heard of the term, although I do appreciate your observation. To my mind, it was a genuine error. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, El C. Between the time I got my coffee and returned to my computer, you had closed this discussion, but I would ask you to reopen it, because it does look like a boomerang situation. In the wake of discussion there, the OP posted on the article talk page that they were reinstating most of their edit (without waiting a reasonable period for any actual discussion to occur) and "instructed" the other editors to discuss their edits instead of reverting them (continuing to ignore BRD). Moreover, their reinstated edits still include the unattributed, unambiguous copying of text from Lee Kuan Yew, which they acknowledged at ANI and were supposedly going to address. There's some clear edit warring going on that was obfuscated by all the nonsense that the other user derailed with accusations about HEJ. Grandpallama (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wary of blocking due to the absence of potent enough warnings. I will do so. Continuing to engage the article talk page is recommended — they have two outstanding comments there that were left without a single reply. El_C 14:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd support a block at this point, but the lack of meaningful engagement is on the OP's side. Grandpallama (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But, again, they have engaged the article talk page, twice, which has seen no response thus far. El_C 14:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, their "engagement" came only after their reversions without doing so were pointed out in the ANI discussion, and they posted last evening at ~5:00 ET, and then reinstated their edits this morning at ~7:00 ET. That's not a legitimate waiting period for editors to come discuss already-challenged edits, and it doesn't explain why they are still inserting copied material into their edits; it definitely doesn't support claiming their edits have consensus from the talkpage in their edit summaries. They've been provided with the BRD link multiple times now, and they've shown little interest in it. Grandpallama (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. WP:CWW is enough of a concern for me to revert the changes until that matter is cleared up. I have also instructed the user to observe WP:ONUS by allowing more time for discussion to mature. El_C 14:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I genuinely appreciate you taking a second look; people need time to breathe a bit and dig through this. I saw CWW from other articles, too (the proposed language in the lede about sharing a common language and legal system was lifted verbatim from the lede of US-UK relations, for instance). But I'm also seeing what looks like problematic copyvio in general: this edit to the lede Informal relations between the two countries began in the early 19th century when American merchants engaged in the East Asia trade began to visit the port of Singapore. American–Singaporean interaction increased through the late 19th and 20th centuries reads to me as a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the source Informal relations between the United States and Singapore began when U.S. merchants engaged in the China trade began to visit the port on their way to and from China. As Singapore became one of the most important ports in the region, U.S.-Singaporean interaction increased through the 19th and 20th centuries, while the second part of the sentence with the latter being the world's second-busiest port in terms of total shipping tonnage as of 2020. doesn't appear in the source at all. There's something between a content dispute and a policy problem going on. Grandpallama (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grandpallama, for sure, and sorry for being a bit slow on the uptake. Please keep me appraised if further intervention is needed. Regards, El_C 15:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need for any apologies. You always listen, always consider, always take into account new information and genuinely hear what people are saying. It is a much appreciated quality in any editor, but especially in an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Grandpallama, I appreciate your especially kind words very much! El_C 15:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have to resurrect this, but I think things have gotten decidedly worse. I have pinged you to a relevant SPI filing where, in the course of presenting other evidence, editors have noted some fairly strong tendentious editing from this account to promote Singapore while downplaying other Asian countries. There's been continued and persistent resistance to following WP:BRD or to gain consensus before reinstating challenged edits.[47][48][49]

However, I'm equally concerned about the increased prevalence of clearly deceptive edit summaries in order to insert some of this content, some of which I've reverted, some of which has been reverted by other editors. Removing mention of pseudoscience under the guise of fixing grammar and broken refs[50] and similarly here[51], "slight paraphrasing" in order to make new claims about China and Singapore[52], "slight paraphrasing" again to introduce a completely new claim[53], a pretty shocking insertion of material to the lede with a perplexing WP:UNDUE edit summary (it's undue not to include suicide statistics about a country in the lede, I guess he's arguing?) along with a basic rewrite of text that keeps the meaning the same, but de-emphasizes South Korea and slides in mention of Singapore[54], this tag[55], which might be innocuous if other patterns weren't evident and if he weren't also making edits like this[56]. I don't think this is good-faith editing, and whether or not the SPI decides to weigh in favor of the socking allegation, this account is displaying serious issues. Grandpallama (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And continuing with their edit warring behavior, apparently because they didn't get a response quickly enough on the talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're back. Regardless of the outcome of the SPI, deceptive edit summaries for POV-pushing continue. Grandpallama (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're a funny one, Grandpallama. You continuously avoid or would not interact with me on the talk page whenever I asked for your clarifications because we both know you're just reverting for the sake of it. I guess being an 'established' user doesn't necessarily make one adept or competent. How disappointing. Telsho (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks can be added to the list of concerns. Grandpallama (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C! Can you page protect this article, R. Lee Ermey for a month or two? Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mitch. Sorry, I don't think that's a good candidate for protection — there's only one IP involved, where more potent warnings are necessary for enforcement on that front. I will do so. El_C 15:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks El C ~mitch~ (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again El C! before going here ~ noticeboard/Edit warring, I opened a discussion on Ermey's talk page here Can I get a page protect? Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, looks like General Ization gave an answer on Ermey's talk page. lets see if the user accepts, before a page protect is needed, Thanks El C! ~mitch~ (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

debbie isn't so new. Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Blocked indefinitely. El_C 15:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El_C, could you advise editors here [57]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GizzyCatBella (talk • contribs)

Hi. No, thanks. Regards, El_C 20:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I understand.- GizzyCatBella🍁 21:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC you created at Talk:Ayurveda #RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence was closed today. I can't say that I agree with the way it was closed, because I was pretty sure there was consensus on the strength of argument through policy that the pseudoscience description belonged in the first paragraph, if not the first sentence. Before I start a deletion review, I thought I'd check whether you felt the same. --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, I presume you mean WP:CLOSECHALLENGE... Yes, I admit to being surprised by the close, though admittedly, I have not followed the RfC closely enough to comment with any authority. El_C 00:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. --RexxS (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, El C. Hope you're well. At Northern Epirus there's a very specific question which requires outside opinion. Alexikoua claims that based on:

1. 1 Migration and poverty : toward better opportunities for the poor (2010) which has a large section about permanent migration out of Albania and then a section about temporal migration (in p.75 - which he cites) according to which: Although the number of temporary migrants going to nearby Greece has dropped significantly over the past few years, Greece remains by far the main destination of these temporary flows. (the only part about migration decrease in that talkpage - temporary migration that is) (Side comment: The very sad reality is that late capitalism has depopulated much of the post-socialist Balkans)
2. 2 Bouras (2020) (includes #3 Rapti (2014)): At the same time, the lack of motivation coupled with the massive influx of many minority students in Greece during the past decade led to a very small number of young Greek language learners being interested in getting into minority education. However, in recent years, due to the economic crisis in Greece, members of the Greek minority returned to Albania and re-opened two schools in the prefecture of Agioi Saranta in villages that had been closed due to the "mass exit" to Greece (Rapti 2014), the integration of these children being hampered by structural factors linked to the Albanian educational system (Vathi et al. 2016). From #1 #2 (includes #3) Alexikoua puts forward a conclusion according to which After 2010 there is no longer demographic decrease of the Greek community. I don't think that the sources put that forward at all - they say nothing about the Greek community as a whole really and they don't even address the same issue, so it's OR/SYNTH to consider such a conclusion. Alexikoua maintains the opposite. It's draining to witness the recycling of the same arguments, so I really want someone outside of the dispute to answer in clear terms if in the context of the given bibliography and OR/SYNTh that conclusion can be put forward. If you do get them time, to just get involved in this subtopic only - it would start to move the discussion forwards. @Peacemaker67: just so he can see this question if he has the time to reply there based on his experience in Balkan topics.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maleschreiber: Pardon me but the topic isn't portrayed the correct way above. As long as this is quite an old & re-emerging topic it would be better to check talk:Northern Epirus to acquire full understanding.Alexikoua (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography and proper quotes. That is the only correct way to portray an issue IMO. You cited these three sources and I've repeatedly asked you to explain how they validate your claim. If that is not possible to argue for, then you should move on. Instead, you cited these three sources and I've asked 4 times already but there's still no reply other than the repeat of your original argument "after 2010 there is no longer demographic decrease". The sources which you have used don't say that, so you can't repeat that argument.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MSchreiber: You provided a source from 2002 about a 'demographic decrease' and insist that this is an ongoing development. However recent data by Rapti mentions that from 2010 the community in question witnesses an increase of returnees. I can't see any issue with the current form of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what bibliography puts forward as the full quotes show. Repeating an argument without having bibliography to back it up and insisting that "it's in bibliography", even though the full quotes dismiss any such claim is a form of WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALL.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what is being asked of me here. El_C 15:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment, would you have a look at user talk:Wname1#"Disputed" tag removal (and Talk:Danish withdrawal from the European Union#Factual accuracy) to advise if I'm being reasonable in giving escalating disruption warnings? If this can be dealt with without escalating to ANI, it would be best.

The user concerned is not a proficient speaker of English (from various contexts, I believe them to be German), so I have been helping them with colloquial English and at various points advised how to keep their edits proportionate given that that the idea seems to have very limited electoral or opinion-poll support in Denmark. Personally I know next to nothing about Danish politics, so have kept clear of the details. But some Danish (or Danish-heritage) editors have questioned those details and (in the last 24 hours or so, the equivalent article at dk.wikipedia (a translation of the one on en.wikipedia) has been deleted as "nonsense".

I suspect that I've moved from being part of the solution to being part of the problem, but feel that I shouldn't really just walk away because of having mentored the editor thus far. Your advice would be welcome as in 15 years of editing I've not encountered a situation like this before. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some WP:CIR issues, but your comment that the person expects to make a financial (or romantic!) gain or loss on the result (bold is my emphasis) — that has to be one of the most bizarre things I've ever read on Wikipedia. Please explain! El_C 15:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re CIR, assuming you mean understanding of real world Danish politics, I agree. Aftershocks of the Brexit debate, more heat than light as usual. I will take even more of a backseat. It does seem that the {{uw}}s have had the required calming effect, I was worried that it would do the opposite.

Romantic interest: perhaps I have been watching too much Jane Austen during lockdown :-). It was an attempt to explain the word 'interest' as used in English, since the literal translation from German was just weird. I meant [obviously not on WP!] that an apparently altruistic action might in fact be motivated by dastardly designs on a young lady's [or young gentleman's] honour. :-} (twirls moustache). It was a tongue in cheek throwaway, doesn't stand up to much [any!] critical examination.

Thank you for looking at it, I didn't appreciate how large your waiting list would be!.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C. I took heed of your advice to gather more consensus with my edits on the Singapore–United States relations article and it seemed to be going well so far on the talk page, or so I thought. I've come into agreements with the other editors such as Grandpallama (eg. Country comparisons, the images of leaders meeting, etc.) and Schazjmd (eg. not including the timeline of leaders and transportation section). I also tried my best as you said to observe WP:CWW and WP:ONUS and so I didn't add in the Lee Kuan Yew stuff as it mostly came from the main Lee Kuan Yew article. Feeling confident, I decided to progressively improve the article again and also made a new page about the U.S. embassy in Singapore as well. Furthermore, I improved the article's paragraphs, linked to articles relating to both countries such as the one I just made as well as the countries' portals, who the current ambassadors were, a bit of copy-editing, adding the sister cities, etc. (You could check out the diffs, I didn't do it in one big edit so apologies if the revision history looked messy) My edits were as constructive as possible. However, Horse Eye Jack decided to yet again revert it all (and more) in one revert with a vague edit summary of "No consensus on talk page", despite on the contrary. During discussions which I had with other editors, HEJ was making edits on other parts of Wikipedia and was not participating on the talk page. When HEJ did appear however, they just decided to revert everything and all progress was reversed, again. It's also difficult to actually discuss improving the article with them when they are making subtle provocative jibes like these that contribute nothing to the discussion. Does HEJ actually want to improve the article as well or to just exasperate me?

I'm at a loss here. What else am I supposed to do? Their post on the talk page that there were "still massive amounts of unsourced text" with no mentions as to what exactly they actually were and that to not add in the quotes of Lee Hsien Loong (which I didn't, and there were two quotes from him, and HEJ didn't even specify which one they were referring to) makes me feel like I'm just wasting my time at this point. I wouldn't want to revert back because an edit war wouldn't look good after last time, but it's making me realise that no matter what additions that I make to the article no matter how constructive, it's just going to be reverted by HEJ, despite other editors not having any issues with my contributions into improving the article. Telsho (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling a bit with AGF here, because it's abundantly clear that the very minor consensus which was achieved on the talkpage in no way justified the much more sweeping edits that were subsequently made. Grandpallama (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your concerns in regards on the need for additional sourcing on the country comparisons section plus the citation needed tags placed by HEJ. Telsho (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have noticed that you previously blocked a disruptive user from this article, unfortunately a disruptive ip has emerged and is making again disruptive edits. I think a protection of the article is needed here. If you could take a look. N.Hoxha (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall blocking anyone there or in what context. On the surface, it looks like a content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page. El_C 15:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We previously discussed reducing topic protection for coronavirus disease 2019 from extended to semi protected but the feeling was that not enough time had passed. The higher protection level has now been in place for 6 weeks so I wanted to follow up. Let me know what you think. - Wikmoz (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's give it a go. El_C 15:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, I want to draw your attention to Illyrians, where I believe a determined attempt to push a very specific POV is taking place. I have initiated a talkpage discussion [58], but based on previous experience, I do not have high hopes. This group of users is very determined, and keeps trying to ram things through by brute force instead of seeking consensus. I am not requesting any specific action at this point, but I feel I should at least notify you of what is going on. Regards, Khirurg (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the semi-protection at Battle of Paštrik :) --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. El_C 23:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Battle of Paštrik. The poster failed to notify you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please give protection to the page Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram. Continuous disruptive editing in recent times. Gyanchand2020 (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 16:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What am I doing? El_C 16:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How come an ANI thread gets to be archived without any admin intervention or comment? I am interested in the (now archived) thread Hounding, which is a rather poorly presented case against User:Grufo who displays many of the same aggravating characteristics as blocked editor User:Ahri6279, including a persistence in editing and inserting WP:OR in Planck units in opposition to the input of other editors, being intensely frustrating to interact with (see a semi-private expression of my frustration), never giving ground but simply reasserting their position and ignoring that of others. There are also significant differences, such as being a highly persistent communicator rather than being barely responsive, but IMO exhibiting the same level of incompetence in cooperation and language use.

I do not have the energy to build a case against this editor, but I would like to understand the lack of administrator involvement on the ANI board. I may soon ask for my own editing privileges to be blocked for an extended period as a forced WP:WIKIBREAK, in large part because of this editor coming on the heels of Ahri6279. —Quondum 16:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, Quondum. I suppose with this being a volunteer project, sometimes demand exceeds supply which causes some things to fall through the cracks. El_C 16:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, it helps to understand the process. As I said, this was a badly built case, so it makes sense that this would be one of those that did not get dealt with. I will consider my personal options. —Quondum 16:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please block 2605:E000:1202:26:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? They've been engaging in vandalizing articles related to the past two U.S. Presidential elections using at least 2 IPs, including the addition of BLP vandalism. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 00:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, hope you're well. Here is another one [59].   // Timothy :: talk  03:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too. Meh, not much to do here, for now. El_C 14:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I was feeling around here to see where the edge was :)   // Timothy :: talk  16:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked Julie Passas on 29 June for disruptive editing at Nick Adams (commentator). I think it would be worth looking at 72.48.31.2; they've been removing the same information as JP and also using very similar edit summaries. – ².O.^Boxing 15:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 15:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like your advice. There are disputes on a number of talk pages of articles about Syrian settlements (including but not limited to Talk:Al-Malikiyah, Talk:Al-Muabbada, Talk:Al-Jawadiyah) over what titles the articles should have. My understanding from Talk:Kobanî#Requested_move_19_December_2019 is that we're obliged to follow WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. the name the place is best known in English-language sources, no matter its official name or how it's known locally. It'd be great to know if this really is the relevant policy, as it is being opposed pretty much everywhere I propose it. As far as I know, Kobanî is the only Syrian settlement that has been moved on this basis, from its official name of Ayn al-Arab. If you don't know, perhaps you could point me to where I could find out. Konli17 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. COMMONNAME is by far the most used policy justification in move discussions, overall. El_C 16:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good to know. Konli17 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y'r honour, the weekly serving of GoneGetOneForm has arrived in the guise of yon mud-spatter'd churl, Pantmuddy12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Let the Queen's Law be done on his body! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 21:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EI_C and RexxS, I've chosen to make you aware of this because you are the most familiar with my situation. This newly created account[60] (I wonder who it might be?) keeps adding the material related to the Holocaust here.[61] Here is the link to the article Stanisław Michalkiewicz. I really hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid this might be yet another attempt for yet another trick to entrap me into a Topic Ban breach. The subject of the article is not known for the Holocaust; he is a post-war (born in 1947) anti-government activist and political prisoner, and that what he is recognized for. I terminated my engagement with that article now due to excessive weight on WW2 presently, but I would like you guys to be aware of what happened. Also, if there are any concerns, please let me know so I can adjust accordingly.GizzyCatBella🍁 07:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EI_C and RexxS, this is a follow up - here [62], [63], [64] a brand new account throws in all bunch of words about WW2 in Poland and the Holocaust right after I asked this question [65] even though the article itself does not contain such information. (see Chaim Pinchas Lubinsky as of now [66]) Presently, I have no doubts this is a predetermined and deliberate plot. These dirty moves are taken for two reasons, one is attempt to entrap me into braking the topic ban and/or to use it later to declare the topic ban breach during my appeal. I'll ping TonyBallioni also, he is familiar with Icewhiz socks.GizzyCatBella🍁 16:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing TonyBallioni often wherever I go, I'm being followed by the brand new accounts and reverted like this one, for example from today[67].GizzyCatBella🍁 16:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again - just now, I'm currently involved in this article - Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS a brand new account arrives there intending to irritate.[68] It happens regularly.GizzyCatBella🍁 06:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one more example from yesterday to illustrate it better - brand new account [69] arrives to revert me[70] I'll not post more samples because it would take too much space, but as I said, it occurs regularly.GizzyCatBella🍁 09:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I am pretty sure it is our indef banned "friend" Ice. Who probably warrants an entry at WP:LTA, as we are now approaching a year since his ban... Anyway, it also seems clear he is playing with GCB trying to get her banned. The only silver lining here is that it might be interesting to see what kind of WP:MINION reveals themselves when they post the inevitable AE ghost-written by him... I don't envy GCB, who has to deal with such shady harassment while waiting to appeal their topic ban, whose purpose now seems to be now primarily encouraging harassment and battlefield mentality. For what it is worth, I recommend removing all topic and interaction bans imposed in this topic area, and giving all non-banned editors there a clean slate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I'm expected to do here. I'm not really an Icewhiz expert nor do I represent the Arbitration Committee with respect to lifting bans and so on... If I am considered to be among those most familiar with the situation, then that in itself is a serious problem. El_C 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was more striving to make you guys aware of what's going on than expecting you to do anything. I can handle that stocking, no problem; what worried me was that the stocking person might deceive the administrative team into believing that I'm attempting to breach the Topic Ban, so I put it in writing. More for the record, I think, and as a way of protecting myself.GizzyCatBella🍁 16:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Well, I am already on the record in advocating for the immediate lifting of your topic ban, for whatever that's worth. El_C 16:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to note that I did indef Rainbow freedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious sock. El_C 16:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you El_C - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! So this is what he does all the time :) purposely enters something about the WW2 :) [71] I wonder who that could be...? -GizzyCatBella🍁 09:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Peć editors with very few edits in English wikipedia began to appear to !vote for the article title to remain as it is. One editor has roughly ~70 edits in 2020 (many of their latest edits are in !vote discussions), another !voted there in their 12th edit. I fully realize that what looks like off-wiki canvassing will never stop in general as wikipedia is a part of this world and cannot insulate itself from it. I think that only massive community democratic participation can stop these events, but how do you get that? In your experience, what is the best wikiproject talkpage or noticeboard which will ensure as much as possible that regardless of the outcome of the discussion, the community will particate at such levels that off-wiki intervention will be neutralized? --Maleschreiber (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started this thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#A move discussion requires your attention too.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To aid the closer, you can add the {{SPA}} tag to new or dormant accounts, as long as you're being even-handed with its application. El_C 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, dominator 1071 follows up on the edit history of the indef blocked Ömer Nashi Bilmen, Peacetowikied and peacetowikied2, and tries since weeks to include a Turkish/Kurdish Genocide perpetrated by the Armenians sourced with a book of a former Minister of the Turkish Government he wrote in 1995. He tried to do so in several articles such as Hınis, Muş Erzurum, Province And in Van he is trying to remove the term Armenian Genocide as others like the indef blocked Shubuhat, Peacetowikied, peacetowikied2, and Ömer Nashi Bilmen tried as well Van. He also thought to cite Goebbels at Eastern Anatolia Region , also meant to confront “genocide propagandists“ while defending Ömer Nashi Bilmen against Etienne DoletParadise Chronicle (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujeeb Ur Rehman Malik - will you close the two, please sir? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 14:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Review of El C's block of Koavf". Thank you. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, would you consider archiving this talkpage? Right now it has over 300 threads, which take a long time to scroll through to reach any active or relevant threads. I for one try to stay off of talkpages that have more than 200 threads, and my observation is that the optimum number of threads to have remaining on one's talk page is between 35 and 100. Having an accessible talkpage is doubly important for admins, who are expected to maintain accessibility and easy open communication. Archiving can be done in a number of ways: automatically (via a bot set-up), by hand (cut + paste), or with one-click archiving. Anyway, please consider it, if you would. If you need any more information or pointers, feel free to ping me. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 04:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please set up some autoarchiving or something! Please please?? I almost asked last week if you could put one of those buttons at the top that lets you go straight to the end, but I kept forgestinating. :) BilCat (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something to look at, Clearly Nothere: [72].   // Timothy :: talk  08:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked. El_C 11:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Edit warring and 3RR violation, please look on it, Thank You: ([73]), ([74]), ([75]), ([76]), ([77]).(KIENGIR (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 11:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This user [78] has recently returned to cause more disruption to Wikipedia. He seems to come back on a yearly basis, making rather bizarre forumlike rants whilst at the same time casting accusations right left and center, and also just general pov-pushing (some examples: [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]), completely ignoring information/sources that he doesn't agree with. He clearly isn't here to WP:BUILDWP. Recently, his newest target has been this article (both article and talk page). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have a highly persistent problematic editor. Please take a look at this undo with this talk comment, which is just a next step in a long history of pushing the patience of other editors in this article and on its talk page (and elsewhere, judging by the archived ANI thread that I mentioned above). This edit is reinserting original research, clearly so because almost all of it is nonsense (I have not even bothered to check the references this time: this editor has a history of using only tangentially related or unreliable sources as can be seen from the talk discussions but failing to concede, and because reliable sources generally do not support nonsense). There are several problems here: persistence in total violation of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:OWN, failure to understand what a RS is, deafness to reason, failure to edit cooperatively, and accusing editors of "destructive edits" (done to remove extreme WP:OR and WP:RS violations) and "a lack of will to discuss and be constructive" when some curtness starts to show. Tangentially, this editor also clearly has no technical understanding of special relativity judging from specific contradictions of that theory persistently being reinserted despite being disputed, but the main problem is a list of extreme problematic editing behaviours. —Quondum 18:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As best as I can tell, the undo and the comment linked by Quondum are the persistent editor's attempt to enforce their preferred version of a page expressly because everyone who has bothered to discuss the topic has disagreed with them. I'd say that's an example of WP:OWN, but really it's more Wikipedia:I'm Not Even Mad, That's Amazing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, it seems unusual for you to fail to respond in some way. Anyhow, I am removing everything aside from my user space from my watchlist. Time to stop caring and move on. Adios. —Quondum 19:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, Quondum, for having failed to assist you, or to even follow up. I'm especially busy offwiki lately, which limits the extent of my contributions, certainly with more complex cases. I should have told you that you'd be better served by another admin or a noticeboard in the immediate future. So that's on me. Again, really sorry for the late followup and the frustration it brought. It is, indeed, unusual. I look forward to future collaboration with you in the future (in any capacity). You are a quality editor who absolutely is an asset to the project. El_C 21:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response (and the ping), though you did not owe me an apology – it tells me that I wasn't being snubbed for a completely inappropriate request. I knew that I was taking a very long chance on something that really belongs at WP:DR or WP:ANI, motivated my lack of the resilience for mounting an argument against a WP:CPP editor (those are the most difficult kind) and your apparently exceptional willingness to act decisively. I expected you to decline if you did not see the issue at a glance. My lack of resilience (primarily due to off-wiki issues) means that I am not presently a fit for the occasionally antagonistic wiki environment. Knowing that people like you and XOR'easter are around is affirming. I also admire your energy on top of your outside challenges. All the best. —Quondum 23:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't feel jaded because of one contested action. You are a wonderful admin. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sluzzelin, your encouragement means a lot. I admit to feeling a bit demoralized, since I got the sense from that discussion that there were a few editors who view me as the opposite of that — although there were also some really kind words said, too, so I suppose it's a mixed bag. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To various other recent queries on this page: sorry, this is a bit of a busy week for me, so I'm not sure I'll get to attend to your requests in the immediate future. El_C 20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Sluzzelin said EI_C, seriously. And I'm not saying that to earn some kind of favoured treatment later, believe me. You are one of the most hard-working and well-balanced administrators I identify. NYB is very good too and so experienced; she (it's her, I think) he, in that particular case, simply assessed the situation differently and felt strongly about it. Please don't feel demoralized by that; you are doing an excellent job overall. 10 out of 10! As I said before, you guys have such challenging tasks to perform here and hats down to you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct (except for NYB, see Ira Brad Matetsky). The situation was a wicked problem with no good solution because from the edit warring angle, the block was exactly the right thing. Yet, the circumstances were such that onlookers who haven't tried to deal with the edit warring felt a different approach was needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and just to emphasise part of my point. I don't recall anyone criticising your decisions and actions in general (admittedly, I didn't re-read the thread), and even among those who disagreed with this particular block, many pointed out that it was a special case. Take care, and please return. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this process was problematic for WP in some ways. For one admin to change another's decision essentially only because they would have made another choice is absolutely to be avoided. Such a change is only reasonable when the second admin considers the original action to be unreasonable, which was evidently not the case here; IMO, this should be policy. BHG's appeal to sympathy was in part predicated on the perceived unfairness by contrast, which is actually irrelevant to what was asked for, and was thus also flawed. El C, I salute you, and deplore how this was handled. Take care. —Quondum 20:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I don't know the details of this specific situation but I just wanted to echo everyone's thanks for all the work you do. You do quite a lot of the heavy lifting among admins and it is greatly appreciated. You are an admin's admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Might I chime in too, and say that I especially appreciate your willingness to dive into some of the messiest areas of Wikipedia. Your work in keeping this place (relatively) sane is much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second that! BilCat (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for your kindness and appreciation. It's very uplifting. I dunno, maybe being a bit busy elsewhere resulted in myself failing to articulate myself clearly enough...? About the evolution of the whole thing...? Normally, failing to reason with someone mostly washes over me, but some times it does stick for longer. And, yes, this was one of these times. But I'm ready to move on, though I cannot guarantee peak activity — but that's not due to anything on-wiki. Thanks again! El_C 17:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is placing deletion tags to this article Sivakasi_riots_of_1899 again. This could be a sock IruTheLord. Please look into this when you're free. Thank you.Mayan302 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted a recent edit made by the sock of IruTheLord. He was trying to place a deletion tag to this article Nadan (Nadar subcaste).Mayan302 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 17:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncuthair could be a sock iruthelord Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koronerman could be a sock of iruthelord as well, pls look into both the users Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This IP user looks like a Sock. He keeps removing images of Armenians such as here:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/975040140. He looks like a sock of Omer Nasuhi Bilmen.Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. El_C 17:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user [84] seems to be on a mass POV edit spree. I've left them a note. This type of editing appears to be where they are heading [85]. Best wishes.   // Timothy :: talk  10:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Timothy, that is not something I wish to attend to at this time. Best, El_C 17:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply No worries, I think it ended. Hope things are well.   // Timothy :: talk  18:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Internet Barnstar
	You have done a really good job in editing about the internet. Here is a barnstar for your hard work., Cupper52 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cupper52! El_C 17:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, El C the editor Mujeeb1715 is repeatedly creating self-promotional page Mujeeb Ur Rehman Malik even after being deleted twice based on WP:A7, WP:G11 and WP:G4. I request to have a look and salt the creation. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]