User talk:El C/generic sub-page13

A beer for you![edit]

Here, let's not bother together. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A beer to go with my cheeseburger. Satiated and quenched. I'm stoked! El_C 02:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's back. General Ization ^Talk 02:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They usually return about half a dozen times per interval. El_C 03:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their contribution, in its several variations, includes some rather unique and otherwise nonsensical sequences of words. (I could mention one in particular but beans.) Can we create a filter? General Ization ^Talk 03:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I'm not sure how we go about doing that, but it's definitely worth a try. El_C 03:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested. General Ization ^Talk 03:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! El_C 03:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidered the name of the proposed filter. 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I am told this has been added to edit filter #871. General Ization ^Talk 04:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Hopefully, it will have the desired effect. El_C 04:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know El C ~ @Drmies: is a boo boo head ~ but we love him ~mitch~ (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Huffman[edit]

El C ~ did you say peasant or present ~ you know I am from France and Bastille day is all about liberating the peasants ~ I can't tell if it was a typo or not ~mitch~ (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a peasant she is most certainly not! El_C 07:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i LOVE YOU ~mitch~ (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC) ~mitch~ (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Lotta Love, my friend! El_C 07:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is a lot of cheating that goes on after admission too. I just had dinner with an old friend who's now a full professor of ethics at a respected university. He was livid about being repeatedly pressured to give students better grades because they were connected to important people. Too many university administrators worship the almighty dollar. Jehochman ^Talk 17:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I could play devil's advocate — sometimes, the "donation" is sizable enough that letting in just one incompetent overprivileged student, can pay for many underprivileged merit-based ones. Not that educational institutions necessarily expend resources in a manner that follows this set of priorities. That having been said, I definitely don't want a medical school student, for example, being given a higher grade than they deserve in an ethics class due to their privilege. Would we rather have one bad doctor for the price of sponsoring ten good ones? I'd say no. El_C 18:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know ~ El C ~ I would have to agree with you ~I gave a dollar donation when they were building this center here for the university of Texas ~ and last year I cut my finger and had to have a couple of stitch's ~ they were so friendly ~ Just think about all those neurosurgeons that would have not received a diploma ~ if I didn't give that dollar ~ it makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Educational investments usually pays dividends, I think that is generally true. As for distortions brought by wealth and status, always taking a position that's based on either utility or merit is a mistake, I think. Pragmatically, resolution to the many nuanced ways that teleology-deontology conflict manifest itself, then, should vary according to the concrete circumstances in each particular case. El_C 19:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Cumia[edit]

I see you removed 2 different edits, just an FYI I think you missed one [1] - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 20:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for protecting the Cline article. I ask that you maintain it in this state, prior to its destructive reversion—that is, not allow removal of hours of careful scholarly source work.

The real issue is as stated in my last edit summary—I did hours of constructive edits, teasing out all the unsourced material in the article, only to have it all carte blanche reverted. This speaks to me of editor bias againsr an IP editor—despite the work being of high quality. And, the massive reversion—besides removing all new material and new sourcing—interrupted the ongoing process ("in use" tag was up) in which I was adding citations and removing tags. So, why was I stopped from editing, when the work was good? When I created a talk page entry, to which the reverting editor did not respond? When I created long edit summaries for each edit, and the intervening editor removed all changes, with no reply to any Talk or edit summary content? Cheers, will look for a reply here. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. But the version I protected was just randomly the one I encountered once I noticed the edit war having erupted. Anyway, look, I realize the frustration of being reverted while an article talk page note of yours remains absent any reply. But edit warring (also on a user talk page) was not the answer and constitutes overly aggressive conduct. I suggest that time is taken throughout the protection to address relevant concerns in a collegial and substantive manner on the article talk page. If no one follows up your talk page notice, we'll just take it to indicate your addition is no longer being objected to. Good luck! El_C 21:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the serendipity of your timing affirms, accidentally, what "heaven" (read "karma" if you wish) knows to be true—that the incoming editor that reverted my work should have [1] taken the time to check and respond at the talk page, [2] reviewed all the copious and careful edit summaries I wrote in my half day on this beach, in particular the last ones, which were adding sources and removing tags), and [3] thoughtfully and selectively edited the article as it stood, instead of disrespectfully turning back the clock. If you address him, please—rather than doing a diff—open the article before I started editing, and then open the article as it stands now. Ignore the tags to start, just scroll down to the sources. That should be enough to tell you what sort of academic and editor I am. And you could add a point [0], that he could have waited until the "in use" flag was taken down, at which point some further of the tags might have been removed.

Because I fear that is the whole issue—an IP editor making the sacrosanct appearance of an article look worse... which, as you can tell, is not of a concern to me. My concern is for encyclopedic "cancer"—things that appear fine, but nevertheless bear some deep underlying problem—and I could not, as they say, give a toss for the complexion of the individual (article) involved. So again, thank you, even if you received a help from "heaven". Cheers 24.1.0.28 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, IP. Perhaps! There Are More Things. El_C 22:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I love Borges. And García Márquez. Et al. [He lifts a glass, remembering.] 24.1.0.28 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript, for some reason the Talk section that I created at Ben Cline did not autosign. Is there a way that you can look "under the hood" and add a date stamp or comment to my original Talk post, so it does not appear that I am trying to "pull a fast one", by pre-dating something I only wrote after? The editing record must be able to indicate when it first appeared, and who it was that posted it. Cheers again, thanks. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 22:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Last clarification—do not both parties in a edit war receive posts to their Talk pages? I just found the ones to the IP Talk pages (apologies for not seeing earlier, but then less serendipity might have been involved). Does not the initial undiscussed reversion, and the the beginning to revert my reversion, not constitute a part of the war? I am not asking that this be done now, just curious as to how the system sometimes can come down on one side (even the wrong side) of a disagreement... At your convenience, cheers. 24.1.0.28 (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, happy to help. In answer to your question, it really varies according to the particular circumstances in each case. But I agree, though, that it was a bit odd to tell you to go to the article talk page after you had already done so. El_C 23:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I appreciate your actions as an administrator and this barnstar is the least i can do to thank you for all the though job you do to maintain the quality of this encyclopedia. To make it short : THANKS ! Take care. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Wikaviani! Your recognition really means a great deal to me. El_C 23:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content[edit]

I would like to point out, in the most friendly tone, that I cannot agree with the removal of sourced content that you have done on the article National Union (Portugal). You have removed paragraphs that 1) are sourced in reliable sources, 2) Have not been disputed in any talk page, 3) That are similar to paragraphs that can be found today in the António de Oliveira Salazar article.

When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. In this case it seems that you have make a blanket content removal in good faith taking into consideration the discussion that is taking place on [[Fascism in Europe] on if the Estado Novo was or was not Fascist. However in doing so you have removed content that is sourced, factual and that has not been formally disputed and that does not take take a stand on the open RfC.

An example of what you have removed.

Unlike Mussolini or Hitler, Salazar never had the intention to create a party-state. Salazar was against the whole-party concept and when in 1930 he created the National Union as a non-party. The National Union was set up to control and restrain public opinion rather than to mobilize it, the goal was to strengthen and preserve traditional values rather than to induce a new social order. Ministers, diplomats and civil servants were never compelled to join the National Union.(Gallagher, 1990, p=167)

If you want to remove this paragraph you should explain why are you doing it. The discussion that is going on in the article Fascism in Europe is not a valid reason. It does not apply. Gallagher is a reputed scholar. I don't know of any other scholar that says that Gallagher's statement is not accurate. Do you? If you know of another source that says the opposite or something different we must add that source, but removing content does not seem to be in line with Wikipedia policies & guidelines.

I kindly ask you to reinstate the content you have removed, and let us see if someone wants to dispute such content. Again. Today most of that content is in Salazar's article already and has been there for years without being disputed. Thank you for your cooperation. --J Pratas (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the matter. I merely restored the status quo ante to prevent further edit warring. Your problem is is that you think it's okay to duplicate the same argument across multiple articles rather than have one, single centralized discussion, which I suggested was Fascism in Europe (whose RfC sided with your position, but was then overturned by the closer). By all means, feel free to restore any version you see fit, but if there's further edit warring after that (and you and others end up reverting back and fourth aimlessly again), I'll be blocking all participants involved, without exception. El_C 16:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC

Also, regarding your revert on Fascism in Europe: the RfC's closer had restored the IP's edit. Why have you not contacted them with the same request? El_C 16:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) I will then be restoring the sourced content. If someone decides to remove it, then according to Wikipedia's guidelines should explain why and use the talk page. Something that has not happened so far.

2) On the question why I did not make the same request on the article Fascism in Europe, the answer is simple. That content is still being disputed and I, like everybody else, must wait for the closing.

Thank you for your cooperation on this discussion. Best J Pratas (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Negative, duplicating the same argument about the same issue across multiple articles is a problem. I note that the disputed content was added by you on April 6, 2019, and that it has since been disputed on multiple occasions. Fascism in Europe ought to remain the central venue for discussion. El_C 17:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern and agree with the point, but I am not duplicating any arguments. The content that I have reinstated is facts that have not been disputed. Some people read those facts and say: yes it was fascist, while some other read the facts and say, no it was not. The content does not take a stand.

The problem with the dispute that has now been reopened is that there tons of international scholars saying NO and there are a few Portuguese left-wing scholars saying YES. Off course the Portuguese left wing scholars don't like Salazar and want to label him as fascist because today the label is negative. I am very happy with having both views included in the article, in light of Wikpedia's NPOV policy. But some editors want that one of the POV prevails and that is not right. This is where you, could step in and say that we are all supposed to follow the policy.J Pratas (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, sure. If that is, indeed, the modern historiographical consensus, then it ought to be represented accordingly. The problem is that I'm not in the position to parse this content dispute at this time to conclusively infer that. So I'm not sure stepping in in such a manner would be appropriate for me. El_C 21:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts on this:

1) You are insisting on keeping the discussion of Salazar and the Estado Novo in an article where the topic is either minor or where it should not be at all. The topic should be discussed in the Salazar`s talk page, where it really belongs, and where it has been often and extensively discussed and where editors interested in the Estado Novo and Salazar will easily participate.
2) Under your protection a disruptive IP has been eliminating large paragraphs or source content, ignoring Wikipedia policies. It seems that you are giving the same weight to long established editors like Rjensen (an historian, by the way) as to a disruptive IP
3) The IP keeps on refuting all sources based on his own opinions, not presenting any additional sources. The IP even says that the Wikipedia guidelines are "not very good criteria"
4) Please read the latest additions to the talk page. It is user Rjensen and me citing sources and being constructive, facing an IP with his own opinions, not citing sources, and stalling.

So I kindly ask you to please take actions. Or if you don't feel qualified for the job please help in getting admins that feel that they can helpJ Pratas (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than free to try to find another admin to step in for me, at any time. I have zero objections to that. But, no, my involvement as an admin does not depend on me agreeing with you here. And that having been said, let's review: the RfC that sided with your position has been overturned by its closer. That is a fact. You refuse to have the status quo ante in place while a new discussion take its course. That is also a fact. Walrasiad and the IP oppose your changes. That, as well, is a fact. Now you need to employ dispute resolution so as to resolve this content dispute like anyone else. El_C 14:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He did it again it seems, well, I wonder if you could revert his edits while discussion continues, I mean, the page is protected, and also, if I revert again, it will be edit warring. -- 191.34.187.54 (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity-spouting School IP[edit]

Hello. Can you please block the range 216.49.96.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for about a year? Every single edit since April 2018 has been some kind of vandalism or personal attack, as far as I can see. It doesn't look like they're going to stop. This looks like a school range, but it could also be an LTA, given the behavior. They just came back today. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 02:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism spree[edit]

Hey, just so you are aware: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrkoww. Not sure if there is anything you can do to stem the bleeding at the moment, but it seems that all of this vandalism is connected.Garuda28 (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks. No, I was not aware. Page semiprotected, at any case. El_C 04:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'm aware of the...contentious nature of the topic, but in any case that calls for discussion and difference to the sources, not vandalism. I appreciate your quick response.Garuda28 (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Let me know if there's anything else I could do to help. El_C 04:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I think I am going to hold off having an in-depth discussion on the talk page until the sock puppet investigation is complete. Another IP (first time use from the same range as the others) just popped up, and even though talk pages are not vote pages, I believe this is an attempt to stuff the proverbial ballet box. Do you know if there are any ways to expedite the investigation?Garuda28 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know of a way to do so, but I left a note about canvassing (there's seems to be something on social media regarding this dispute) on the article talk page. El_C 17:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding security forces[edit]

The user garuda28 is providing fake and misleading information sourcing an opinion and non peer reviewed paper submitted to the air force academy. Military doctrine and mtoe prove there is no u.s airforce infantry and the only 2 infantry are army and marines. This is why people dont trust wikipedia because people continually provide false information and then when real edits are done they are called trolls. Do some research and see there is no such thing in the military as air force infantry. Mrkoww (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but all I'm seeing right now is someone replacing sourced content with unsourced. El_C 04:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note Air force infantry and special forces#Vietnam. El_C 04:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you want me to prove they are not infantry if they aren't infantry? That's like telling me to find a source that Donald Trump is not a astronaut. Wven this major general from the airforce advises it and the official usaf site says nothing close to infantry nor do any of the duties match

https://www.chuckhawks.com/airmen_not_infantry.htm Mrkoww (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No talk of air force infantry in new standards https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/02/14/retired-general-train-pay-army-and-marine-infantry-elite-force.html/amp Mrkoww (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The official us airforce security force manual doesnt mention infantry or infantry duties

AF.mil › e-publishing › static › ...PDF Web results department of the air force - AF.mil Mrkoww (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop drowning my user talk page with links and text and duplication of both. This all belong on the article talk page, anyway. And, at the event, that does not respond to Air force infantry and special forces#Vietnam. I'm surprised to be needing to link it a second time, considering how brief my reply was! El_C 05:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last source doesnt mention infantry or duties

WORK PROCESS Air Force Enlisted Job Descriptions & Qualifications 3P0X1 - SECURITY FORCES (Police Officer) O*NET/SOC CODE: 3-3051.01 RAIS CODE: 0437 Specialty Summary Leads, manages, supervises, and performs security force (SF) activities, including installation, weapon system, and resource security; antiterrorism; law enforcement and investigations; military working dog function; air base defense; armament and equipment; training; pass and registration; information security; and combat arms. Related DoD Source af official job description Mrkoww (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your vietnam section provides no real data as stated none of that would be usuable in college paper. You are the moderator who locked it so I am talking to you. Mrkoww (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are adding this information here, where few editors can see it, rather than where it belongs: on the article talk page. I locked the pages due to edit warring, socking, and the adding of unsourced material. Now is the time to discuss any concerns you have with the article, again, on the article talk page. Please make sure to cite your sources. El_C 05:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a final note: I have no idea about US military nomenclature regarding this, but I'm sure that's something that can be sorted. Please make sure to take advantage of your dispute resolution resources, if need be. El_C 05:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

Hello, I've been waiting nearly a week on Third Opinion participation for Talk:Great_Famine_of_1876–1878#undue]. If there is anything you can do to expedite this, I would greatly appreciate it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know of a way to do so. But you might consider bringing the dispute to the attention of the Noticeboard for India-related topics. El_C 17:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued removal of cleanup tags at Antifa (United States)[edit]

We have two editors who are repeatedly removing cleanup tags applied to the lead, despite myself and other editors raising concerns about its neutrality. I am not going to get into another back-and-forth with these editors, and I wanted to seek your guidance on how this might best be handled. It's my understanding that, when multiple editors raise a concern and there is not yet consensus on how to resolve it, it's appropriate to apply a tag identifying the issue. If I'm incorrect on this, please let me know. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable talking hypothetically. For example, if there is clear consensus against adding the tag, then tagging becomes a problem, no? El_C 17:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of that tag:

Added by Wikieditor19920[2] Removed by Objective3000.[3]

Added by Wikieditor19920[4]. Removed by Simonm223[5]

Added by Wikieditor19920[6]. Removed by Dumzid[7]

Also, you recently warned the editor over edit warring. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I waited several days and offered a detailed explanation on the talk page before applying the tag earlier. The discussion involves a limited group of four editors. Two editors on each side have raised concerns about NPOV; two editors believe there is no NPOV issue and have repeatedly removed the tag. The point of a tag is to draw other editors' attention to an issue and expand the discussion to involve more input. There is no criterion under WP:WTRMT that permits a tag to be removed just because an editor doesn't believe there is an issue, particularly when there is an active and divided discussion on it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three different users removed the tag, but you continue to add it? Really? I am trying to think of a reason not to block you right now for continuing to edit war. You need to do better. El_C 18:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States Air Force Security Forces[edit]

	Thanks
	~ Thanks ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure. And thank you for getting involved. Much appreciated. El_C 21:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yea no problem El C it was fun ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

petty perhaps but[edit]

just for the record removing this looks harsh when, as I found out by accident, that the conversation on my page had veered off to SJ's page, and I was being challenged repeatedly by him as 'anti-Semitic', without any notification for an hour or so, and I tried (a) to ask all drop it (b) clemency for SJ and (c) just a personal anecdote, needed since the logical status of my argument appears to have lost him completely, resulting in confusion. It's done, so it stands in omission, but was in good faith, had nothing to do with ARBPIA, and intended as a peaceful gesture. Anyway, in the end, no one reads anything closely, so I guess this niggling doesn't matter either. Regards Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, noted for the record. I'm sorry this looks harsh, and I didn't say it was not intended in good faith, but I think you're missing the point. I had already asked participants to please leave his talk page alone. He cannot respond at all due to him being currently blocked. El_C 23:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian politics[edit]

To the best of my knowledge, you are one of the few other admins to have looked into the recent conflicts related to Iranian politics. Given how frequently this seems to crop up at AN/ANI, and given that discussions about sanctions tend to be swamped by the protagonists, I've come to the conclusion that the topic needs discretionary sanctions, authorized either by the community or by ARBCOM; given how busy ARBCOM is at the moment, I'm inclined to ask for community authorization. I'd appreciate your thoughts before I act on this inclination. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vanamonde93. In fact, it got so bad on People's Mujahedin of Iran that I was able to convince the participants to voluntarily agree to (mandatory) GS for the article, indefinitely. And I think having done so has made a real positive difference. Like you, I also get the impression that there are other Iranian politics pages that could benefit from DS being applied to them. I support your proposal wholeheartedly, be it via an ARCA or as an appeal to the community. El_C 05:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions for the table of existing community sanctions. In general, less bureaucracy is needed when setting up community sanctions than Arbcom sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Yet only six of these in total! El_C 02:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution[edit]

You are involved in a dispute resolution. You can access it here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Conservapedia 24.155.244.245 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what the Dispute resolution noticeboard is for. El_C 07:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The filing has been closed. --MrClog (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

A couple of questions[edit]

I just saw this closing statement of yours and I must admit I'm rather confused. You write that "the RfC reached a consensus and it should by default apply across multiple articles". First of all, I'm not aware of any policy that states that. Moreover, the RfC was on which name "the lead and the infobox" should lead with, i.e. not something that is even possible to extrapolate to another article. The consensus for the lead and infobox was for Tel Aviv-Yafo, but the consensus is still for Tel Aviv as the title of the article. If the result of the RfC can't even be extrapolated to the title of the same article, what makes you think it needs to be extrapolated to other articles, where there may be article-specific reasons to prefer another name (like in the article which confusingly says that Tel Aviv and Jaffa merged to form Tel Aviv-Yafo)?

Wikipedia fully accepts piped links; that is, the title of an article is not binding on editors of other articles. This means that a link to Tel Aviv may appear as Tel Aviv-Yafo without that counting as disregarding the consensus on where to place the Tel Aviv article. The same would go for piping the link as Tel Aviv-Jaffa. The question of how Tel Aviv should be referred to in general has never been discussed, certainly not in the very narrow RfC, and were it to be discussed, I would expect Tel Aviv to win as that is the title of the article.

I'm also surprised that you didn't take issue with the editor who claimed my edit to implement the consensus failed to do so. Surely, the RfC is only about which name to put first? How could we justify to leave out the names Tel Aviv (the very name of the article) and Tel Aviv-Jaffa (which even Avaya1 admits gets more than a million Google hits, compared to less than three million for Tel Aviv-Yafo)? Libhye (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC's closing will apply across multiple articles, because the question is pretty much the same: which name to use. We don't need a separate RfC in the other articles to delay that as being the consensus, though you may launch new ones there, too. But until new consensus emerges, the result of the RfC —which has not actually been concluded yet— will apply at those articles, as well. That's my evaluation. But you need to stop edit warring, first and foremost. El_C 16:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you are asked questions in your role as administrator, it is your job to answer those questions; you don't get to ignore them as if you were just any editor. Not only are you required to answer my questions, but you are required to answer them in a way that addresses my expressed concerns. Simply restating your position won't do. You're currently being a bad administrator, which is much worse than being a bad editor because you've been selected to hold to a higher standard. I'll give you one more chance to actually read what I wrote and reply to it.

No, the question is not "pretty much the same: which name to use". The name used in the Tel Aviv article is overwhelmingly just Tel Aviv, and the consensus for that is not going to change. The RfC concerns the question of whether, instead of the normal name, a version of the full name should appear first in the article and the infobox, while the normal name continues to appear everywhere else. There is no other article to which that issue applies. Whatever the result of the RfC, if there is any implied consensus to apply across Wikipedia, it is to refer to the city as just Tel Aviv, as that is the name of the article and the name used throughout the article. Libhye (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic TERF. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Seems to be a pattern with these DRN notices. Here, too, I am the uninvolved admin and moreover am not actually familiar with the content dispute. El_C 16:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you've been an admin long enough to know: No matter what you do, you will have always done the wrong thing, and whatever happens next, even if other people do it, is subsequently your fault. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Yet I continue to be surprised, every time, as if it is the first time! El_C 17:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, I hope you haven't been protecting the wrong version? Bishonen | talk 18:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

What, me? Never! El_C 18:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was being exhaustive in notifying parties involved in the relevant discussion. I'm unfamiliar with abusive or accusatory DRN practices. No offense was intended. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. But I was not involved in the relevant discussion and only used the talk page in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. El_C 19:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curious[edit]

You removed a sentence that I added to the Heterosexuality article and your reasoning for removing it was that it was “too poorly written”. Flyer22Reborn just added the exact same sentence back but you don’t seem to have a problem with it. Why is that? -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't see it. But now that I have. Re-removed. You two feel "change efforts work to change" is passable? Really? El_C 04:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just saw that you removed it. I agree that the sentence is awkward but instead of removing it you could have changed the wording yourself. A user has already changed the wording of it now though. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have if only I understood what it was actually trying to say! I suppose I can live with "change efforts are effective," though it is still pretty odd. El_C 05:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see: change efforts is actually part of the special terminology. I stand corrected. Still reads awkward to me. But oh well. All's well that ends well. El_C 05:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help regarding navigation in Wikipedia[edit]

Hello there, I'm relatively a new editor to Wikipedia, and I like adding new content to articles, but I'm stuck. I don't know which articles require contribution, and how to find them. I've had a look at Portal:Contents, but using the Pageviews Analysis tool available, I found that their popularity has been declining, at least since 2015. So, I've been tempted to ask an experienced editor how they browse Wikipedia.

P.S. I have an account, but I've logged out to ask this question so I don't seem stupid.

106.215.6.160 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you like authoring new articles, there's Wikipedia:Requested articles and Wikipedia:Articles for creation. But if you like expanding existing articles, there's always Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. There's also Wikipedia:Drafts for helping drafts become articles on the main article space. Good luck and happy editing! El_C 15:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YGM[edit]

Hello El C. Please check your inbox. Puduḫepa 18:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 18:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Farms[edit]

I upped Kiwi Farms to ECP because there is WP:SPA activity there as well as anonymous trolling. The website is evidently a cesspit, and that appears to attract what cesspits attract... Guy (Help!) 09:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, makes sense. El_C 13:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allowed to prepare[edit]

I am allowed to use my sandbox to prepare a case against this editor. I checked WP:POLEMIC. This is not an attack page, it is preparation for a case against Hijiri88. not only keeps actual attack pages, but he keeps them in the main space now. Hijiri88 moved his sandbox with his grudges and harassing comments to the main space to hide it. I was Looking for diffs of all of his harassment and I found them in the article Man'yō Shikō. That is certainly not something our readers need to see in the history of an article. Hijiri88's sandbox is one of the ways the editor harasses others and plots his revenge. I think it is unfair that I cannot prepare my case per the rules of Wikipedia WP:POLEMIC Lightburst (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean, because you fail to cite actual diffs. In my life every bully I ever met will not shut up...and Hijiri88 is no exception — is not acceptable. If you have a case, just submit it, though I caution you that patience for this dispute has worn quite thin. El_C 04:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You erased my diffs. I have the same right to prepare as any editor. I now need to start over. But you can start by looking at the main space article Man'yō Shikō. The whole history of the article is Hijiri88's sandbox which he redirected in order to hide his harassment. It is quite unfair for you to take my preparation from my sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightburst (talk • contribs)

That's pretty unresponsive, I'm sorry to say. I can restore the page briefly, if you're going to submit something immediately. But letting it sit there with the "bully" attack, etc., is just not going to happen. El_C 04:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have historically used my sandbox to draft forthcoming articles, ANI reports, CCI reports, GA nominations, and everything in between. This is not the same thing as creating an attack page. A little while ago I realized that circumstances beyond my control had pushed my edit count from "mainspace > non-mainspace" to "mainspace < non-mainspace", and decided to pull a little cheat by moving my drafting my next article in my sandbox and then just moving the sandbox. This was done purely to satisfy my editcountitis and not to "hide" anything (the oldest edit summary in my current sandbox clearly links to the current location of the previous sandbox).

At no point have I "kept attack pages". To suggest that the above little cheat on my part was done with the intention of moving an "attack page" into the mainspace is patently absurd, and is somewhat in line with the kind of snide remarks LB has been making against me over the last few weeks. I asked an admin to take a look at it and was basically ignored.[8] I really don't know what to do about it at this point -- an IBAN would not protect me from this harassment but rather just invite more harassment and prevent me from defending myself (this was my experience with pretty much everyone LB listed in his little list of my "enemies").

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Lightburst, I see what you mean with regards to Man'yō Shikō — that is, indeed, at best, a highly confusing edit history for the mainspace. Hijiri 88, I have deleted all revisions save for the latest one for that article. The mainspace edit history is not suppose to be constituted in this way, sorry. El_C 04:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EL C. I am preparing this case the against Hijiri88 in case he continues to subject me to his harassment in sandboxes, in talk pages, on my page, on his user page, etc, et al. When one editor has friction with a dozen or more editors, the editor is likely the problem. I am not going to litigate this on your talk page, but I need Hijiri88 to know that I am not going to sit on my hands while he creates his fiction about me. I found a copy and I will keep adding to it in case Hijiri88 continues his lies and manipulations. Saying I am harassing him is absurd. I just want to edit in peace. This is a big encyclopedia! Lightburst (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "lies and manipulations" is not a good start to wanting to "edit in peace." Let's just pretend there's a binding interaction ban, shall way? El_C 05:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He has been telling lies. But in regard to Iban, I would love that. Here is just my last five days of Hijiri88 following me and making accusations about me to others

July 26, 2019 Calls me ignorant at AfD. How many Footy AfDs has he participated in?
Jluy 27, 2019 Harassing me
July 27, 2019 Accusing me of the things he is doing
July 27, 2019 Needling me
July 29, 2019 Makes statements about his dislike for the WP:ARS
July 29, 2019 I told him to leave me alone again
July 30, 2019 Typical of his behavior, he follows me and accused me of following him

FYI: My mail to EL C was about something else. However the diff on Tryptofish talk is just another demonstration of the following and making up stories.

Please get the Hijiri 88 to agree to a voluntary Iban and this is squashed. I am 100% in agreement that it is needed Lightburst (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing would please me more than to steer clear of Lightburst. An established Wikipedian who isn't me will need to monitor his edits (mentor him?) to make sure he stops violating policy as he has been doing. I volunteered to mentor him back in May, but when he started harassing/attacking me I gave up. I do not accept a formal sanction: such a sanction would almost certainly be used to undermine me at a later date (as the IBANs I have historically requested to protect me from hounding were on the deleted sandbox page). Once Lightburst learns to abide by Wikipedia policy and standards of behaviour, my dispute with him will be fully resolved and a thing of the past, with no reason for it to hang over either of our heads any further. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I am trying to weed through the accusatory response. Is that a yes? You agree to a voluntary Iban? If so lets get EL C to consummate the deal with your word and mine that this will stop now. Lightburst (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to stay the heck away from you of my own accord. I am assuming you will do the same. It is my hope that El C, one of his talk page watchers, someone who happens to be reading this, or someone who participated in the May or June ANIs (maybe Swarm?), or Tryptofish, will teach you the ropes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now lets practice it. I will choose my own mentors if I think I need one. I consider this squashed and I thank EL C for doing what 3 ANIs could not do. I am going to give him 6 barnstars if this works. Lightburst (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... would you mind ~~unrevdelling,~~restoring and moving the page to, say, User:Hijiri88/Old sandbox~~, and then putting the current content back to the current title~~? I don't think having drafted a wide variety of things in my sandbox and then having moved the page into the mainspace as the last article I happened to draft for editcountitis reasons (which is apparently counter-policy?) should permanently remove all the stuff that I left in my sandbox for one reason or another (some of it was drafts of comments that I was unable to post due to threads getting archived, etc.). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you already did that last part. I thought you revdelled the diffs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After several failed attempts:

Done. El_C 05:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :D Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning @El C:. Sadly the voluntary IBAN was violated by Hijiri88, he took some time off, and then went right back to the old ways. I do not know if ANI is the right forum to get an IBAN put in place. I want to ask if you have any other suggestions? Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ping me on my own talk page, but you do need to submit the relevant diffs before I do anything. El_C 20:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chick-fil-A[edit]

Good morning El C! ~ I have a question, how can a IP sign a users name with out signing in? example here ~ they edited 4 times replying to a comment I made on this talk page ~ I'm not going to respond until I know. Seems fishy ~ thanks El C ~mitch~ (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Junebug2500 is forgetting to log in, somehow? I dunno. They should not be editing in this way, for sure. El_C 15:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorbetière[edit]

~ Hi again ~lol ~ El C ~ are we allowed to wiki link to another wiki article ~ for example ~ I want to wiki link the word 'sorbetière' in the en.wiki to fr.wiki article Sorbetière ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can do sorbetière or, better yet, sorbetière [fr] — mmm, that sounds good, right about now! El_C 15:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merci your such a great help on both issues ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page-blanking vandal[edit]

Can you please reblock 174.255.0.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for another 3-6 months? They just returned today after their recent rangeblock expired. They're also blocked on 174.225.132.0/22 for 6 months (along with several other ranges). It doesn't look like they're going to stop. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 15:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for advice closing RfC[edit]

Hello El C. I apologize for turning to you to ask this question, but I am not as fully aware of procedures on Wikipedia as others who have much more experience editing than I do and have seen your excellent admin work in several places. I just wanted to ask you, where would I go to ask for someone with experience to close an RFC about U.S.-Mexico border camps? Given how evenly split the RfC is, and my extensive involvement in discussion, I'm fairly sure I shouldn't be the one to do it. But I would assume there is somewhere for me to go to request this from others; I just do not know where that is.

Also, if you think this RfC is one that should run longer than the 'traditional' 30 days, please don't hesitate to suggest as much to me. I'd like to make sure it gets done right.

Thank you for your assistance and patience.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pinchme123. The place to request closures is Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Also, thank you for the kind words — it means a lot! Regards, El_C 02:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia[edit]

That's an alternative name, you know. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, of course! El_C 12:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Jeepney TV[edit]

Another repetitive vandalism with poorly unsourced content all over again with List of programs broadcast by Jeepney TV. And this time with lifetime protected article to prevent the sourced content. Jon2guevarra talk 12:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you asking for the article protection to be up'd and/or extended to indefinite? El_C 12:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I chosen extended to indefinite. Jon2guevarra talk 13:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Dlohcierekim semiprotected it for a week. You may wish to ask them to extend the protection. El_C 13:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon2guevarra: Indefinite semi-protection should only be done if lesser durations do not work. If the problems resume after one week, we can protect again for longer. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the block of both IPs that were targeting the Hurricane Harvey article, as well as the subsequent semi-protection. Your quick response was much appreciated. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, Aoi. Glad I could help. El_C 23:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a thing against me?[edit]

Ken keeps deleting my edits without explaining why, and says they need citations, but even if I add citations, he keeps deleting them. It doesn't make sense.

Also, he is the one who is harassing me because he is following my edits in rapid succession. Is Ken an admin or is he just stalking me? Nashhinton (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do I what? Considering I've never heard of you until today, no. But you need to stop following him and reverting him in a retaliatory way: in Dark Enlightenment, 5-MeO-DMT, Double planet, Paul Fromm (white supremacist), and elsewhere. As for the articles where they reverted you first, please try to figure this out through discussion, because I am seeing actual content issues that need to be resolved there. El_C 04:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're stalking me again. Please quit.

In what way is simplifying a definition not an improvement? Nashhinton (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you and Beyond My Ken are still following my every edit? Nashhinton (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again? I'm not stalking you, that article has been on my watchlist for many, many years. But if that is the quality of your edits, than I should be looking over your contributions. Again, competence is required to edit here. Adding a one line paragraph that essentially repeats what has already been explained, fails that threshold. El_C 05:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your edits are subpar, sorry. El_C 05:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Nashhinton: Three things:

(1) I am not an admin

(2) El_C is an admin

(3) You must get over the idea that you can edit Wikipedia and not have your edits inspected, edited, re-phrased or outright reverted by other editors. It is part and parcel of this place. The onus is on you to make contributions which improve the encyclopedia, which are accurate, well written, and well sourced. If you don;t do that people are going to make changes to your edits. Sometimes they're going to make changes that you don't like, that you think are wrong, unfactual, or go against our policies -- well, that's what we have article talk pages for. If you can't work things out with the other editor on their user talk page, you take your arguments to the article talk page, to allow other editors to comment and see if a consensus will form. Sometimes the consensus will support you, and sometimies it won't, that's just the way it goes. But what you never should expect is that you're going to be able to contribute to an article and not have your contribution stand inspection. It just ain't gonna happen, so get used to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that guys, but I just get this feeling like you are gang-stalking me. Like, who has time to revert my edits the second I post it? That means you are not focused on the other hundreds of Wikipedia users editing, you are only focused on me. And what makes it stranger is that it's only you two that are reverting my edits.

If there is an issue with my edits, you have the right to revert and explain how it's helpful. But me providing a simplified definition after a wordy and poorly constructed definition is in no way disruptive. Nashhinton (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And explain how my edits are subpar. Nashhinton (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not indent your comments? Anyway, "Adolf Hitler was an artist" — really? El_C 05:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wasn't he an artist? He wasn't a successful one, but he was still an artist.

Way better than Picasso Nashhinton (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please indent your comments. Please stop refactoring. Anyway, that is not what he is most well-known for. El_C 05:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you keep refactoring, still! Way better than Picasso — wow! El_C 05:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indent my comments on a talk page? Why? Nashhinton (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like Hitler as a person, but I thought he was a good artist. Hitler was an evil scumbag. But he was still good as an artist.

And what is refactoring? Nashhinton (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFACTOR. Indent for the flow of the conversation. Anyway, please stop repeating falsehoods. I am not looking over your contributions, though it seems clear that I should. El_C 06:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What falsehoods am I repeating? This conversation is quite perplexing. I'm still waiting for you to explain how my edits are subpar. Nashhinton (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My views on Picasso was an opinion. Van Gogh was also subpar and much better than Picasso Nashhinton (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're stalking me again — what do you mean by again? I already gave one example. El_C 06:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop refactoring, or you will no longer be welcomed on this talk page. El_C 06:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nashhinton: There is no sense in talking to someone who thinks that Hitler was a "way better" artist that Picasso. I mean, there is no accounting for taste, but, really....
Anyway, I'm out. I'll still be checking into your edits, because you have shown that they have the tendency to be -- as El_C very politely said, "sub-par" - I'd have gone farther than that. Anyone, if I see a bad edit from you, I will do what I do to any bad edit I see, I will fix it or delete it. I will give an edit summary which explains why I did what I did, but I will not explain any further than that. If that bothers you, report me, and I'll be happy to explain that you are the editor who thinks that Hitler was a better artist than Picasso, and that an advertisement for a middle school text book was a reliable source for information on the Black Death. And I will cite this discussion, and the one on my talk page as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Night guys! XD Nashhinton (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned you 2 to quit commenting on my page and stalking me. Leave me alone. Thanks Nashhinton (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC) — Oh? I received no such warning. El_C 07:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the article Belief[edit]

Hello El C. I'm a newbie. I didn't know that you're an admin. I'm so sorry. I don't know how to delete that post.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrr0j30t (talk • contribs)

Hi. No worries. But me being an admin should make no difference. The weight of the arguments is what should matter. El_C 08:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhower[edit]

Hi, can you unprotect Dwight D. Eisenhower? You semi-protected it indefinitely after a flurry of vandalism or edit warring on July 16, but there didn't seem to be obvious issues in the couple weeks before that. I was trying to fix a dead reference when I encountered the protection. Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think after +30 protection attempts, an indefinite makes sense. Please feel free to submit an edit request. El_C 08:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see there have been occasional incidents over the years but nowhere near enough to justify permanent protection. It was protected 2x this year, 3x in 2017, and all other protections were in 2014 or earlier. It's not all that frequent a target. It does look like vandalism restarted in July 2019 immediately after the January 2019 6-month protection expired. But the July 2019 incident looks like someone repeatedly trying to re-insert the same meme, not hopping IP's very fast. Some blocks and an edit filter could handle that. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not inclined to unprotect an article subjected to +30 protections, but feel free to take this to RfPP. El_C 17:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard B. Spencer[edit]

Could you please unprotected Richard B. Spencer. 67.162.117.78 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. There has been far too much disruptive editing there. But feel free to take this to RfPP. El_C 17:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, regarding a movie article[edit]

You may want to look in on, and put in a brief block, on the Hobbs & Shaw article page. The movie opens tonight, and there are a lot of drive-by unlogged edits. Talk to @TropicAces:, who appears to be a regular editor, and see if it would be a help. (While what I saw of many unloggeds was not vandalism, it was also not very constructive.) Finally, I was editing there doing my usual check-and-complete-references type of work, and I know by restricting the article, I would lose access. That is fine by me—I have a bit more to do to finish the sources, but it can be done after the film's attention-grabbing opening weekend passes. Cheers mate (your old scholastic, sometimes seredipity-needing, IP editor friend). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:c700:2db2:8fd:2600:814e:293 (talk • contribs)

Hey, IP editor friend, we have a rule about not protecting pages preemptively, so I'm afraid there's nothing I can do at this time. But I have added the article to my watchlist, so I'll do my best to keep an eye. Regards, El_C 17:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry the heavens did not align on this one! El_C 17:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! looks like I did it anyway, so that shows me! El_C 19:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~ They actually have a movie named Hobbs and Shaw ~ ILMAO ~~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laotian swimming vandal[edit]

Can you please reblock this vandal for another 2-3 months: 2403:6200:8976:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)? They've been vandalizing on-and-off since May, and they just came back today. I doubt that they're going to stop anytime soon. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 20:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Union[edit]

I wonder if you could revert JPratas's edit while the discussion continues, I can't revert it because if I do it will be edit warring, and it's also blocked of course. -- 191.34.187.54 (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not fully protect the page? El_C 00:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I was just asking if you could revert his edit while the discussion continues. -- 191.34.187.54 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've already proposed my suggestions on how to edit these articles (voluntary editing restrictions), but unfortunately, no one responded to these. El_C 01:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 El Paso shooting[edit]

Hi. May I ask you to reconsider your decision on the RPP for 2019 El Paso shooting? There are constant edits to the page, many citing unconfirmed news sources. Thanks -OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was away. Looks like it's been protected for a few hours, at any case. El_C 23:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HS2000[edit]

Hi.This is non-existent state ,this is sock puppets from Serbia.Look a year ago the same thing was tried to change that and it was edit war.Look History and please restore.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.12.123 (talk • contribs)

Please cite specific diffs rather than send me to look at the edit history a year ago. We are all volunteers here. El_C 05:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She's right. Here's the difference and the proof is why you should go back to the original.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HS2000&diff=846102820&oldid=846096145 And this same try https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HS2000&diff=847952350&oldid=847928627 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopioo (talk • contribs)

/Investigating. El_C 05:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a non-existent state and should not be classified as normal states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopioo (talk • contribs)

I said, I'm investigating. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). El_C 05:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the ISIS mention due to its connection to an indefinitely blocked user. Thanks for your patience. El_C 06:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Goodbye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopioo (talk • contribs)

Anytime. Happy editing! El_C 06:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:EVADE. Although this is mostly against the edits of blocked users, there is a specific exclusion, unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Now I would see Amnesty as an excellent source for this, and the idea that "Daesh isn't a country" is a very minor issue of formatting in it presentation, not a reason to exclude that content.

I'd also note that much of the article is sourced to a WP:SPS source, which for a long time was a deadlink. Also some of the claims (still) sourced to that aren't even mentioned by it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be consensus among admins to exclude the addition ([9] [10]). I note that the latest IP adding it has also been blocked for one year as an LTA. El_C 22:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But is that actually the best for the article? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an answer to that —I'm looking at the project overall, at any case— but perhaps the other two admins might. El_C 22:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdness[edit]

Ok, something exceedingly strange is going on. You blocked 221.191.161.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) a few minutes ago for disruptive editing. If you study its edits, they're a mixture of constructive edits and vandalism, but the remarkable observation is that none of the edit summaries match the actions taken in the edits. Now there's another one: 183.77.232.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Also note the incredible speed with which the edits are being made, especially given some of the edits being fairly complex. I think this is another type of attack. Thoughts? General Ization ^Talk 05:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong admin! El_C 05:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right; you're not the blocker of the first IP. Would still appreciate your taking a look at this. General Ization ^Talk 05:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but they were already blocked at that point. El_C 05:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic Troll[edit]

Can you please block this guy for a while: 99.203.24.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? This is pretty much the same person as 66.87.9.0/24. Initially, I though that it might have been someone else with bad conduct, but these two edits [11][12] pretty much give them away. You can see this nonsense ANI report for more information on the context (they've gotten sneakier since then). I've already told them to cut it with the attacks, but they've only escalated them since then. Since two other 3-months rangeblocks (on different ranges) did nothing to dissuade them, I suggest blocking the current range for at least 3-6 months. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 20:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

States and union territories of India[edit]

Can you increase the protection level to ECP? Asking here since you are already familiar with the issue and I have in the past edited the page. Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Administrative divisions of India. This is gonna be a mess, isn't it? <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would preemptively protect if I could. El_C 18:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think you can preemptively protect here. This disruption is inherently rooted in the Indo-Pakistan territorial dispute, so WP:GS/IPAK is applicable. Or so I would read it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In theory, yes, but see (and juxtapose) this ARBPIA-related discussion on my reading that consensus has changed about preemptive protection for articles under restrictions (ARBPIA-wise, at least). El_C 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The general prohibition under ARBPIA is old, though, and ARBCOM-authorized. GS/IPAK is relatively new, and had decent (though not unanimous) support from the community. Even some of those opposing it were of the opinion that it was unnecessary because such protections could already be applied under ARBIPA DS. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that the general question about preemptive protection for articles under (any) restriction is not one that been settled. Possibly, not even yet to be extensively discussed, as far as I am aware. El_C 19:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII Art filter[edit]

is the ASCII Art filter not working? The last time I saw such an "image" was on a subpage of de:WP:AP as an IP back then. Unbekannter z34-56r-ghf-aq2-d0r (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea. Didn't work that time, at least. El_C 21:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moors murders[edit]

Off my watchlist. Please contact me about this only if all else fails. El_C 15:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you'll be blocking the "new user" seeing as they broke 3rr? And why have you locked the article at the wrong version? Cassianto^Talk 22:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that the article sre reverted back to Cassinto’s latest edit.BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did they? How many reverts did you count? Anyway, I know, I always do that (sorry, couldn't resist!). El_C 22:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? On the basis of what? El_C 22:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, El_C, what is your understanding of WP:BRD? You seem to be exhibiting rather suspicious behaviour. Cassianto^Talk 22:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding that Enforced BRD only applies to a subset of discretionary sanctions. As for your aspersions, they are unwelcome and you need to cease with that. El_C 22:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to do anything. You on the other hand... Cassianto^Talk 22:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, it reflects poorly on you. El_C 22:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I would strongly suggest you revert the article back to the stable FA version (I would do, but I'm not editing through your protection). I don't see any reason why an obvious sock with 5 edits should dictate what it says. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If three people tell me the same thing, I must be doing something wrong. Okay, fair enough. I relent. El_C 23:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I add my thanks for the restoration of the FA version of the article. I would add that the WP:NOTHERE nature of the "new" editor and the offensive nature of the username should have been taken into account. A UAA has been filed though I don't know what the outcome will be. MarnetteD|Talk 23:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could guess if pressed, but I probably won't, so I've blocked it as an obvious sock. Just a word of advice guys, there's a lot of trolls lurking about, looking like obvious sockpuppets, most of which are not going to be regular long-term unblocked editors. Try not to give or take offence if you see them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I guessed that ("134" by any chance?) but it's obviously a sock either way. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice guess, but no, I think this is a former now-banned regular. As you say, obvious either way (and that's not an aspersion at El_C either, I'm fortunate to have magic goggles). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite and Cassianto: Just to follow up, Special:PermaLink/909640113#06_August_2019. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks zzuuzz. WP:DUCK indeed. Cassianto^Talk 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone tells me I failed at the WP:PACT..., then I guess I did. Mea culpa. El_C 23:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is wrong. Please undo this and restore the version you protected. You should not favour one side over the other in an edit war, and the version of 26 June is in any case not the definitive version. — Amakuru (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is making my head hurt! I went with my instincts. Then I doubt myself. Now I doubt the doubt! El_C 23:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Amakuru, El_C is right to revert here. I realise The Wrong Version is something we admins tend to stick to, but that's 99% a banned editor right there. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the vast majority of the edits concerned were by EEng. The new editor who reverted Cassianto was simply returning the article to the form it had been at the end of July. It seemed like good progress was being made between various editors through July and the mass reversion was unnecessary. The FA version was from 2009 and the thing has changed massively since then anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know very little. But at least you offer balance, I suppose. Cassianto^Talk 00:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.[edit]

[13]. Cassianto^Talk 23:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again it took me a little while to figure out what's what. El_C 23:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, El C, that you still haven't figured out what's what. Sorry you're in the middle of this, but you put yourself there so now you need to see it through. Here's what you need to know to see through the "FAs are delicate flowers" smokescreen:

First, for the record (since Cassianto implied [14] that Hari-kiri Te Kanawa was my sockpuppet) the reason I've been silent for 24 hours is that I've on two trains, two planes, one taxi and a bus all this time. (I even mentioned in advance I'd be overseas [15], and if visa stamps are wanted I can supply them.) I had nothing to do with recent edit war – haven't article the edited since July 20.
See [16] for the article's edit history since early July. Over seven days starting July 2, I made 150 edits to the article. None of them added any new fact; most were small, simple rewordings; some eliminated a detail here or there; a few corrected straight-out grammar errors or places where the text contradicted itself. Several eitors occasionally reverted or modified my edits, which meant other eyes were checking what I was doing. On July 10 a talk page thread was opened by Cassianto, which went on to incredible length; I suggest you start here [17], where I begged, for the nth time, those fretting about "the amount of recent changes" and the "bloodbath" to simply step through the changes and revert or adjust as few or many as they wished. "I'm not married to any of them", I said (also for the nth time). Admin Diannaa commented that that's the right thing to do, not mass revert.
That was July 12. What happened? Nothing. I invite you to keep reading the thread for the whining about my "simplistic, childish edits" – but not a single edit diffed for discussion, nor any edit reverted or adjusted, and for "these edits have been a backward step for this article and they need to be scrutinised" – but not a single edit diffed for discussion, nor any edit reverted or adjusted. For three weeks, nothing.
Then on August 3 – well, read it for yourself as you continue down the thread. More complaints about how awful everything is, alternated with my pleas to go ahead and revert or adjust wherever they want.
Finally, Cassianto threw all the edits out en masse by reverting to (no kidding) June 26 – six weeks earlier. He wrote on the article talk page:

I have Reverted on the back of EEng's Boldness so the two versions can be Discussed. EEng, I'm sure there are other ways in achieving what you think is a better version, rather than simply using the live version to display it. I'm sorry, but I cannot sit back and see an FA trimmed by over 8,000 bytes and not feel a pang of sorrow at all the hard work that achieved it its gold star in the first place.

Well, Cassianto and his friends did sit back – for an entire month – instead of simply looking at the edits and reverting or changing anything they want to – but they can still do that now! Sure there are other ways, but why would we open a talk-page thread to discuss whether

police searched

is or is not better than

police were drafted to search

—? With it there, in place, in the article, if you don't like the change, just revert it in place. That's what a wiki's for.

Cassianto's edit summary in reverting [18] was:

Restoring back to 26 June - per WP:BRD. The latest version from today and this version can be compared and an RfC can be opened if necessary. But I really think this has gone far too wide from the version that achieved FA.

There's no basis for this reasoning. FAs are not subject to special editing rules; they're edited just like anything else. And the talk of "the version that achieved FA" is just laughable. The article became an FA ten years ago and was 88K; the version Cassianto just restored is 108K. The "FA version" sank into the sands of time years ago because (need I say it again) FAs get edited just like any other article.

Oh, and in those weeks several other editors made changes as well. Cassianto trashed their work too. I suppose they're expected to open talk-page threads on their changes too, or an RfC. The mass revert also restored grammar errors, a sentence contradicting the sentence just before it, two paragraphs that say the same thing, and I forget what else.

As I said on the article's talk page (a month ago, while still naively begging the complainers to just fucking review the edits):

When a good-faith editor puts a lot of work into an article, you have two choices: either check out the changes and undo or adjust them individually, or just trust that the editor's changes are, if not each individually improvements, at least improvements on balance in toto. Not an option is to say you don't have time to review what's been done, so it'll all just have to be thrown out.

The article doesn't need protection. What it needs is for you to remove the protection, restore the version that's been built by a ten separate editors over the last month, and put a clear statement on the talk page that the way forward is to for anyone concerned to review the changes and revert or change anything they want to, not mass-revert work they haven't even looked at. Pinging Diannaa and DrKay, Kieronoldham, Martinevans123, EmilePersaud, Serial Number 54129 whose edits were trashed by Cassianto's revert. E Eng 09:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 09:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do all three bits but based on what Cassianto said here [19] I went ahead. Isn't it fun being an admin? E Eng 10:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that diatribe is over, care to discuss this at a more appropriate venue, EEng? Cassianto^Talk 09:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. Discussion is what you should have done in the first place, instead of getting into an edit war and then being rude to El C for trying to defuse the situation, and complaining that the "wrong version" was protected. Onwards and upwards anyway, good luck and hopefully you'll come to a sensible consensus on how best to present the important info in that article. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Defuse the situation? What, by protecting a version that El_C thought was the FA version, only for El_C to realise that it wasn't the FA version at all and protect the other version instead? He even admitted that mistake. Luckily, El_C was prompted by Black Kite, an admin far more superior than you, fortunately, to advise where they went wrong? Because had El_C listened to you, that situation could've got a whole lot worse. Cassianto^Talk 09:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I realized it wasn't the FA version from the outset — the FA status of the version played no consideration. What did were multiple admins asking me not to reward a blocked sock with their preferred version, plus general exahustion with being berated. El_C 09:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, thank you, I've always wondered where I sit in the admin superiority rankings so that's helpful input. I can only hope that you'll approach the discussion on the Moors Murders with less of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality than you're showing here, anyway. A bit less of this and a bit more actually detailing your objections to the content in question would be the way forward. — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(pinged by EEng) As I said over there on 9 July: "My guess is that there would be few problems arising from a WP:FAR. But after 10 years, it would seem a perfectly sensible idea." But I have to admit that article is now getting close to being taken off my watchlist. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Took mere minutes for the edit dispute to continue after he article was unprotected.BabbaQ (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Cassianto and I agreed we'd go back to the pre-editwar version. The edit summary gives a diff. E Eng 10:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article being disrupted[edit]

The Algeria article is being disrupted by a non-communicative "new" editor who's also using an IP to make the same unjustified changes. Will it be possible for you to semi-protect the article? Kind regards. M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 23:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KFC[edit]

Hi El C! ~ can you tell me how to edit this in ~ here is what I have so far ~ In 1957, Colonel Harland Sanders gave an interview to CBC Radio in the capital city of Edmonton ~ I want to let the reader know that in the cite there is an actual recording of that interview ~ Thanks El C ~mitch~ (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hello Mitchellhobbs. Two ideas spring to mind. One is to add it in the "External links" section. The next is to add it as a footnote next to the cite. The first is a little more obvious for a reader to see but the second is a touch more accurate for what you are trying to accomplish. Of course, El C may have other (better) suggestions. MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mitchellhobbs and thanks MarnetteD. Yes, a footnote is also something I would favour. Something like: for the autio recording of the interview, see this link. El_C 00:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you two ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Mitchellhobbs and El C. My understanding is that ELs in the body of the article are frowned upon and subject to removal. So I have taken the liberty of changing the parenthetical into a full fledged footnote. I hope you and your daughters are okay with this and apologize it it is not what you were looking to do. My wording may be a little clunky so anyone seeing this thread or the edit at the article are more than free to improve upon it. Best regards to all. MarnetteD|Talk 03:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD ~ thank you ~ we, including my father did not know how to do that ~ he's such a klutz ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome Mitchellhobbs but I should add that, in a sense, being a klutz is what we all are here on the 'pedia. Longevity is the only reason that I knew about this way to footnote stuff. There are plenty of policies and guidelines that I could/have/will miss that would need altering. Best regards to the whole ~mitch~ family. MarnetteD|Talk 05:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "In Popular Culture" Section[edit]

Hello El C, You reversed my edit [20] to the Kamchatka Peninsula article on grounds of it being "A bit too trivial". But I'd assumed "trivia" was the very purpose of the "In Popular Culture"/"In Media" section of wikipedia articles. See examples -

Albuquerque#In_popular_culture

Fargo,_North_Dakota#In_popular_culture

Dubrovnik#In_popular_culture

Oahu#In_media

Beverly_Hills#In_popular_culture

So I'm curious why my edit does not fall under that umbrella.

Thank you Aneeshwar (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in a video game with a link to a YouTube walkthrough (fails as a reliable source) falls short in my view. Yes, I realize WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. El_C 17:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More Page-Blanking vandals[edit]

2600:6C50:7A7F:B8E3:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
47.55.18.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I found a couple more. (There's so many of them!) Can you please block them as well? The first range should probably be blocked for a week; all edits are vandalism and it doesn't look like they're going to quit. I think that's it for now. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 08:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times Best Seller list[edit]

Hi, you previously protected this article from a persistent vandal on two occasions (the last from April 17 to June 17). It appears they have returned as of August 1 and have made 4 vandals, always the same thing, replacing the word "York" with "Fart" in the first sentence. -- GreenC 14:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 14:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- GreenC 15:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Hurricane vandal[edit]

Can you please block 65.92.180.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for around a week? They're currently on an IP-hopping vandalism spree. Incidentally, one of their talk page comments indicates that this could potentially be a cross-wiki LTA. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)\[reply]

Never mind, someone else got to it. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal on your talk page[edit]

You might want to block 148.75.20.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They've been trolling people and left a mess on your talk page earlier. I'm pretty sure this one is an LTA. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never a dull moment! El_C 20:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austin–Bergstrom International Airport[edit]

Hi El C~ ~ can you help me here and here please ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue here? Blissfield101 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already responded on ~~the article~~ your user talk page. El_C 21:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP LTA[edit]

Can you please block 168.244.10.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for at least 6-12 months? This range has been persistently abused by one or two LTAs in the past 2 years, and the vast majority of edits from the past year appear to be some form of vandalism. There's an appalling amount of BLP vandalism and racist attacks coming from this range. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 00:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's back, on 64.134.226.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can you please reblock this IP for a longer duration? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

	Input
	~ thanks ~ the doctor said I should recover ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! Is everything okay? What doctor? (As long as it wasn't a DoctorB!) Sorry I couldn't be of more help. WP:AIRPORT is well outside my comfort zone! El_C 00:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No "thats the guy who did me" ~ you were a great help I liked your question to me ~ lol ~ you reminded me of Bruce Willis ~ of course I'm the guy with the funny hair ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked @MilborneOne: to glance over at the talk page for WP airports ~ knows more than I do ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that answers nothing — but it does bring me back! How do you go? Fast, very fast. Classic. El_C 01:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Classic 01:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

OK ~ I think if we teach Blissfield how to reference better Blissfield might get his point across ~ I remember when I first started editing all I got was general answers ~ citing WP policies ~ to the article's page and not to what you (as an editor) was talking about ~ a person like me ~ a field guy ~ looks at a manual and can't even begin to figure out what is trying to be taught ~ it's just a step at a time ~ I'm in it for the long haul ~ over a period of time I will understand the policies when some one quotes them ~ but I am more into finances and restaurants ~ I like sourcing ~ thanks ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Pounder[edit]

	The Padlock Barnstar
	Thank you for doing an indef protection at Quarter Pounder. This will definitely slow down the vandals. JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JudeccaXIII — much appreciated. But let's not jinx it! El_C 01:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~ cute~[edit]

El C ~ who is this? ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's chippy, of course! El_C 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big N' Tasty[edit]

Hello, El C,

I noticed that you placed indefinite protection for this article yesterday but, somehow, Fatterman, a persistent vandal of McDonald's articles, was able to edit the page today. How is this possible? Does the protection need to be increased? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That vandal is autoconfirmed; it waited for a week before editing, and then rapidly accumulated 10 edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, why have I never heard of this. I’m vegetarian, but have been to McDonalds enough times in my life I should have seen this. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've never heard of Big N' Tasty (until this rather persistent vandal), either, so no need to feel bad about being out of the cow zeitgeist loop, Tony. El_C 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi, didn't mean to disruptive[edit]

hi, sorry, but i didn't mean to disruptive in Jilin province Wikipedia page, hope you understand. i got references, but is not English, so I didn't cite. Thanks for let me know to give reason once finish edit. I still try to learn how to cite references, Please correct me anything wrong. But I didn't want disrupt Wikipedia. Hope you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.118.50 (talk • contribs)

Sure, no problem. Please cite those sources, even if they are not in English. See WP:REFBEGIN for help with that. El_C 00:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

Re: Ronnie Radke, could you also protect the Elijah Daniel page? Thanks.-KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 00:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woohooo[edit]

Hey, El C. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Has it really been a decade and a half? El_C 04:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

School vandalism[edit]

Can you please block 103.91.192.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? They've been using multiple IPs to carry out a bunch of childish vandalism at a number of articles today. The range looks like it's registered to a public school. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 07:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible to mass-revert vandal's edits?[edit]

Hi, I was concerned about edits made by User:FastEddy59, who you've recently blocked.

Is there a tool to revert all of his currently existing edits ? Thanks- Neuralnewt (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't really know. But an answer may be found at Wikipedia:Cleaning_up_vandalism/Tools#Rollback_tools. El_C 17:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch McConnell vandal[edit]

Can you please indef MoscowMitch1945 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It's an obvious vandalism-only account, and they were engaging in serious BLP violations. Their IP (2600:100d:b103:2641:680f:4984:5c92:2b12) has already been blocked. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 19:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source does not support content[edit]

Hello, user @JoeScarce making numerous edits, taking own conclusions, what is not supported by source. Source checked carefuly. "Just war theory" article. Globalisation article also checked and he made an edit and it does not seems supported by source, not stated like that by source. User is new or doing things on purpose. I warned him to Wiki is not about pov views or advocacy. 93.86.91.234 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, globalization even notes war ethics. Snippet from article even notes "Never forget, the Pope says, that “the whole is greater than the parts.” Globalization and unity”, he says, “should not be conceived as a sphere, but as a polyhedron: each people retains its identity in unity with others".[21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeScarce (talk • contribs)

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 21:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is result of talk page about "Just war theory" by user @JoeScarce "No, you can't make an argument at all and are making me laugh. It's the reason why you went to talk to someone with a Che Guevara poster, which also shows bias in me potentially getting blocked." Talk is not much useful seems so.I am sorry for bothering. 93.86.91.234 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Hopefully, they'll take my suggestion to heart. El_C 22:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the same user added stuff what does not corresponded to source." Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region" I dont know what is motivation of people who makes own conclusions even if it is not written etc. I wont anymore revert things but some attention need to be paid. Thank you and sorry. 93.86.91.234 (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You both need to stop violating the 3 revert rule, full stop. If you think the edits constitute original research or synthesis, the place to advance that argument is on the article talk page in a detailed and cogent manner. Likewise, JoeScarce should work to demonstrate the opposite — that their additions reflect the cited material well. Sorry, I haven't had a chance to look at the actual edits yet. Finally, there's always other dispute resolution resources to turn to, if those efforts do not result in resolution. El_C 23:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another troll[edit]

Can you please block 59.0.80.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a month or so? They've been making serious personal attacks from their IPs for a while, and they were trolling on your talk page just earlier. This is possibly an LTA that I'm familiar with, but since the IP is a possible proxy network, I can't tell at the moment. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and Ad Orientem: Can someone please block this guy? He's making a serious mess on a bunch of pages right now. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein adding material on the MEK page despite lack of consensus[edit]

Saff V. added this text to the MEK page, which I reverted since the current TP discussion about this included objections by myself, Barca, and a RSN discussion. Mhhossein, however, re-inserted this text back into the article. I asked Mhhossein to self-revert as there was no consensus to include this in the article, but he has refused to do so. Doesn't this violate the current MEK page restrictions? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the section on the article talk page, your (plural) objections seem rhetorical rather than substantive ("I also have made objections" — really?). They may, however, have jumped the gun in making that (unsubstantiated-objections) determination all on their own, without outside input to guide them as to whether this is so. I'm a bit unhappy with both sides, then, and I'm not just saying that to come across as even-handed. El_C 17:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: The only thing made me revert the edit was the lengthy discussion over removal of a single word which was then correctly described as "Much Ado About Nothing"! There, I provided plenty of sources supporting the removal and he just kept on throwing the out of ark Arbarahmian's book for his objection. Now, he has tried different objections to avoid an inclusion including asking us to use Wikipedia as a source! I'm not going to be GAMED more by receiving baseless arguments. Also, I don't know if it's correct to ask you comment case by case, which I think will just make the page boring and time wasting for you. I think we should keep our tickets for the emergency circumstances (am I right?). You told me on my TP I could not "unilaterally make that determination on [my] own", then should I have asked you determine the consensus? You know I did for the previous cases and I really thought it would not be pleasant for you to be pinged once again. Anyway, if you demand, I'm going to self revert and act based on YOUR determination of the consensus. Should I revert it? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On that (unrelated) TP discussion Mhhossein is referring to, I brought several RSs to back up my argument. But that's not what we're talking about here. Here we're talking about respecting the work process and restrictions that have been implemented on the MEK page, which Mhhossein failed to do. There are 3 editors arguing against the inclusion that Mhhossein just inserted into the article. A RfC would help bring in some outside input, but making the decision on their own to insert this back into the article seems a violation of the agreed work process. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a serious problem when either side takes it upon themselves to determine that their opponents' argument is without basis (tendentious). It just so happens that in this case I agree with that determination, but making that (involved) determination on one's own is a problem, inherently. Yes, Stefka Bulgaria, feel free to launch an RfC about this, during which I encourage you to raise more substantive objections. Mhhossein, I won't ask you to revert, but again, I caution you and others against determining, in your involved capacity, that the other side has fallen short in their argument to the point that their position becomes (at least in the immediate sense) nullified. There's no way the editorial process can progress under such circumstances. It is just plainly inappropriate to essentially say: 'I feel your argument falls short, thus, I'm deciding that it is tendentious and restrictions no longer apply.' I hope you appreciate that and refrain from jumping the gun in the future. El_C 11:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: I was one of the first editors welcoming the restrictions which came after I condemned the new wave of edit wars Stefka Bulgaria was actively involved and received a warning. So, I mostly am concerned about the stability of the article and object any simple thing threatening it. The proof for my claim are the number of the RFCs and TP discussions I opened, among the 6 rounds of shedding light on Stefka Bulgaria's unilateral mass changes. And now, I'm sorry if I have acted against the goodness of the article. After your comments, I feel free to ping you for determining the consensus after enough comments are exchanged. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, by all means, feel free to ping me whenever there's an impasse. Although I can't guarantee I'll always have time to address all outstanding issues, it is no bother at all. El_C 18:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering me the opportunity of pinging you, but I'll do it whenever I feel convincing arguments are raised. Btw, I find this edit to be a violation of the new restrictions, given the ongoing discussion on the talk page. I have no idea why, after your recent cautions, he unilaterally determined the material to be inserted. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That change should probably not have been made without further discussion. Perhaps there's a compromise to be had. Gotta try. El_C 20:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein, again...[edit]

On this MEK TP discussion, Saff V. wrote on August 3rd:

Just this sentence is left: "were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities". At first, please give a source for that sentence and "A first wave of executions" then can you explain what do you mean by "enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities"?.

On August 4th, I replied:

Here's the full quote and the source: "Amnesty International’s research found that thousands of political dissidents were systematically subjected to enforced disappearance in Iranian detention facilities across the country and extrajudicially executed pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Leader of Iran and implemented across prisons in the country. Many of those killed were subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment in the process."^[1] Any objection to include this?

By August 11th, there was no reply (from anyone), so I proceeded to include this into the article. The same day, Mhhossein reverted this edit saying "my objection was already there", but he never discussed the quote I had proposed for inclusion (but instead was very quick to revert it).

This, again, seems like a violation of the agreed editing process. Please note that Mhhossein was recently "strongly warned to avoid making personal attacks, to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground, to seek consensus rather than edit-warring over contentious material, and to be mindful of our policies about maintaining a neutral point of view." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Amnesty International. Retrieved December 14, 2018.

Certainly, I'm looking for reliable sources that verify Mhhossein's objection. That said, I'm not sure my user talk page is the right venue for this discussion. El_C 06:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stefka Bularia is also "strongly warned to avoid making personal attacks, to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground, to seek consensus rather than edit-warring over contentious material, and to be mindful of our policies about maintaining a neutral point of view." So what? I also am not sure why Stefka Bularia tends to come here for the issues which need to be resolved via discussion on the article talk page. I'll provide sources for the objection. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary material added for the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong[edit]

Supplementary material added for the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong under Talk section. Thank you for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C20:241:94CA:9097:DF59:E83F (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Responded on the article talk page. El_C 05:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia in Poland[edit]

You've previously warned Volunteer Marek - here. Yesterday he was either at 3 or 4 reverts (depends how you count - [22], [23] - the last one in particular was also in his mass-removal in a different spot ([24]). Volunteer Marek has not been discussing, has not been provided a single source to justify his personal opinions on Muslims and hate discourse towards them in Poland, and has been disruptively using tags. As an example:

07:38, 6 August 2019 - placing a verify-inline tag. Per Template:Verify source this must only be placed "after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information"
In Talk:Islamophobia in Poland#Transnational Islamophobia verification tag - Volunteer Marek does not provide a justification nor description of his required good-faith verification attempts.
Despite this rudely framed rationale and off-topic comments (and per Template:Verify source, which is not a quotation request, it would've been sufficient for me to say "I verified this") - I provided extensive quotations from the academic book chapter. (as evident in the bottom of the talk page section - and in diff).
In diff (along with 9.3 KB of other material - note that this includes content not objected to previous (in aggregate - Volunteer Marek has objected to half of the content of the article - all sourced to top-notch sources)) - Volunteer Marek hacks off:
Immigration of Poles to the United Kingdom has led many migrants from the homogeneous Polish society to encounter a culturally diverse setting for the first time. This contact, coupled with continued contact with family members in Poland, has led to a transnational transfer of Islamophobia back into Poland.^[1]
This despite clear quotations being provided to Volunteer Marek, to which he has responded with WP:SILENCE.

References

^ Gawlewicz, A. and Narkowicz, K. (2015) Islamophobia on the move: circulation of anti-Muslim prejudice between Poland and the UK. In: Suleiman, Y. (ed.) Muslims in the UK and Europe I. Centre of Islamic Studies, University of Cambridge: Cambridge, pp. 90-100.

Volunteer Marek's other contributions to the page (which notable have not included providing a single source to back up his opinions) - are of a similar nature (e.g. [25] - misuse of who tag - contrast Template:Who, and arguing against multiple academic journal articles that see this group as relevant (see Talk:Islamophobia in Poland#Tag removed - which provides quotations (and descriptions - given one has 4 pages and the other has 1 page - above what is reasonable to quote).Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also - diff - is a personal attack and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the Committee might decide on this any day, so I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to do anything beyond protect the page on the version in which I encountered the edit war. El_C 06:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And at this rate (now at two high-profile drama cases) - it might take another six months. That ARBCOM is open should not be an excuse for continued WP:HOUNDing followed by clearly WP:NOTTHERE behavior. We're supposed to follow sources on Wikipedia - WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT removals of content sources to top-notch journal articles (on the topic of Polish Islamophobia) - is not something that should be excused - particularly when followed by WP:STONEWALLING. The example above - placing a verify-inline tag (without any attempt to verify) on transnational transfer of Islamophobia - followed by removal of the content in a subsequent mass-removal (despite extensive quotations being provided, and despite Volunteer Marek's continued WP:SILENCE on the talk page to the quotations) - is clearly NOTTHERE. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather you take this to a noticeboard than myself acting unilaterally, though. El_C 06:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I say that you referred this to AE? Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AE, AN, ACN — whichever. But I'm not saying such a report will necessarily be received well. All I'm saying is that I'm not inclined to make decisions by fiat while the Arbitration case remains open. El_C 06:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also - VM has broken the 1RR restriction you placed on History of the Jews in Poland:

note discussion in Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#The Holocaust in Poland, followed by Wikipedia:Casting aspersions - diff. This in the face of a RM (Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2019/July#Requested move 5 June 2019) and clearly in contravention of MOS:NOBACKREF - and with VM being reverted by 3 separate editors. If I file this in AE - it will be referred back to you as the admin placing the restriction. Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing a 1RR breach. Yes, by all means, mention that I applied the restriction — makes sense. El_C 07:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the unrelated content at the top. Look at "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" sub-header. prior revert (2 August). Then in 11 August - revert1 on 09:24, and revert2 on 10:39. In both revert1 and revert2 (as well as the 2 August revert) the sub-section header of "The Holocaust" is reverted to "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" (+other content below header). Two reverts, same content (ignoring add-on on top), one hour and fifteen minutes apart.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I see it now. I'll drop VM a note suggesting they self-revert while they still can. El_C 07:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on the 1RR violation. By the time Icewhiz brought it up it I've already been reverted. Icewhiz's complaint however appears to be a response to this comment which points out that after Francois Robere broke 1RR, Icewhiz swooped in and made his revert for him. Icewhiz and Francois Robere have been reverting on each other's behalf on multiple articles over the past two weeks.On Islamophobia in Poland FR reverted on Icewhiz's behalf [26]. On Racism in Poland FR and Icewhiz have alternated reverts in quick succession [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. Same thing on History of Jews in Poland. They're not actually being subtle about it.

And it takes some real audacity for Icewhiz to accuse me of "casting aspersions" when in these comments right here he makes at least three different false accusations (notthere, hounding, stonewalling etc). His description of both my actions and the dispute on the relevant article are completely false too. I have indeed been discussing the subject on talk. Icewhiz is apparently referring to the fact that I didn't respond *immediately* to his newest comments on talk, which I haven't seen up until now. Not all of us edit 18 hours a day. It's summer and I was busy riding roller coasters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I don't understand why you would change my revision. Wikipedia should be free to edit and I am not publish original research. True information should be provided here instead of personal perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.179.63 (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the existing source for a new addition. El_C 08:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MarcusBritish[edit]

Hey El C, please see the note that I placed on the ANI thread. That, however, is less important than something I saw on their talk page, this note, where Incnis Mrsi seems to say the user wasn't banned--whether they were simply indef-blocked (and then globally blocked) or banned by the community is not irrelevant. I don't know what the truth is, and it's too hot in my office for me to read that ANI discussion... Drmies (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies. Yeah, I saw your note. Oops. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. The proposal was for an "immediate block," so I went with indeffed rather than banned. El_C 02:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As toxic a presence as MB was, I'd be all for proposing a community ban - though it's probably redundant right now! --WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is redundant; I imagine anyone who looks over the series of blocks and the ANI discussion will conclude that the community endorsed an indefinite block. And yet, given the wikilawyering we see sometimes, I wonder if this should be formalized a bit more. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read Incnis Mrsi's comment, the less clear it is. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I looked over the thing. I see strong community support for an indefinite block of MB. I see no numerical consensus for any sanction on Dicklyon (Beyond My Ken made the same assessment). I propose we place a(nother) note on MB's talk page, for the benefit of any future admin; SarekOfVulcan placed an ANI link in the block log, but that was two blocks ago, halfway through the ANI discussion.

As for Dicklyon, I did not look particularly carefully at that part of the discussion, and so I cannot (per BMK) judge the "strength of arguments". Plus, the waters there are totally muddied. There's plenty of reason, then, for someone to start a fresh conversation that has nothing to do with MB. I saw that Cinderella157 commented on both editors, and they know a thing or two about MOS and moves and all that (BTW, MB should have been blocked already after this assholery, "the Award for Best Hyperbole of ANI goes to Cinderella157 for playing the victim"). BMK proposed a topic ban on Dicklyon. Dlohcierekim supported but didn't explain. Martinevans123 opposed. WaltCip had no opinion. Iridescent and MarnetteD supported, and I quit after that, but the point is clear, I hope: there's a whole slew of seasoned editors and they're all over the map. There is obviously cause for concern, and I hope one of these editors will reboot this. I mean, there seems to be unclarity about some basic matters. OK, I've gone on long enough. El C, let me know if you agree that a note should be placed on MB's talk page--or better yet, go ahead and do it! ;) Drmies (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon has opened a thread at AN seeking clarification/removal of the aforementioned restrictions. -- Dloh cier ekim 16:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 03:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you very much for your assistance in handling the vandalism on Fat man so swiftly! Next256 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I greatly appreciate your recognition. They keep leaving me a ping every time they go on a vandalism spree — which is a totally new experience for me! El_C 03:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Maria[edit]

Can you please reinstate the Semi-Protection on Hurricane Maria? Vandalism from unregistered users is ratcheting up again, and the article is highly-visible. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 23:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

202.184.110.121[edit]

Can you please hide this user's edits as well. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 01:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that User:Mickygreedy is a sock of the IP above. Can you hide his edits as well? ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 19:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Logan ANI[edit]

El C, I understand how things look, but I have a good faith complaint here. I feel like I barely had a chance to explain things. It's terribly frustrating when all that is seen is my uncivil reactions to what I feel is her superficially civil bad conduct. I feel like editors like this push out all the new people, especially when administrators consider boomeranging. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to substantiate what you are saying, preferably by quoting directly. El_C 23:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After attempting to initiate a discussion and being reverted, [33] I started a new discussion, and after being misinterpreted again I clarified "That is inaccurate; this goes beyond content. I have a personal dispute with you; I find your behavior disruptive. As I have stated, I have found you to be dishonest, prejudiced, and controlling. I am asking if you are willing and able to display empathy. That would be the first step in correcting your behavior so that we may collaborate more effectively." I understand that is uncivil, but I felt like she was denying that I ever had a problem with her conduct. She reverted my comments yet again and stated "We have a personal dispute about content. Making a bold edit and then starting a discussion after being reverted is not "disruptive" and characterising it as such does not take us closer to resolution." [34] This is again denying that I have a problem with her conduct, this is part of the reason I feel the need to keep explicitly describing the behavior that I feel I am observing. After these attempts to talk to her I have no intention of engaging personally again, but I want my experience to be understood by administrators. The conduct goes back a couple of months on the Millennials talk page, and perhaps there it is more clear, but I thought that this behavior was actually more obvious. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read all this already. I really thought you'd have something new to present. You keep claiming that there are issues that pertain to misconduct but you again you fail to substantiate this. El_C 00:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict began here [35] where she accused my edit as being "clearly a very heavily agenda driven re-write" without having read any of my sources, the first example where I found her to be prejudiced. Most of our discussions were over that edit. [36] I felt that her behavior throughout that process was contentious, but the specific instances of dishonesty may have come later. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems like you started to personalize this dispute right away, while Betty Logan remained fairly understated about the whole thing. Anyway, she was referring to the rewrite as being agenda-driven, not to you personally as having an agenda. That means she assumed good faith. Because, in that sense, you could be endorsing an agenda-driven rewrite in error, rather than because you, yourself, subscribe to this or that agenda, personally. El_C 01:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I wasn't endorsing a particular source. My rewrite was made from many sources, so if the rewrite was "agenda driven" that seems like it refers to me. She says right here: "You removed multiple sources without what I consider good reasons, and altered the structure of the section to prioritise a source that backs up your position."[37] It sounds clear that "agenda driven" refers to what she sees as "my position." Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that interested to get into the nuances of it, but this could still merely mean the confluence of changes amount to this or that type of rewrite — that you may still be unaware these changes are having this or that (collective) impact. El_C 01:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She specifically said I made "POV changes" [38] I don't know if she has acted in bad faith; it could simply be that she makes false statements because of prejudiced thinking and lack of self-awareness, but the conduct is a problem. This is just the tip of the iceberg, I'm just trying to show you examples so you'll take me seriously. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after your interpretation before "POV changes" will simply sound like lacking neutral point of view. I need better examples. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We both know that if he favored a 1996 end date he'd be in the article by now so I am prepared to initiate an RFC over this and let the community decide."[39]

"I have no doubt that Kolya Butternut will come up with some reason to dismiss this article since it does not conform to his perspective, but the simple fact is Howe and Strauss are still being cited by hundreds of academic works on an annual basis, and it is clearly demonstrable that mainstream sources still reference their millenial demarcation years."[40]

"There are more sources for the 1981–1996 date range than there was during the last RFC, but this is partly down to advocates for these dates adding sources for these dates."[41]

This all clearly adds up to her accusing me of POV pushing don't you think? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not clear. Only the middle passage has some hints of failing to assume good faith, but nothing that rises to the level of sanctions or anything even close to that. The other two passages do not seem to be in any way problematic and mostly I just plainly didn't understand them. El_C 02:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She was saying that if the source used 1996 as the last birth year defining millennials (which she felt I was pushing) I would have added it to the article.

She was saying that there were many sources in the article using the 1981 to 1996 birth years definition for millennials because I was advocating for these dates.

So, she said I made an "agenda driven rewrite", I prioritized a source that "backs up [my] position", I made "POV changes", I would include sources if they fit my position, I would make up reasons to dismiss sources that didn't conform to my perspective, and the reason there are more sources for certain information in the article is because I am supposedly an advocate for this information and added sources to back it up. I am not asking for sanctions, I am asking that this behavior is acknowledged, or at least that my perspective is acknowledged, and that she shouldn't have reverted my complaint on her talk page and claimed that I had no dispute over her conduct. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still feel you have a rather weak case as far as user conduct is concerned. What is on her usertalk page is her own prerogative and my advise to you would be to move on to the substantive content issues at hand. Please only relist upon dramatic escalation in the tone and tenor of the dispute. El_C 04:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I have not proven a strong case, but what I want from you is recognition of what my complaint is, which goes beyond these specific quotes. Like if I filed a report that my husband was being emotionally abusive, and when he spoke to the police he was calm and polite, whereas I was emotional and confused so no one even heard what I was trying to say, so next time it happened there was no record of what i was trying to communicate. Betty Logan's behavior has the effect of civil POV pushing, even if she is acting in good faith. I understand that she has the prerogative to revert talk page comments, but my point is that when she effectively gaslit me and said my complaint was not what I said it was, that is similar to the abusiveness that occurs while editing and discussing content; the gaslighting, and controlling behavior. Abusive behavior does not need to be intentional for it to be harmful and interfere with building the encyclopedia with many voices. Again, I just want understanding of what I am saying is happening, so if this happens again with me or someone else, the record doesn't only show a warning to boomerang the complainer, but shows that a subtle form of abuse was reported that is credible (but in this case unconvincing). Her tone and tenor will not escalate, that is the nature of the misconduct, but it interferes with productivity. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, accusing another editor of gaslighting is a serious step to make. You have been advised not to keep being uncivil about other editors (on your talk page (by me); at ANI (by El_C and Bbb23; and then again here (by El_C)). At some point someone's patience is going to snap and you'll face a block. WP:DROPTHESTICK has some good advice about leaving things alone (as does this song). For the n^th time: please focus on the content issue, not the other editor. Betty Logan is dealing with the substance of the content: you are not. I'm sorry if you don't like the messages you're getting, but if you keep accusing others of things, it will not end well. I wish you the best - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, you cannot possibly accuse me of being uncivil by respectfully asking that my good faith complaint be understood. I have asked you to show understanding for my complaint regardless of whether you agree, but you have instead hurt my credibility by defending someone you have a history with, probably in good faith.[42]. I am focusing on the conduct because that is the nature of my dispute, not content. Please stop inferring. I am not beating any stick besides asking to know that my side of the story is understood. Doesn't everyone have the right to simply have their case understood? Please use my talk page if you have more to say to me, but it must start with assumptions of good faith and understanding of what I believe happened, regardless of whether you agree. This doesn't have to be so drawn out; I understand I have been unskilled in presenting my case, but I am only asking to be heard and understood. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: You think Betty Logan acted inappropriately, a "conduct issue". Other editors have looked at this, and your evidence for it, and have disagreed with you. Do you accept that other editors can, in good faith, disagree with you on this point? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly stated that editors can disagree with me, but I have not heard that my good faith complaint is understood. At ANI I did not fully present my case, and here and my talk page SchroCat showed no understanding of my complaint. El C has listened, and I appreciate that, but their response sounds like analyzing whether I have a strong enough case to prosecute, which I understand, but I have not heard anyone simply show that what I am describing is understood. Look at this from my perspective. I feel that I am experiencing a subtle, possibly unintentional, but very serious form of misconduct. The reaction I am receiving feels like attacking and silencing the victim, with barely an indication that the good faith experience I am reporting has been understood. Can someone simply reiterate the nature of the misconduct I am reporting? This isn't about content, this isn't about specific statements made, this is about a pattern of behavior. When I commented on her page that I had a conduct dispute with her and she told me I did not have a conduct dispute with her, that is an example of the repeated gaslighting I feel I have experienced from her which I am trying to report now. I have repeatedly stated that it is possible she isn't aware of her behavior, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. This behavior drives off new editors, especially if when it's reported the victim is told nothing is happening and they are the ones behaving badly. Again, no one has to agree with me, this is a very difficult kind of behavior to prove; but the complaint should be taken seriously and shown to be understood. Would someone please describe my complaint to show that I am understood rather so many people effectively pushing to silence me, albeit in good faith? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: You have talked about the nature of the misconduct I am reporting and that it is possible she isn't aware of her behavior, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. You seem very clear that your view of this situation/conflict is correct, and that others' view of it is incorrect. In your view is it also possible that (despite your seeing it that way) Betty Logan's initial behavior might, in fact, not have been a conduct issue? And that therefore her subsequent statements that this was not a conduct issue were not "gaslighting", but instead a valid understanding of the situation? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction is that I don't know that others actually have a view of the situation, because I don't know that they have interpreted my story as I have intended. So it feels like I'm saying they're wrong about their (mostly good faith) straw man constructions. I'm still asking that my story be repeated back to me so that I know that I am understood. If I reported abuse to an official out in the world, I wouldn't expect to be asked whether I believed it is possible that this is all a misunderstanding as if it is all in my head. I will tell you that it is not possible that Betty Logan's behavior has not been a conduct issue. I don't know whether the correct characterization is "incivility", "disruption", "contentious", etc, but I affirm she is engaging in misconduct. And of course, editors are free to disagree with me and this discussion can come to a close (hopefully after I know my complaint is understood). When you speak of Betty Logan's "initial behavior", I don't know what you are referring to. I have experienced her problematic behavior many times, but without thoroughly going through my history, the first instance I recall is when she stated that my rewrite was "agenda driven". It's possible that this isolated edit summary and revert was not a conduct issue, but it is not possible that I have not experienced a conduct issue from her. My perception is that she has difficulty empathizing with others, but that doesn't mean I can't collaborate with her if I understand what to expect; it is doable but challenging. I simply need to calmly correct her without any expectation that the behavioral pattern will change. I want to repeat that I feel this doesn't need to be such a drawn out discussion; I am simply reporting my experience with an editor who has engaged in misconduct, and I want my complaint to be accurately noted and received with assumptions of good faith. Please describe your interpretation of my complaint. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another page-blanker[edit]

Can you please block 2404:160:8100:0:0:0:0:0/42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for 1-3 months? They've been persistently vandalizing from multiple IPs and waging a page-blanking campaign since May, mostly in the last 4 weeks. Almost every one of their recent edits constitutes some kind of vandalism. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 02:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Can you please expand the original rangeblock to 2404:160:8000:0:0:0:0:0/39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), for around the same duration? They're evading their block on another subnet within that range. This range appears to be used almost exclusively by this person, and it also has an extensive history of abuse. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My quote on my page[edit]

You asked for strong evidence. My page included a direct quote from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, in addition to the Wiki article on Holocaust denial. I have also used his own words without any alteration or taking anything out of context. Please let me know what exactly is wrong with that? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, your picture of Che on your userpage is a violation of Polemic. In addition, I would urge you to take action on Floquenbeam's userpage, Bull Rangifer and of course EENG. Please let me know when you have done so. I would love when Wikipedia enforces rules across the board uniformly. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not invoke anything that relates to polemical statements. You cannot make personal attacks against another Wikipedia editor, by accusing them of Holocaust denial, full stop. El_C 17:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My image of Che is as valid to me as your US flag is to you, I suspect. El_C 17:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I should just ignore that statement then? I didn't make a personal attack, I just highlighted the denial, which is it. You said I needed proof, I showed the proof, by linking to the Wiki article and to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that showed that statement to be denial. It is not "full stop" as you say. We should not allow these statements to be anywhere on Wikipedia to go unchallenged. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, you just claimed that "my own words" were "75% of six million". This is a lie. It's enough that you repeatedly accuse me of Holocaust denial. Now you actually lie about my words, after they have been removed. Of course you have to lie to come of with a rationale for your monstrous accusations. Again, I demand you remove these accusations. O3000 (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So in your own words then, what is it 75% of? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the statement so clearly constitutes actual Holocaust denial. At any rate, you should be seeking clarifications about that before making the accusation. El_C 17:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the United States Holocaust Museum: [43] Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that does not respond to the user's statement constituting Holocaust denial. It's a rather awkward statement, to be sure, though lacking context, it's a bit difficult to parse. El_C 18:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is that not about the statement? The statement was about exaggeration of the numbers, and this statement claims that exaggeration of the numbers is a form of Holocaust denial. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the user said that the numbers were exaggerated by some — perhaps they meant an exaggeration like 12 million? Again, I lack context, so it's difficult for me to tell. El_C 18:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there weren't six million or anything about Anne Frank's diary. You keep claiming I used words I didn't use. You keep inserting meanings I never meant. You are taking a comment made on a UTP about the evils of Nazism and trying your damnest to find malevolent meaning. You never made any attempt at discussion -- which would obviously have been useless as you reject everything I say about my own meaning of my own words. You posted an accusation of Holocaust denial prominently on your TP without notifying me, and added my name in obvious retribution for a disagreement on a different subject article TP. You have now falsely accused me of Holocaust denial about ten times on two pages, despite the fact I constantly state this is a lie. You continue to make this accusation after being warned, now by two admins. Only an idiot or Nazi thinks the Holocaust was a hoax. O3000 (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of anything or taking your words out of context. I just quoted your words fully. If you want to clarify for everyone, I gave you the opportunity to do so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did so over and over and over. You just keep falsely accusing me. O3000 (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Holocaust denial is something we take very seriously. If it takes place, please submit an ANI report for inspection by a wider audience, rather than making the accusation in your user space. El_C 18:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, you are being much more patient than I think Sir Joseph deserves in this instance. The accusations being levelled at Objective3000 are extremely personal. Given that they have denied Sir Joseph's interpretation of their words vehemently and repeatedly, this is harassment if it's not dropped immediately.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: point taken. El_C 18:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack and casting aspersion[edit]

Hello El_C, this diff diff is not the first time the editor has claimed I am linking the subject to blood libel or terrorism. As I pointed out several times, I am mentioning the organization, not the subject of the article. Secondly, this diff is a personal attack and should not be allowed. Saying that "Your edits have become an embarrassment to Wikipedia" is not allowed and is editorializing on the person, not the edits. Further, there is entire section on O300's talk page with the section header called "Sir Joseph" written by a third part that I find distasteful. Please do something about it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: although two wrongs don't make a right, surely you would have expected some blowback after your outrageous personal attack which accused the user of Holocaust denial, no? Hopefully, we've now reached a point where everybody has calmed down a bit from that. But I could appreciate that they are still upset about it. I sure would be. @Objective3000: can I count on you to tone it down from now on, for your part?

But regardless, Sir Joseph, you are just coming off a 3-month ARBPIA ban (not uneventfully) and there are already issues which require administrative intervention? I'm trying not to prejudge, but that is not a good sign.

And that entire discussion thread, with its "greatness of the US," on the one hand, and the "bluster of Netanyahu," on the other, seems a bit too polemical and reminiscent of a discussion forum rather than what a Wikipedia article talk page should look like. ARBPIA topics are not a free-for-all. If anything, I would expect a greater level of decorum and professionalism from participants — but instead we get the opposite? No, that does not sit right with me. El_C 01:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I originally removed that thread as per FORUM, and I note that I am not discussing that thread in here. I am discussing the comment about O300 repeatedly claiming I am linking Omar to terrorism or blood libel (which FTR, was before my putting his name on his quote), which I never did, and then O300 stating my edits are an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and then the thread on his talk page. I note you have not addressed any of those edits. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Repeatedly"? You've only provided one diff. Anyway, you probably should not have removed that entire thread. Best to bring that up for discussion to see what others say. And did you not hint on that blood libel link? (Not sure why you keep skipping the blood libel part.) Sorry, that's not clear to me. El_C 02:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miftah is the one who funded the trip and they reported the blood libel. I said as such earlier on the page, and O300 asked there why I am linking Omar to a blood libel and I said there again that I am doing no such thing but that if we are saying that Miftah is funding the trip, it should be clear that there are many reasons why Israel would have to cancel the trip and I never linked Omar to the blood libel, and yet O300 continues to claim I am doing so. Regardless, O300 has stated that my edits are an embarrassment to Wikipedia and you are not doing anything about it, is that correct? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. I am doing something about it. Asking them to tone it down is doing something about it. What else would you have me do? El_C 02:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you say so. I just don't think that is equal treatment but let's see what happens. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh. Okay...? Those are not equal offenses. Not even close. And one follows the other, not the other way around. Which apparently you are failing to appreciate, but which I did address with my first comment. Please read closely. And I've been especially lenient with you, if anything, to the point that I was taken to task for. El_C 02:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What, is this still going on? I wrote a nine point response to this in my head, and then erased it and oversighted it. I’ve had enough drama for the year. Frankly, I should get a medal for patience. (Incidentally, I was a lifetime subscriber to Ramparts and read the original Guevara diaries back in '68. I’d agree that, in the world as a whole, fewer would take offense at the Guerrillero Heroico image than an animation of the US flag.) O3000 (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yukari Tamura[edit]

Hello, I request a semi-protection or pending changes for the Yukari Tamura page, the IPs are doing something weird and we do not know who is that user who has changed the real name and birth date of the actress but is very obsessed with this. 152.0.130.194 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such requests are to be submitted at Requests for page protection. Thank you. El_C 17:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, it's locked. 152.0.130.194 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I've now lifted the protection from the page. El_C 18:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 152.0.130.194 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mac n' Cheetos[edit]

Mac n' Cheetos exists? WTF? Drmies (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, I know. News to me, too. The things you learn by way of vandalism! El_C 03:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C's talk page is where I learn about all the new foods. See also #Big N' Tasty. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a hamburger for lunch that was served on some maple-ish bun, no idea why. It was called "Hangover" and had a fried egg on it--not bad, but overcooked. I was trying to figure out what the weird, powdery taste on my upper lip was: they put powdered sugar on top of the bun. What a time to be alive, and I say this in all facetiousness. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beef is really hard on the planet, though. That's often not fully appreciated. El_C 04:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, powdered sugar — really? Yuck! Too much sugar makes me nauseous. El_C 04:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the Whopperito is also thing — go figure! El_C 06:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian BLP vandal[edit]

Can you please block 31.46.248.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for at least a month? They've been persistently engaging in BLP vandalism across multiple IPs in the past 4 weeks, and they just came back today. (There's actually a lot of vandalism recently, and some of it dates back to two months.) Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 15:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Happy Sunday to you El C. Thanks for the revert. While friends, family and fellow wikipedians might debate whether I belong in a "banana's" category it should be noted that I avidly watched The Banana Splits growing up and some of the effects of that still linger on :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Sunday to you, also, MarnetteD. Anytime! Some pointy stuff, at any case. El_C 19:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GS/IRANPOL is live[edit]

Thought you'd like to know. I've done my best with the paperwork, but feel free to modify the documentation as necessary. I'm going to go ahead and issue some mass notifications to the protagonists now; we can deal with others as they come. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also logged your agrement-based page-level sanction as a discretionary sanction, per WP:IAR but also because I think that I'm allowed to independently impose the same thing under GS. Just so you know. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vanamonde. I think this GS, which can be seen, at least regionally, as complimentary to and as an extension of the ARBPIA DS and the SCW/ISIL GS (but historically, has its own particular sources of conflict), has been sorely needed. Much appreciated. El_C 01:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

João Félix[edit]

i saw that you an protection in the João Félix, but that was one month ago and i wanted to edit the page but i can't because i dont have 500 edits so im asking you the favor if you could remove the protection of the page since there are no problems.

thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzol12 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no problems because the page is now protected. Yes, I increased the protection, but I did not place it or choose the duration. That was Swarm. El_C 11:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Food Vandal[edit]

Thanks for your good work in fighting the guy who keeps vandalizing all the fast-food pages. It seems that you didn't remove this one. Could you please remove it? Thanks. ◢ 　Ganbaruby!　 05:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

114.23.236.73[edit]

Just so you know I've emailed the WMF emergency response team to point them to the threats. Hut 8.5 21:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done on my end, too. El_C 21:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just heard back. They are on it. El_C 21:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Busy signal[edit]

Hi El C! ~ you've been busy today ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mitch. Indeed, always lots to do! El_C 23:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wasn't that sweet ~ LOL ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will allow it, but for future reference, only esoteric pastry and sandwiches are permitted on this talk page! El_C 03:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case[edit]

Hello El C. Thanks for the r/d on this one. There are still two edits they made that need cleaning up. The edit summaries were clean but the edits themselves are disgusting. You might have zapped them while I was typing this but I wanted to let you know just in case. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep my typing is too slow :-) Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 01:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand now 122.62.194.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). MarnetteD|Talk 01:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 02:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! MarnetteD|Talk 02:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about List of concentration and internment camps[edit]

Could you provide me with some advice for this article's recent changes (two unrelated ones, actually)? As you're aware, the page is subject to sanctions, particularly 1RR and not reinstating challenged stuff without a discussion first.

First,I challenged a recent unsourced edit and asked for it to be discussed on the talk page in my summary, but another editor has reinstated the challenged material without providing sourcing nor without discussing. Is this something possibly in violation of the sanctions? I shouldn't just revert because that would put me over the 1RR. Diff: [1]

Second, someone removed an entire section, with their summary asserting that the events in question are a hoax. Quick searches online don't really turn up much in the way of 'quality' sources, but I didn't look into actual historical academic material. I don't know whether I should reinstate it and then ask for discussion over its removal, or to just leave it be. Diff: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinchme123 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, apologies for missing my signature! --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I offered the (first) user the opportunity to self-revert. I suggest you take your concerns with the edits of both respective users to the article talk page. Hopefully, a discussion which is focused on attribution to reliable sources can resolve these two disputes. Good luck! El_C 03:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will-do. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir[edit]

File:Sir Richard Branson photo by Priory Studios.jpg	Greetings
	~ This is the exact reason ~ why I like water ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand, but surf's up! El_C 03:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

God will tell you thru the father of Jesus ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, an ecclesiastical matter, I see! El_C 04:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re famous[edit]

Google for a Breitbart article: Wikipedia Echoes Democrats with ICE ‘Concentration Camp’ Label, you’ve been singled out. Samwalton9, so were you. starship .paint (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? Joy. El_C 01:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A surprisingly neutral description of my involvement. Silver linings and all that... Sam Walton (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your insight please[edit]

Hey, I just pinged you here and would like have your comment on this. Thanks in advance. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This TP request for comment is because you're already involved in handling the issue with one of the articles. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the compliments about my administrative and dispute resolution work in this area, especially in regards to the MEK. That said, the GS are pretty much a done deal, no? I'm just not sure I have that much of value to add to that discussion at this time. I also don't agree that the scope of the GS are too wide, but am open to persuasion on that front. At any case, I will keep an eye on the debate. Thanks for letting me know it's still ongoing. El_C 17:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, this was what I really thought on the outcome of your intervention and I hope you keep it on! As for the GS, I think the scope can be prone to negotiation. I already provided some examples on why the scope is too wide! There are plenty of plenty examples unnecessarily covered by the GS which just don't need to. I wonder how Vanamonde could use some limited cases to prove such a wide sanction. Yes, some of the areas, such as MEK-related articles, need to be covered by this, but why should we make it too wide? Moreover, such an important decision had to be well advertised (it was not even advertised on Iran WikiProject!) and none of the involved users were informed. Also, I don't know why my concern is not payed by others and Vanamonde93 just replies "If you edit within policy, it should affect you at all". --Mhhossein ^talk 10:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so long as a given dispute does not become acutely protracted, the GS will have no bearing on that respective article. I'm not sure why the proposal-stage wasn't better advertised so that active participants could comment before it being adopted. Still, I am of the mindset that it's good to have alongside ARBPIA DS and SCW/ISIS GS. Thus, as for the scope of the GS having been extended too widely, you seem to be the sole voice of opposition arguing that, with several other active participants in the topic area expressing support (and even relief) that the GS had been put into effect. Which goes a long way to reaffirm my original view in support of the new GS. Time will tell, I suppose. El_C 14:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC closure[edit]

Also I'd like to have your comment on 'Closure review- Order of paragraphs in lead of MEK article'. I understand that you may want to stay away from this, but I thought this issue is of the disputes where you, as a 3rd party admin watching the developments of the article, can comment on. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been trying to stay away from RfCs in that article. Mostly, because I feel I am already having an undue influence on the overall editorial direction. El_C 14:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a decision which results in the improvement of the article, which I think is, then thanks for rejecting my request! --Mhhossein ^talk 11:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't really know if it's to the benefit of the article, but it's a rule I'm trying to stick to. There's a limit to my pragmatism, let's put it that way. El_C 16:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Thanks for following my page/being more hasty than I was. Jwarlock (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm wasn't actually following your page — I was following the mass messages in this user's contributions. El_C 03:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Hello. Would you be so kind to give us your two cents regarding this piece?--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't speak Farsi, so I would rather wait to see how the discussion develops than adopt any opinion or position at this time. Intuitively, I do get the preliminary sense that that document is authentic, but that does not count for much. El_C 05:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on 1RR on Tulsi Gabbard[edit]

Hey El_C. I think there's some confusion on how 1RR works on Tulsi Gabbard's page and I'd appreciate some clarification.

An editor restored/added new material to the campaign finance section here. significant changes here
A different editor spun out the section to a new page and all new content was written.
I made some minor edits to the new section less than 24 hours later.

I didn't think that this would constitute a breach of 1RR because it dealt with entirely different material from an entirely different editor and because it dealt with minor wording changes, but another editor raised concerns on my talk page and I realize now I'm a little iffy on the policy as well. Is this a violation of 1RR? Or is it at least close enough that it should be avoided? Thanks! Nblund^talk 20:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell whether there was a 1RR violation because the editor claiming it to be so on your talk page failed to include the original version the revert is of. So long that is absent, you're fine there. Also, removing longstanding text is not a revert but should be viewed as a bold edit, instead. A revert has to undo a particular edit, which obviously has to happen twice for 1RR, but does not need to involve the same edits being undone. El_C 21:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for clarifying!Nblund^talk 21:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UnderArmourKid vandalism[edit]

Hello. Can you please block the ranges ‎190.100.144.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) and 190.21.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? The UnderArmourKid LTA has been abusing both of those ranges recently, and nearly every single edit from the past few months has been only vandalism from this person. The second range is his newest one; the first range has been abused on-and-off for nearly 5 years, and the behavior indicates that it is likely a school network, so the first range should probably be re-blocked for a longer duration (the last block was for 6 months). He's ramping up his vandalism, and his past editing patterns indicate that he's only going to accelerate his vandalism in the near future. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 06:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page-blanking vandals[edit]

Can you please re-block 99.203.16.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for around 2-3 months? They've returned after the expiration of their last block and they've resumed the same kind of disruptive blanking that they were engaging in earlier. This person also appears to utilize Proxies and VPNs as well. Can you also re-block 182.1.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) and 114.124.167.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for around 1-3 months each? The same LTA appears to be back on the second range, and they have been vandalizing extensively in the past month. The last two ranges appear to be related. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 17:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mind blocking the second range? The LTA was active on it just today, and it has a history of repeat blocks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria[edit]

Can you restore the move-sysop-protection of Nigeria? It is a high-risk page of infantile vandalism. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 03:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

School vandal[edit]

Can you please block 180.150.84.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? There has been persistent vandalism coming from the range for the past 6 months, and the behavior indicates that this is probably a public school. They're also actively vandalizing right now. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 04:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mind blocking 184.98.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)? There's been a lot of page-blanking vandalism from the past few months, and most of the recent activity has been largely disruptive. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 05:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poldark (2015 TV series)[edit]

Poldark (2015 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
83.85.47.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is also at RFPP, where I was thinking that 2 months of semi might be justified, since the IP has declared "I don't care how many times I've been reverted" on 8/25. The IP never uses the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. Though I'd go with 2 weeks, but 2 months works, too. Anything to force the IP to communicate outside of edit summaries is a good thing. El_C 05:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I warned the IP and left a notice at Talk:Poldark (2015 TV series) that protection may be used if nobody will discuss on the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that. Will try to keep an eye, also. El_C 18:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes![edit]

Well done with the decisive action on Al-sow. I will keep an on Fulani-related edits to see if he resurfaces under a new name. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. Let me know if and/or when further action is needed. El_C 18:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaan Solar[edit]

hi El C (talk) need your help regarding the vivaan solar wiki page that i had created. 1st i created in 2016, but was deleted due to lack of info, then in 2017 i gathered as much info as possible and created it once again. but suddenly last month someone deleted it giving reason not much info and repost . could you look at the document and if it was proper to remove it. i will be glad if you can help me provide clarity on this. here is the link. https://en.everybodywiki.com/Vivaan_Solar Joydeep ghosh (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of deleted pages is undertaken at Deletion review. Please feel free to list it there. Good luck. El_C 19:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Changsha 1942 page reference.[edit]

As I've said earlier, if you go to the exact time of the documentary which is a 0:30. You will find something like this. Thank you

https://imgur.com/a/DzPGeOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.237.87 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I don't know how I missed that. Sorry about that. El_C 21:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for You![edit]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your recent reverting and protecting against vandalism. I really appreciate your hard working effort. For this reason, I give you a barnstar! Wyatt2049 \| (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wyatt2049! Your recognition is greatly appreciated. El_C 22:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your unblock of your own block[edit]

On Special:Contributions/2001:8003:401E:EF00::0/64. Telstra landlines are indeed relatively static /64s. If this range is actually shared by multiple people, they have to be sharing the same residential line. I blocked for six months as I see this user has been edit warring and getting blocked repeatedly for months. The other IP is, I assume, some kind of unregistered closed proxy. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know. El_C 23:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Go[edit]

Hi El C! I saw that you stepped up the protection on Pokémon Go to be extended confirmed protection. I definitely agree with the move, but I'd recommend not making it an indefinite duration. Surely, after some time has gone by, the abuse taking place there will stop... even if it's 5, 7, 9+ years down the line. I think that the duration should expire at some point. I'm not going to modify the protection nor tell you what you should do; I figured I'd just leave you a message about it and see what your thoughts are behind the duration you set, and recommend that you consider setting it to expire at some point in time. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd rather the LTA not know the duration, so I set it to indefinite, for now. El_C 07:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see... Good call. ;-) Just remember to go back and modify it later when things die off. lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harassing vandal[edit]

You mind reblocking 80.6.69.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? I've been watching their attacks on RC for a while now, and I'm starting to grow tired of it. (Dr Andrew S Middleton MPhys Warwick PhD Physics Cambridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should also be blocked, since it's clearly the same person.) They're basically repeating the same nonsense that got them blocked back in November 2018; now, they've taken to attacking others on their own talk page. The WHOIS data says that the IP is "likely dynamic", but given the fact that this person has been abusing this IP for more than 6 months, I doubt that this is the case. They should probably be reblocked for a longer duration. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 07:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka population figure vandal[edit]

Thanks for your reversions at Karimnagar, Mangalore, Davanagere, Guntur and Mysore at 07.14 this morning.
This is a persistent IP hopping vandal, operating from multiple locations in Karnataka. I have been compiling a list of IPs and their targets at User:Arjayay/Pop figures - I don't understand how range blocks are calculated, or who to ask, but suspect these are not close enough? - Is it worth protecting the prime targets? - Arjayay (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 13:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that was an all-encompassing response - thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We can also add Coimbatore to the pile. El_C 18:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page-blanker[edit]

Hello. Can you please block 2405:4800:2400:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for at least 6 months? They've been persistently blanking out numerous pages since November 2018, and the range activity has been entirely negative. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 13:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for giving Ciobanu Oilor a warning. He or she can't delete articles just like that, without respecting the policies of Wikipedia. Transformers2000 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure. Looks like they're just orienting themselves with Wikipedia, but indeed. El_C 18:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Date LTA[edit]

125.141.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
61.74.159.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Can you please re(block) these ranges for 6-12 months? This LTA basically returned after the rangeblock on one of their two primary ranges expired (already blocked on 121.140.0.0/16). They're engaging in the same page-blanking and nonsense insertions as before. Interestingly, they appear to be the sole user on their ranges. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 21:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please block Ethan_H_Perin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? It's pretty obvious that they're not here to contribute, given the edits caught by the Edit Filter and also disturbing comments such as this. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. El_C 00:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm?[edit]

No violation occurred my friend in fact the entire section that was added was sourced. You'd best explain yourself before I take this to the admins --120.154.156.36 (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain — you reverted without comment, which was a living persons policy violation. El_C 03:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are dealing with the nature of opines of politicians and this article already has multiple opines like this. It's hardly unusual, however your actions are more than unusual. Your comments are irrelevant and if you look at the change log I didn't revert anything at all. You simply chose an overzealous option here of reverting what was properly sourced content. --120.154.156.36 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did revert here. As the uninvolved admin, I deem your addition to violate the living persons policy, by virtue of the prose reading: vindictive and petty nature of the home affairs minister Peter Dutton. El_C 03:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, not only did you revert my content, you simply don't seem to understand what you did either. Sir, there is no "revert" next to my name. Here we have an issue of lack of competence in plain sight. If you check the timing between the difs, there would have been no time for me to read your comments either. --120.154.156.36 (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't know what you are talking about — what you are saying makes no sense. Feel free to appeal my decision in any forum you see fit. El_C 03:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about your growing levels of incompetence. Click on "view history" of the article Peter Dutton and check the changelog for yourself. Take a particular look at the difs. You will not see a single "revert" next to my address. You will see that the last "reverts" are next to your name. In fact I was in the process of moving said content to the appropriate section when you came in with your overzealous incompetence that not only failed to address the issue at hand, but also showed your own bias. --120.154.156.36 (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim of bias is unfounded. I neither know nor care much about the subject. I'm still not making sense of what you're saying, however. But veiled insults are unwelcome and unhelpful. El_C 03:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

You should note somewhere on your page that you are an active Admin. It is confusing that you do not have any notion of this.GreyShark (dibra) 07:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted here. El_C 07:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a violation of the collaborative process towards reaching consensus?[edit]

Is Saff V.'s revert a violation of the editing process on the MEK page?

This is the sequence of events:

On August 3, I propose that the association with Saddam Hussain was being repeated too many times in the article and suggest a substitute text that doesn't repeat information as much (to what you commented that it looked like a decent compromise).

On August 7, Saff V. objected my proposed text, so I asked Saff V. to provide a fair compromise from his perspective. Saff V. replies that he could not because his "time is limited (to which you replied that Saff V. needed "to make the time (a week more than suffices), or you risk forfeiting your position.").

On August 24, Saff V. replies that "as wp:BURDEN demands, it is the responsibility of Stefka to provide the text." Even though I had already provided a proposed text on August 3, I then present a revised proposed text, to what Saff V. replies saying that the text was "good" but needed some corrections, which he then provided. In order to reach a compromise, I accepted Saff V.'s version and added it to the MEK page on August 29.

On August 31, Mhhossein (who hadn't participated in this TP discussion since July 26th) reverted the changes complaining he had not given consensus for the change (to which you said that you didn't see much basis for his objections).

I reverted to the consensus I had reached with Saff V., and then Saff V. reverted the edit saying there was never any consensus between me and him.

To resume, after over a month of trying to get them to propose a fair compromise, I included the text that Saff V. provided as a unified consensus, and then Saff V. reverts it back when Mhhossein complains about it. Isn't this disruptive towards reaching a consensus? I really don't know what else I could have done here to make the collaborative process easier for them (Saff V. is now not approving his own proposed text!). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that their approach to this point of contention has been subpar. I will say more on the article talk page. El_C 18:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein's continued unwillingness to work collaboratively towards reaching consensus[edit]

On September 3, I proposed a cleaning up of the "Ties to foreign and non-state actors" section by removing unnecessary subheadings.

On September 11 I pinged you asking for advice since neither Saff V. or Mhhossein were addressing the concerns raised, to which you proposed that I should take this to WP:DRN.

On September 17, I took this to WP:DRN, where (after a few days of not responding) user:Steven Crossin asked Mhhossein if he intended to get involved in the discussion. Mhhossein replied that "I think the capacity of the article talk page is not used well and it's too soon to come to this board, though I'm ready to respond."

Here Mhhossein could have easily just addressed the issue, but chooses not to. This leaves me with no other resources but to accept his (unsubstantiated) objections, which prevents fixing issues or reaching some kind of collaborative consensus. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: I actually did advised you to pursue dispute resolution, not DRN per se. El_C 14:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I thought they were the same. Is DRN not an appropriate venue for this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: you don't need to ping me on my own talk page, I get the (orange) alert for that. In answer to your question: no, DRN is a specialized noticeboard which is but one of the dispute resolution resources available to you. El_C 15:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, El_C. If DRN is one of the resources available for this, then I presume it was indeed an appropriate venue? If so, I have used it, but Mhhossein is avoiding the issues even there. Should my next step be to continue to explore DRR possibilities in the hope that Mhhossein will eventually address the issue in one of them? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate if the other party deems it so. If they prefer discussing it on the article talk page, then just do that. El_C 16:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They have not addressed the issue on the article's TP, this is why I requested your advice earlier and eventually took this to DRN. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, if they do not respond substantively they effectively forfeit their position. But if they have done so, but they still do not fancy DRN, try to get outside input, would be my immediate advise. El_C 16:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that, as I said, I was on a trip. Now, I have more time to put on this. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice that having been said. El_C 21:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, btw! El_C 22:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia[edit]

Hello. I noticed to some users put a lot of content at Utopia article and to all new content is just on Slovak or Czech language sources. Also notability of some "philosophers" is questionable especially for English language wikipedia,e.g Jakub Ort, Perný, anyway they need some more wide recognition. If you can take a look would be good. Because it seems, I am afraid, to it can be used as soapbox just for some personal name promotion or advocacy etc. Also section about 21 century in the same article, it is just for some authors, can't be generalised so it need maybe for balance to note that. Thank you and I am sorry for taking your time. 109.245.227.107 (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not that familiar with the material and am spread a bit thin lately. I'll try to take a look, but I just don't know if I can find the time to investigate this properly. El_C 18:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Midland-Odessa shooting discussion[edit]

Can you please self revert your closure there? The window for discussion was very short, considering typical discussions like this have been given significantly longer. There were also a number of !votes that gave potential compromises that are worth letting other editors consider. Closing the discussion prematurely as you've done doesn't allow that. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not inclined to do so at this time. Consensus from participants is simply too overwhelming. El_C 02:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People's Party of Canada[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you were the editor that made the semi-protected the page to protected it from vandalism. However, I noticed that Cyberpunk 93 made an edit that bypass the after 4 days and 10 edits, requirement. I just why it happened and if it is anissuse, what can be done prevent it. Weelandlka 02:30:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The semiprotection is working as intended. The user was already autoconfirmed years ago, so the protection does not affect them. El_C 02:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am just wondering what if the requirement changed years ago, or is it same one? Weelandlka 02:48:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure, actually. They have many tens of edits, at any case, which is more than enough. El_C 03:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel?[edit]

You might want to revdel this Special:Diff/913653648 too. Masum Reza^📞 11:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I see that you already unrevdeled those revisions. Masum Reza^📞 11:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian capitalism[edit]

Looks like Libertarian capitalism needs re-protection. Pinging you if you're more familiar with the case. That article and Modern libertarianism both appear to be WP:POVFORKs of Right-libertarianism. czar 17:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not familiar, but

Done. El_C 18:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfPP[edit]

was backlogged. But thanks for the quick response. ∯WBG^converse 19:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. El_C 19:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective reading of idioms[edit]

I had to come here to say that your assertion that telling someone to "go pick a fight in traffic" (which is an established idiom from whence I come) is worse than calling them a "cunt" is, to me, frankly gobsmacking. I would tell you to take a long walk on a short pier, but I don't want to threaten you with death by drowning. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do find such violent imagery to be worse than simple namecalling. Maybe it is a matter of locale, also with regards to "cunt" — the editor behind that being from the UK. El_C 19:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. It's your power, do with it what you will. For what it's worth, it never even occurred to me as violent imagery; it's colloquial meaning is "do something supremely stupid." I always assumed the traffic would stop or swerve. I grew up in the Northeast U.S and lived for years in the U.K. I still find "cunt" far more offensive. But again, yours is the view that matters. Cheers. ETA: Having said my piece, I will trouble your talk page no longer! Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at any case, you are more than free to make that point in the report. If my view is, indeed, well outside convention, then other editors will also point that out. I simply find that "go jump off a bridge" -type of insult to be worse than namecalling, per se.. El_C 19:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) And I find PeterTheFourth's dragging-in of Eric Corbett by the heels completely uncalled-for. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, please note that my point is narrow. While I consider myself friendly with Peter, we do not unilaterally agree on things. It's simply the case that calling "pick a fight in traffic"--what I think of as a schoolyard taunt--"violent imagery" seems to me overwrought. Something like hand-wringing over the phrase "take a flying leap" as encouraging self-harm. I may well be in the minority. And I apologize for the continued talk page-troubling. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dumuzid, you are welcome on this talk page, so not to worry. El_C 20:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself friendly with Peter too. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Also, El_C, I apologize for bringing this here, but I didn't want to bog the AE page down with what ultimately boils down to idiolectic preference. Dumuzid (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of JonBenét Ramsey[edit]

Immediately prior to your protecting the page, 3 or 4 highly appropriate edits I inserted were reverted en masse by an editor who claimed I was using a self-published source. I wasn't. A look at those recent edits will show that they were taken from an A&E documentary, citing known experts in the field. I respectfully request that you revert the reversion.

Thank you, Vcuttolo (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am precluded from taking a side in the content dispute. The version that's up is the one I encountered at RfPP. El_C 01:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Taken from an A&E documentary" does not negate what I stated: "See Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking and Wikipedia:External links#Linking to user-submitted video sites. The videos you linked to are not from official channels for that content. They are just some uploader's content." And on that article's talk page, I also explained why I object to the "In a report prepared by prosecutors, Dr. Michael Graham" piece you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

Can you please block 114.125.96.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? It's obvious block evasion by the same page-blanking vandal on 182.1.64.0/18. They've been abusing the newer range since June, and there are almost zero positive contributions from the past 3 weeks. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 07:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated abuse of admin powers[edit]

I completely see that there should not be two threads but to my understanding this has become an urgent case of repeated abuse of admin powers and therefore should be at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents rather than a general discussion on the apparent lack of knowledge about the rules for draftification which is not urgent and therefore should be at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. Please in general if you revert an explained reversion of an edit of yours give an explanation why. I will not revert, so feel to give me an explanation here (please use ping or something so that I see it). Omikroergosum (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already written to you about this on your own talk page — what is it with you and splitting discussions? El_C 08:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick answer, we edited simultaneously. Should it then not rather be moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents? Sorry if I got this wrong, first time I get into such unpleasant conflicts at Wikipedia. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ought to stay in one venue — in this case, where it had originated: AN. The two boards often serve similar and complimentary purposes. AN is usually focused more on general announcements, whereas ANI is for incidents — but in terms of urgency, there's no real difference. El_C 08:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I got confused because at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents it says "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." while there is no such note on the general noticeboard. This was why I had moved my original complaint to the general noticeboard when it did not seem urgent to me. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items[edit]

Just to be clear, the list of protected templates and the actual page that triggers cascade protection is Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content and not Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items itself; it was moved to the subpage specifically to make the the header text publicly editable as it isn't sensitive in any way. There is thus no reason to have it fully protected (or any kind of protection, as there is no overwhelming amount of disruption) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the page specifically instructs users to make edit requests to admins only, so that's a bit confusing of an instruction. El_C 13:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was a piece of leftover text in the Mbox that I forgot to remove when the page was split; I've removed it. Should now be ready for unprotection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 14:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To G.B.‬[edit]

I am confirming to have gotten your email, but I don't know who you are on Wikipedia, nor do you specify which article/s does this involve. Which amounts to a bit of a mystery. El_C 11:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This gets tiresome and unfair. There was nothing wrong with the edit. And make the protection one step higher is still unfair. I will write an email to the Wikimedia Foundation if this continues and administrators don't react to the pov push. regards B9Xyz (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tiresome — what an interesting choice of words. Anyway, you are, of course, free to appeal my decision in any forum you see fit. El_C 14:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane article vandalism[edit]

Can you please re-instate Semi-Protection on both Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Dorian. While there have been some good-faith edits from anons on the Hurricane Dorian article, most of the IP edits there have been vandalism or problematic (mostly involving unsourced changes). The Hurricane Andrew article has experienced a spike in vandalism, possibly due to the related coverage from Hurricane Dorian. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Andrew:

Not done (only one edit today). Hurricane Dorian:

Already done. El_C 06:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

124.150.92.233[edit]

Um, they weren't warned sufficiently. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 07:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on the Main page, so I'm a little less inclined to go through the motions. El_C 07:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 07:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Russell M. Nelson, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong editor! Also, it ought to have been npov2. El_C 19:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rockefeller Foundation[edit]

Added factual critics of ref. to kinsey ins. in rockefeller infosite - got blocked by El_C. LTC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.111.233 (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked, you were reverted. Part of the problem is that you are way too terse. Also, you keep adding Wikipedia as an external link rather than linking it internally, including using Wikipedia as a ref, which is not allowed. El_C 00:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reported by bot[edit]

Hello. I noticed that as I was reverting vandalism, I was tripping a whole lot of filters along the way. I think this cause DatBot to report me to WP:AIV. I wanter to give the heads-up, as I don't want to be banned due to a misunderstanding. Thanks in advance. 2601:644:877F:F6D8:5040:4AE:A637:54D0 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 01:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) 2601:644:877F:F6D8:5040:4AE:A637:54D0 (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Happy editing. El_C 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERA style[edit]

Re the ANI thread, I looked at your 3 reversions. Firstly, please note that all 3 of your edits left mixed styles! In 2 cases, I reckoned that BC was the correct style per WP:ERA (don't you think that an article title of Battle of Corinth (146 BC) is a bit of a giveaway?) & went back to that. For Amphictyonic League it was the other way, but it needed this to make it consistent. In fact BC was still predominant after your edit. Section at Talk:Temple of Zeus, Olympia on that one. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, so much refactoring! Anyway, my bad. Thanks for taking care of it. El_C 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding page protection[edit]

Hi. Can you remove protection from Kurukshetra (2019 film)? The film is not trending now, so the page will not be vandalized. 2405:204:5602:F514:68CC:942:344F:2A2F (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does trending mean? And how can you make that prediction? The page has been protected four times in the last few weeks, so I'm not inclined toward unprotecting it at this time. I'd rather wait a few more weeks and let the protection lapse automatically. Sorry. El_C 14:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Reza Khavari[edit]

Hi, the page protection you added to Mahmoud Reza Khavari page has expired at the end of August and it seems the same user is now back at it trying to add the same information from a different IP. Would you consider adding the page protection again? TIA. Shemtovca (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 18:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! Shemtovca (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Changes on Jerusalem Edits[edit]

Hello, as someone who is involved and aware in the IP area, can you please take a look at this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#"Not_officially_recognized_as_Israel" page? Just to note, this was discussed a couple of years back and there was a consensus for West Jerusalem articles to have Jerusalem, Israel and split into two, so not linked as one. Regardless, it was not discussed and his mass changes should have been discussed on the Jerusalem article for broader input. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm spread a bit thin right now, so I'm not sure how much time I will be able to devote to this, if at all. Also, when it comes to the IP area, I actually try to stay uninvolved (as an administrator, that is)—my awareness notwithstanding. El_C 19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I understand, he's still doing it, and worse, he's made edit to Mountain_gazelle and made a redirect to it, changing the lead and found one old article that used an identifier that has a reference that doesn't even work anymore, trying to bring the IP conflict into an article that doesn't need it. Those edits seem to be purely disruptive. The IUCN doesn't have that identifier, when one article from 2015 is all you can find, then I don't think it's acceptable for an article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: my apologies for missing your reply. But it looks like they haven't reverted back, so presumably they're not contesting your reversion/s — please feel free to clarify, if need be. El_C 15:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, thanks, I saw that and I notice you're probably avoiding certain areas for your health, and I don't blame you. Can I get your opinion though on this DIFF, since you blocked someone in the past for the exact same sentence, [44] I understand that you want to avoid the whole scenario but I find it ironic and shocking to say the least. It was hatted after it was pointed out that the terminology used was "interesting" to say the least, but not that it was a personal attack and should most certainly not be used especially in a thread when people are talking about words being used carefully. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misused admin right[edit]

Hambakseom or Hambak-do is a disputed island. Edits from various IPs were not vandalism. --호남시대 (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were 'Persistent edit war' in this article. Not 'Persistent vandalism' --호남시대 (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I misread. Protection lifted. Sorry about that. El_C 04:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India's Chandrayaan-2 moon mission was a complete FAILURE[edit]

Why did you delete my discussion comments? Why you are censoring my discussion? Indian's Chandrayaan-2 moon mission was a complete failure, this is a fact and I don't understand why people keep avoiding writing about it, read this sources and put my comments back into the discussion in accordance with Wikipedia policy:

1.) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/09/india-chandrayaan-2-landing-attempt-moon-lunar-south-pole/
2.) https://www.npr.org/2019/09/06/758419791/indias-attempt-to-land-rover-at-moon-s-south-pole-fails
3.) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49615665
4.) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/chandrayaan-2-indias-second-moon-mission-may-have-failed-scientists/
5.) https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/india/india-moon-lunar-landing-chandrayaan-2-scn/index.html
6.) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/science/india-moon-landing-chandrayaan-2.html
7.) https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/chandrayaan-2-india-lunar-landing-latest-missing-contact-lost-update-a9095361.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2E00:1C62:8D9D:9D58:4C1B:F98A (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep edit warring your comments, which is a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM, so no, I will not restore them. El_C 05:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Some people keep deleting my comments on the discussion, all I did was put my comments back in. Did you read the sources above?2600:8801:2E00:1C62:8D9D:9D58:4C1B:F98A (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you must be joking about so-called "original research". This is in no way "original research" take a look at all the reliable reference sources that I provided, all of them state that the Chandrayaan-2 mission was a failure, you would have to be blind not see that! 2600:8801:2E00:1C62:8D9D:9D58:4C1B:F98A (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use Wikipedia as a soapbox, which is what you were doing. El_C 05:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to other editors as "arrogant racist Indian nationalists" is not an acceptable manner in which to conduct oneself. El_C 05:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's obvious that the whole article was being edited by Indian nationalists who don't want embarrassing information about India to be on Wikipedia, but this failure is a fact and must be on here just like many U.S. space missions also ended in failure and fatalities, you don't see anyone trying censor and cover up American space failures. I was putting into the article the latest information about the failure of the Chandrayaan-2 moon mission, all supported by reliable reference sources, please take some time to read and educate yourself about India's failed spacecraft.2600:8801:2E00:1C62:8D9D:9D58:4C1B:F98A (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is about your conduct, which has been subpar, not the spacecraft. Please stop listing external links here. El_C 06:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

36.69.58.30[edit]

Please, vide 36.69.58.30 (talk · contribs). Торонгил2 (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 07:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the Bais Rajput dispute[edit]

It's simple really. Is there any source saying they are present in Pakistan? No. So why does it remain in the lead? Furthermore, Arsi786 has repeatedly personally attacked me and violated the 3 revert rule. Why is nothing being done?HaoJungTar (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something is being done — the page has been protected. And I'm already discussing this on the article talk page. Rhetorical questions are not helpful to me. 3RR was not violated, as I already made clear. My comment about ethno-nationalist expressions noted in the protection log, which also serves as a warning. El_C 18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that I'm neither Indian nor do I believe India to be a legitimate state, I don't see how the ethno-nationalist accusation applies to me. But all sources in the article refer to the Uttar Pradesh region. Also nothing indicates that BAIS and BAINS are synonymous. His "source" merely mentions a group called Bains. It's non-applicable considering the article is called Bais.HaoJungTar (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That point is being discussed on the article talk page, so I don't see why the discussion should be split here. Ethno-nationalist expressions are highly discouraged, regardless if there is or isn't an applicable target. El_C 18:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Oram rev/del request[edit]

Hi El C, I think the edits made by IP 207.237.116.250 and Jimmygonzo45678 should be deleted due their defamatory nature. I suspect they are the same editor as well. Let me know if you need any additional information or if this request should be make elsewhere. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 19:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! Thank you. S0091 (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? I'm swift! El_C 19:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel request[edit]

Hi. Could you please hide this edit for criteria 2? Thanks! ◢ 　Ganbaruby!　　 05:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 05:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi Jimmyy68 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. El_C 16:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another page-blanking vandal[edit]

182.0.192.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
182.0.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
182.1.0.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Hello. Can you please block these ranges for a while? They have been persistently abused by an LTA since May, especially in the past month alone. They seem to be active on both ranges (they were active as recently the last day); though their activity seems to fluctuate, both ranges also have a recent history of many problematic edits. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 16:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP socking[edit]

Msam03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lebanese and Proud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
213.204.91.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

On that note, can you please block the listed entities above (all the same person), and also Semi-Protect Beirut–Rafic Hariri International Airport for at least 3 months? The vandal is obviously using their accounts to push their own political views, and the article has been vandalized almost non-stop since June. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. El_C 16:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome of Bais Rajput discussion[edit]

Hi, thanks for facilitating the discussion yesterday. I know you're busy with other things. Sitush was of the view that the self-published source was unacceptable. Given that, I think it's safe to say that Pakistan can now be removed from the lead given the lack of evidence.HaoJungTar (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But is there agreement that it should be removed at this time? The other party may still wish to submit another, better-quality source, no? Please let me know. El_C 16:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was of the view, correct me if I'm wrong, that the policy was "no reliable sources = no inclusion". Given that we are still waiting for a reliable source, wouldn't it be better to not throw caution to the wind and have an unsourced country in the lead? Sitush who is experienced with this page stated that he can't find anything showing the link between Bais and Bains.HaoJungTar (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I don't think we are at the point where need to take the extraordinary step of editing the protected page, even if the contested addition remains poorly-sourced. El_C 16:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm happy to wait until the 14th (when the protection expires) before making an edit (unless a better source can be found).HaoJungTar (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your patience. Let's see what happens. The page may be unprotected early if no new (quality) sources are provided in, say, a couple of days. El_C 17:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested[edit]

Talk:Cossacks#Multiple_vandalism Puduḫepa 16:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 16:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dudeabsolutee[edit]

I got two vaguely threatening emails from Dudeabsolutee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No actual physical threat but rather demands that their edits be reinstated and stuff like "I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU REPLY, THIS HAS BEEN STORED & IT WILL GO VIRAL, PROVING THERE IS NO NEUTRALITY ON WIKIPEDOIA & THEN SOME...". Yawn. Looks like the emails were sent before the block, but please check to see if Dudeabsolutee's email access has been removed, and please do whatever the normal things are to run a checkuser and look for sleeper accounts. It is very likely that all of this has already been done, but I just wanted to let you know about the emails just in case. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. El_C 23:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

derin devlet[edit]

re derin devlet: I see a source at https://daily.jstor.org/the-unacknowledged-origins-of-the-deep-state, if you think it appropriate to add. Humanengr (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means, feel free. And I learned something new. Thanks. El_C 23:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added it myself just now. El_C 23:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're quicker with the fingers. :) Humanengr (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told! El_C 23:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Yep, El C is swift! :) S0091 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abused Proxies[edit]

196.244.191.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
177.154.139.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

You mind blocking these networks for a while? They both appear to be Open Proxies, and each of them have been recently abused for vandalism. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. El_C 17:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've blocked the remainder of the ISP "EQUINIX BRASIL SP" for a while as well. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third Battle of Panipat[edit]

I have started a discussion and explained my concerns with the IP's edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and edited accordingly. El_C 04:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit in Yazidism[edit]

The Yazidi seven angels are not the same as the Islam or Christianity angels. The linked angels are from Islam and Christianity. 62.78.36.81 (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The names seem similar enough. Can you attribute your changes to a reliable source? El_C 00:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

similar do not mean the same angels. The source was a Yazidi prayer. 62.78.36.81 (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about any of that, but the onus is on you to provide a proper citation. El_C 00:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong at the source? All the links are wrong because the links are angels from other religions. 62.78.36.81 (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the current text is attributed to a reliable source, where as your proposed addition cites Ezipedia, which I'm not sure is reliable, certainly it does not appear as reliable. El_C 01:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i will search another source. Thank you and wish you a good day. 62.78.36.81 (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good day to you, as well. El_C 01:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation does not imply causation...[edit]

But pls have a look here and here. Ducktest is strongly positive (++++) Cinadon36 19:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed — pp-sock applied for 3 months. El_C 19:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victim lists[edit]

Here we go again! WWGB (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already know about it. El_C 07:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El_C. Have you been following these discussions for a long time? Do you know if it's been suggested before to put the victim names in the article in a way that the names won't be indexed on search engines (which I think can be done by transcluding a template or something), which might alleviate some privacy concerns without omitting the names from articles? – Levivich 05:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, I was not aware. But I don't really have a strong opinion aside from WP:ONUS applying in these discussion until there is an overarching policy, be that policy more like WP:VL (exclude) or like the more recent WP:CASL (include). El_C 05:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't know about those essays – thanks for the link! – Levivich 06:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I hope El C won't mind me weighing in here. There isn't a reason in the world not to include victim names in for instance the Sinking of MV Conception article. And it is our standard practice to include victim names in such articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then getting local (or preferably, global) consensus for it should be relatively straight-froward. El_C 16:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A group of editors have been been making a concerted effort to change the standard way in which we handle this information. They have even tried to get policy to support an abolition on the inclusion of this sort of information. They have failed repeatedly to get the project to enact their particular form of self-censorship. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As has the include side, also tried. Anyway, that is certainly an argument you are free to present when attempting to gain consensus to include, locally, or better yet, globally. El_C 16:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their modus operandi is to disrupt articles and blame that disruption on those favoring standard construction of articles vis-à-vis inclusion of information on victims. The craziest thing about all of this is that it represents a countertrend to news reporting in the United States. If you look at news reporting for recent incidents in the US you will see a near-universal documenting of the lives of those who have died. Even a publication like the Wall Street Journal—supposedly all business—has gotten on board with a documenting of the identities of the deceased in recent incidents. Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the exclude side views their position as being disruptive, but regardless, this is another argument I encourage you to pose in a discussion aimed at gaining local, or better yet, global consensus for inclusion. El_C 16:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't that they are creating disruption. In fact I favor healthy debate. The point is that they are blaming disruption on others. I apologize to all concerned for saying that "Their modus operandi is to disrupt articles". But I additionally wrote that they "blame that disruption on those favoring standard construction of articles". Perhaps I should have spoken more prudently. And I apologize for my hastily thrown together words. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Dorian[edit]

Can you please re-instate the Semi-Protection for this article? The disruption from anon editor is ramping up again, and given that this storm was recently a major natural disaster, it's unlikely to die down anytime soon. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, I'm seeing some constructive edits from IPs, as well. I'm gonna hold off, for now, but will be watching. El_C 19:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually,

Done. El_C 01:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum tampering with my posts[edit]

See this, this, this, this and this. Since you closed the I started RfC on Bacondrum, and left a warning on his talk page about it, it felt best to bring this to your attention. As those diffs show, Bacondrum has repeatedly altered my comment in violation of WP:TALK. He has reverted the following commentary: "And, in the 'The lede' discussion, Bacondrum has provided his personal feelings as to why he wants that piece out of the lead. It has nothing to do with summarizing. This is a BLP." He has insisted that this is a personal attack. Like I stated, "This is not a personal attack. You stated what you stated, and pointing that out is fine." It is a fact that he provided his personal feelings as to why a certain piece should be out of the lead. Others at ANI also saw this. The statements he made for excluding this specific piece are not based on a policy or a guideline, but rather on personal opinions. As you know, we are allowed to state when an editor is making comments based on personal opinions rather than on policies or guidelines.

It is also worth noting that the editor tampered with my post at ANI as well. And not long after the ANI close on him, he made this comment, which he retracted, about Yiannopoulos. And this was also after promising on his talk page to never make a derogatory comment about Yiannopoulos on Wikipedia again. The editor clearly can't control himself. How many more derogatory comments will he need to retract? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 2 weeks. Further sanctions may follow. El_C 00:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Davis[edit]

El C, then please make a new table counter for senior snooker tournament wins, I do not see how a player after retiring can still add titles to their professional non-ranking wins, while those tournaments are participated by amateurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.127.90 (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really something I specialize in. Feel free to make an edit request about that, though. El_C 14:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know much about editing and I'm not sure how to make the request or the procedure to do so, either way, this pertains to more than just Steve Davis, it would affect everyone who had won a seniors tournament, and in the careers main table, there would be a new section of "Seniors tour" besides Ranking, Non-ranking, Former ranking, Former non-ranking. Do you only edit snooker pages? How do you see the edits on these snooker pages so quickly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.127.90 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tens of thousands of articles on my watchlist, including the one about Steve Davis. For help on how to edit, see the Help desk or the Tea house. Good luck. El_C 14:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Disasters vandal[edit]

Can you please block 2601:2C0:8B00:2C10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) for a while? They've been persistently vandalizing multiple articles related to natural disasters for nearly two months, usually by deleting multiple references. They were active just earlier. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 04:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP vandal[edit]

Can you also block 2605:A000:1005:A04B:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)? This is an IP-hopping vandal who has been engaging in some serious BLP disruptions. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 04:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington[edit]

Just to be clear, my comment in this edit summary [45] was not addressed to you, but to the previous editor, who apparently doesn't understand how formatting a quote works. [46] My misformatted edit was an attempt to kill two birds with one stone, but (obviously) didn't work. I was working to correct that when you reverted.Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Hopefully, that [i.e.] clarification will resolve that dispute. El_C 08:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemita1's final warning violation[edit]

After I reverted several of Kazemita1's edits on the People's Mujahedin of Iran, Kazemita1 reverted back in some of his edits with the edit summary "per RSN" (I can't link the exact edit because Dianna reverted his edit based on copyright vio). You had given Kazemita1 a final warning about not reverting back in something that had been reverted out without first reaching consensus. Is this a violation of that final warning? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to have a chance to investigate this until later today or tomorow, so you may wish to contact another admin in order to expedite an evaluation of this. El_C 16:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 23:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by User:Fly High in the Sky[edit]

Hello. Can you please block 86.178.176.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) for 6-12 months? (A smaller range was previously blocked for 6 months.) Fly High in the Sky recently returned on this IP range, which he has abused since August 2018. He's back to the same kind of vandalism as before, and it seems that he's been the only person editing from the range for months. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not immediately seeing the connection. Why not ask the blocking admin (who is also a checkuser)? El_C 15:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are the personal attacks, airplane-obsessed edits, and blatant tropical cyclone misinformation (such as this one). All the edits from the past year appear to be his, given the patterns (you can see the SPI case linked from the userpage of the sockmaster if you want). @Yamla and Berean Hunter: Fly High in the Sky is back on what appears to be his primary IPv4 range. Can you please reblock? The smaller blocks on the /24 ranges appear to have been ineffective, given the IP-hopping across the wider /22 range. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C is right; maybe you need to ask Oshwah. And I don't see the disruption: we're talking about three edits in the last couple of months? Drmies (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He tends to edit on and off to avoid scrutiny; the inactivity is largely due to another smaller rangeblock that expired last month. From experience, LTAs like him will ramp up their activity once they feel secure enough continue. I'll notify Oshwah, as suggested. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclone vandal[edit]

Can you please re-block 2605:A000:110E:3E9:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)? They've returned to vandalizing tropical cyclone articles (usually data or date vandalism) after their last rangeblock expired. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 03:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date changer[edit]

Any suggestions for how to deal with an IP with 8 edits, each involving changing a DoB? I ask because while checking Special:Contributions/36.81.137.96 I noticed that you had reverted them (and another IP) at Kurtwood Smith. As this is an odd-numbered day, I am predicting the end of Wikipedia—I monitor some error tracking categories and there is no way we can keep up with the stream of nonsense. I only notice edits that accidentally break the date as they cause a template error. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for adding fabrications to BLPs — no need to warn as this LTA has already been warned under other IPs. El_C 04:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) It's the new form of vandalism. Here are two more recent DOB vandals (possibly both the same person): [47],[48]. Someone, in fact lots of someones, need to track all DOB changes (they are generally tagged so that shouldn't be a problem), because this form of vandalism is insidious and rarely spotted, and then readers, watchers, and Wikidata, etc. are all misled.-- Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Amnesty International. Retrieved December 14, 2018.

[2] Gawlewicz, A. and Narkowicz, K. (2015) Islamophobia on the move: circulation of anti-Muslim prejudice between Poland and the UK. In: Suleiman, Y. (ed.) Muslims in the UK and Europe I. Centre of Islamic Studies, University of Cambridge: Cambridge, pp. 90-100.

[1]

[1]