free image.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leclerctank.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanbir Singh Grewal (talk • contribs)

No thanks, it's too low quality. El_C 21:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was really nice to see you pop up on my watchlist! Guettarda (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice to be seen! El_C 22:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• glad to see you active again! —usernamekiran(talk) 12:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks—let's see how long it lasts! El_C 12:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

same ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/bows El_C 12:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a similar thread here, also by Guettarda: He lives! - Only, he doesn't. I keep his smile and best phrase on my talk, second-best phrase: "Be sure to kneel as you type." - Great that we live! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sad, but yes, it's good to be alive! El_C 13:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of Liberia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:1304:73DA:0:0:75:30A0 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing "February 2010" in Paulo Kassoma? El_C 21:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing images from President of Liberia? El_C 21:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor (70.235.158.228) you blocked has made some extremely nasty personal attacks and has threatened to out editors. Most, if not all, of their contributions probably should be revdelled under RD2. If you can help, that would be great. – Teratix ₵ 01:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was away. El_C 04:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the protection. It's clear we've straightened out the issue, so can you please lift protection? Thanks! John from Idegon (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 13:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Had a bad day yesterday with noobs. This one worked out. One out of three. Woo hoo. John from Idegon (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:Terrorist incidents in Iran in the 2010s which I added to 2017 Tehran attacks is a valid category and part of a (populated) series re terrorism in Iraq and is similar to other countries Hugo999 (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was redlinked at the time. El_C 10:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This area has been very quiet for a long time now and we are getting some decent articles up. AIRcorn (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure. Keep up the good work! El_C 00:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you reverted this edit without a reason in the edit summary, and you flagged it as a minor edit. It seems like a legitimate addition to me, so I was hoping you could explain why you did it. Thanks! AlexEng^(TALK) 19:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing was added to 18 articles. El_C 21:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime I see your name around. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FROM ALL SUBJECT! El_C 04:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you blocked Jeppem7 (talk · contribs), you might want to also take a look at Jeppem2 (talk · contribs). Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I blocked all of em. Jeppe123eee (talk · contribs), too. El_C 12:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You locked the Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport page with disputed content which violates several WP policies left in place. I would be grateful if you would revert it to the last revision by User:SovalValtos.Charles (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't be favouring versions. El_C 12:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A maintenance template was also incorrectly removed and you should disfavour content which clearly violates policy.Charles (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to take this to RFPP#Current requests for edits to a protected page. El_C 12:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better things to do. The adverts can just stay until the lock expires.Charles (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this was vandalism. Check the article for context. I was just about to make the edit on the IP's behalf then I saw your block. — MusikAnimal ^talk 13:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Unblocked. El_C 13:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C! I'm just letting you know that I've unblocked this IP (a procedural unblock only) because it's part of a range (46.211.0.0/16) that I've just blocked for two weeks due to IP hopping vandalism, disruption, and other abuse. There's little doubt in my mind that this situation is related to the others - take a look at the range contributions and you'll probably agree. ;-) If you have any questions, concerns, objections, or input regarding this range block and what I did - please let me know (ping me in your response here) and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I doubt that you'll have issue with what I did, but I figured I'd let you know just in case. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. All good, they can register an account if they wish to continue editing SpaceIL, in light of the disruption from that range. El_C 12:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, please read this page thoroughly. It's being edited every day. Very many uncited and misleading claims exist in the article. It's heavily biased in favour of a particular faction. Chippy pest (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct these, but we don't fully protect pages for these reasons. El_C 13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you partially protect it? Chippy pest (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least, the infobox. Web results Mughal–Maratha Wars - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Mugh...Chippy pest (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't make a difference. You are having an edit dispute also with registered users. I suggest you take your (detailed) concerns to the article talk page. El_C 13:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reuters confirms the news. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure a provincial govt. minister counts as a reliable source for us. Best to wait for the official announcement and its confirmation by mainstream sources. El_C 08:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters is reliable, so if Reuters decided to cite him, his claim became reliable. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are being more cautious than you about it. Sorry, you're gonna have to wait at least an hour. El_C 08:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we could write "Sudan's Bashir steps down, government sources say". --Panam2014 (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia not a newspaper. El_C 08:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doing it is not writing a newspaper because the sources who relayed the info are reliables. The information is relayed by lots of sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We wait for official statements, as confirmed by mainstream sources. El_C 08:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough if we add the fact that it is the claim of sources quoted by Reuters. I think we should ask for others opinions. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the article talk page is for. But an hour break from editing the article seems rather mild to me. El_C 08:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you have warned Masterofthename here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Masterofthename reported by User:Shemtovca (Result: Warned )

I have tried to have a reasonable conversation, he has suggested that i add it properly to the article which i did earlier today. His response to that was to add most of it again under a different subject and accuse me that he that i am working with some sort of gang and am lying... Can you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemtovca (talk • contribs)

Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 00:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Shemtovca (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to highlight that innuendo continues here Shemtovca (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have told the truth about the breast tax myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article talk page to gain the consensus for your changes. El_C 09:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to this - https://rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10152112262136675.pdf. Women of ALL classes used to bare their breasts. There's no proof for the legend of Nangeli other than from the mid-20th century; which shows that it's a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to present this on the article talk page, with a more detailed citation (quotes, page numbers). El_C 09:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do it. Thanks for the diplomacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. El_C 09:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadar_climber - I've added a line here with a citation. Is this OK? (I agree that exploitation was there - but most of the sources cited for this breast tax are from books written in the 90s, so it's most likely a myth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, please use the Talk page to gain the consensus for your changes. El_C 10:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can anything be done about this user? They are constantly changing punctuation in direct quotations and adding commas in random places. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I dropped them another note. Let me know if this continues. El_C 18:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are back with a new IP. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just semiprotected for a month. El_C 12:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you've been doing very long blocks on dynamic IP addresses, frequently set as a hard block ("Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" set). I also noticed that you marked one of your blocks as a checkuser block – Special:Contributions/84.1.247.135. I assume that was an accident, but only checkusers should mark blocks as checkuser blocks – there are special rules for these blocks, making them harder to appeal. Also, non-checkusers probably shouldn't do hard blocks unless they're blocking something like an open proxy. There's no way for non-checkusers to ascertain the collateral damage. Generally, if you want to do a hard block on a non-proxy, I think it's best to ask a checkuser to see if there's collateral damage. If you see someone evading a block from a mobile network operator, you should definitely not do a hard block, and you should probably keep the block length short, like 24–48 hours. Blocking these IP addresses for 3 months will likely cause many random internet users in the same general geolocation to be unable to edit. If you're blocking these IP addresses because they're proxies, you should label them with {{blocked proxy}}. Proxies, webhosts, and stuff like that can be hard blocked for months (or even years), but they should be properly labeled so that people know how to appeal (for example, {{Colocationwebhost}} gives advice on what to information to provide in the unblock request). I apologize for coming across with an attitude like "hey, only checkusers can do that!", but hard blocks can sometimes cause lots of problems for innocent users. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to be more mindful of this. El_C 01:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had created the article Cow vigilante violence in India. As far as my knowledge of rules goes, redirecting a new article is deletion, and that must be done via WP:AFD. But two users are redirecting without consensus. He even reported me as edit warrring to the administrator notice board, which was found as no violation by you [1]. I have mentioned my view on the talk page, but others are not replying anything to it. They just want to merge it to subset of the subject, that is violence after the year 2014. Is consensus required to create a page, or is it required to delete a page? Please let me know. Soarwakes (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not required to create an article, but it is required for deletion. Redirection is not deletion, however. I fully protected the page to end the chronic edit war, so I suggest you and the various participants (and perhaps others editors via a Request for comment) try reach consensus on the article talk page. El_C 09:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is still reverting instead of taking it to WP:AFD. His report at Admin notice board for edit warring was dismissed as no violation. [2] Should I leave it and move on? Soarwakes (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, redirection is not deletion, so they are not obliged to to take it to AfD. Maybe try dispute resolution. El_C 13:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have posted in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India. Let me see what he replies there. Soarwakes (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey , why u deleted the right content?? Kumarpkp (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it made no sense and lacked punctuation. El_C 11:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, As per my understanding you have done the unfair deletion of the content from the Page using "Placement is too promotional". If the content is present in the following wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnyaneshwar , how this can be removed. It has been written what Samadhi means and the same was added to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation. Kindly review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchetan (talk • contribs)

Because the Meditation article represents more than just Hinduism, and having that picture at the beginning is biased. It's best you take it to the article talk page and see what other editors think. El_C 11:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing it, disabling the ability of easy adding nonsense and radicality. Even though users like me then cannot edit entirely, I appreciate it. 208.54.36.166 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure. You are welcome. El_C 12:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now using an IP to sock on KBPI, 69.11.193.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Nate • (chatter) 00:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected for six months. El_C 00:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much; can the same be applied to K300CP? Nate • (chatter) 00:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Also extended the user's block to one week for block evasion. El_C 00:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you. Nate • (chatter) 00:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, earlier you protected this page due to a long term vandal changing it to "New Fart Times". Within 24hrs of the protection ending, two IPs appeared making the same Fart vandalism. I assume the vandal has some sort of automatic reminder. They usually geolocate to the same city (though not always). -- GreenC 13:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected for 2 months. El_C 16:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, El C. Sorry to say, but I disagree with your comment at WP:RFPP regarding Lars Sullivan. In the last 7 days we have seen deliberate factual error
deliberate factual error
unsourced content
unsourced content
unsourced content
unsourced content
and either vandalism or factual error.
This article is also a BLP, so we should be trying to avoid vandalism even more on an article on a living person. I do understand some of these edits might not stand out as disruptive to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter. StaticVapor message me! 04:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I stand corrected. Not sure how I missed that — I'm usually pretty good when it comes to RFPP (or so I'd like to think!). Semiprotected for one month. El_C 04:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned you can throw long or even indefinite semi-protection at them. That LTA is someone with nothing better in his life than this. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 3 months is a bit optimistic, isn't it? Feel free to amend. El_C 01:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Maybe I'm wrong. Thanks--I appreciate the protection. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was curious was to why you applied pending changes to the page? The page is not even a day old and users need to be able to add new information as it comes out without being contested. I find it excessive to apply pending changes so soon. Users can revert content when they see fit, of course appropriately. Thank you. Aviartm (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RFPP#Report_On_The_Investigation_Into_Russian_Interference_In_The_2016_Presidential_Election. Disruption has already began, and I'm not sure I see the harm of pending changes being attached to the article, even at this early stage. El_C 01:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that put for a whole year? And as the user who asked for Pending Changes, it was IP users who were doing the disrupting. Why not WP:SEMI protect? That would've and is the perfect page protection needed instead of a whole year of slowing down updates to the page whilst thwarting IP users disrupting the page. Aviartm (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't enough disruption to warrant semiprotection, I felt. But as mentioned on the article talk page, I'm more than willing to reconsider if there are further objections. El_C 02:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Let's continue talking over there but don't you think that WP:SEMI is less severe than pending changes? Aviartm (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's. But no, I do not. Quite the contrary. Since it still allows nonconfirmed users to submit edits — it's just that those edits then need to be approved by confirmed users. Whereas semi wholly excludes nonconfirmed users from making edits. El_C 02:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of adding "of OP" [3] to your (Result: Indef) since otherwise it appeared to indicate that I was indeffed. Meters (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine. El_C 18:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest to you. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours — I'll update AN3, as well. El_C 06:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C

This information is OK see :

Alexandru Georgescu (et al.), Critical Space Infrastructures. Risk, Resilience and Complexity, Springer, 2019, p. 48.

Best,

Stephen C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.234.144 (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure that the passage fits into the article, because it was speaking about one film in particular rather than discuss the phenomenon with respect to how it connects to Telecommunication, in general. You should take it to the article talk page to see what other editors think. El_C 10:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, on closer look, it looks like I was in error. Sorry about that. El_C 10:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this dates back to 2017 but was misplaced on this article. The associated 1RR condition is for topics relating to the Syrian Civil War or to ISIS/ISIL, which this article is neither. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen#Al-Qaeda_and_Islamic_State. El_C 05:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings El C. You recently applied Pending Changes protection on the Mueller Report article. This is quite confusing as questionable revisions by IPs collide with revisions by auto-approved editors. A lot more work must be done to undo things or apply simple copyedits. Please consider switching to semi-protection. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 08:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing that much editing by IPs to warrant this change at this time — please feel free to comment at Mueller_Report#Why_was_the_page_applied_with_Pending_Changes_status? As an aside, I noticed you made a similar edit to one of mine (I was immediately reverted). El_C 19:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not drop pending changes? Do you think there's ongoing likelihood of vandalism? The flurry of news and analysis following the report's release has calmed down already. — JFG ^talk 16:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was an IP whose changes was reverted yesterday, so I think it's still fine, for now. But if more editors petition me to remove it, I'll reconsider. El_C 17:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The edit warring problem on the Template:2018–19 Serie A table has been settled, so you can reduce the level of protection so that edit can be made and also because there's a game today and that edits must be made. RafaelS1979 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 19:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! RafaelS1979 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment that RPP isn't the correct board. Per my comments at RPP? - In this case, the person requesting the RPP...yeah, they seem to be wrong on at least one grammatical count... Shearonink (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, the best way to resolve this is for the involved parties to stop reverting and bring it to the article talk page. El_C 01:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks for removing vandalism .localhostdotdev (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recognition! Much appreciated. El_C 01:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C,

Thanks for this page protection a couple of weeks ago, it has dealt with the disruption on the article. Unfortunately, the same person has now taken their campaign to the talk page. Any possibility of some level of protection there? (And/or a block on that IP.)

Thanks, JBL (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I semiprotected the talk page, too (for one week). El_C 18:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reviewed the request for addition of material to the Monroe Calculating Machine Company and approved only two items:

As you're monitoring this page, I thought I'd let you know here, too. If there is a problem with any of this, please feel free to either revert it, or ask me and I will revert it immediately. Thank you!  Spintendo  22:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sounds good, but I'm just the admin who responded to the RfPP regarding this. So I'll leave the content decisions to the respective editors, like yourself. El_C 22:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to chime in here, as an independent observer, in case you felt any action was required. You recently locked down List of independent wrestling promotions in Canada over content disputes. One user has specifically stated that they have multiple accounts that they will use to abuse editing [4]. In addition they have made it clear that they do not have any interest in communicating to build an encyclopedia [5]. To me this sounds like a user who is WP:NOTHERE to help fulfill the mission of Wikipedia but to push their own ideas, but I am reaching out to you since you are the admin involved in locking the page. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 16:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just was about to mention this comment too [6] but I guess not needed, ill revert it since its completely WP:UNCIVIL. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday me and MrClog got into an edit war on the article 'Forum for Democracy' and because you were the admin that locked the page because of vandalism, I thought I should reach out to you.

We both accused each other of being biased towards or against the political party and to prevent an edit war I went to his talk page to try to find a consensus there. His point was that you can call a party 'far-right' in the sidebar if some sources (in this case Al Jazeera, Telegraph and Politico; All foreign sources) refer to it as such. I said the party doesn't identify as far-right, has distanced itself from the far-right and that most sources do not refer to the party as far-right (and gave sources, including their own party website arguing the party is actually more of a 'middenpartij', meaning centre-party.), yet he says these do not count as reliable sources. This is fine and we can have a discussion about this, but before we ever reached a consensus he has already reverted all my edits, including edits that don't have anything to do with this discussion and are relatively undisputed. If you ask me this reeks of promoting a political bias on his side and I would love to talk it out, but he doesn't seem to be willing to listen to my points on how to make this page more politically neutral.

Especially because he also removed contributions of mine that had nothing to do with this discussion, it doesn't seem to me like he's acting in good faith.

Thanks for the time -Freerka (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss the changes is on the article talk page — why have you yet to do this? The onus to do so is on you as the one who implemented these. El_C 23:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! I will move my criticism on his user talk page to the article talk page. -Freerka (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I suppose it's reasonable that the page was locked by you. I have come here to request a reversion of the page as stated here WP:PREFER. I was acting in good faith to keep most of the edits in place, which was why I wasn't simply reverting the page, and why I was allowing most of the content to stay with only minor edits instead of just reverting everything that was posted in a blatantly biased manner. Large numbers of the citations used on the page are almost entirely irrelevant and contradict the guidelines placed out at WP:RS and WP:NPOV in which journalists are used as a factual source despite those journalists not being able to objectively prove their position. Since people on the page have an issue with my edit, and my edit was in issue with their edit, I would request that a previous version before all of this began be reverted to until a consensus has been achieved on the talk page (which I admit I didn't realize was a per-requisite for editing a page, I thought the rules and guidelines on content quality took precedence). This version here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraser_Anning%27s_Conservative_National_Party&diff=893158435&oldid=893031161 was before all of this dispute began and was an edit that was not made by myself and is therefore more neutral than either of the pages used in the current dispute. Thanks. Sundeki (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not familiar enough with the content dispute to be comfortable in applying that edit to the protected page — so, unless you can definitively show that there are BLP violations, etc., you will just have to settle with the wrong version for the duration. El_C 02:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. After the lock has run out, will I be able to revert the page to the stated previous page (so clearly I'm not the one getting everything I want either, as I have issue with that page as well, but at least it's not totally biased) without it being locked again if another edit war occurs? I am unfamiliar with administration on Wikipedia, and so I ask: which page takes precedence as the locked page when an administrator locks it? Thanks for your responses. Sundeki (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No version takes precedence — the one that's up at the time of protection is the one that's retained. I wouldn't put the horse before the cart, however. Work on reaching consensus actively, please. El_C 02:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I have been trying quite hard to reach a consensus, but now I don't feel as though one particular user is acting in good faith. If you review the relevant talk page, you will see I have written detailed paragraphs of the issues, cited and quoted specific sections of the rules/guidelines as why, and broke down other user's statements specifically. In return I get dismissive one line comments that refuse to engage with anything of note that I've said, instead getting responses that show that they are not acting in good faith to reach a consensus and will reject every piece of evidence and rule quotation I bring forth and then proceed to revert the page immediately. What would happen if this particular user and I will never see eye to eye because they want it all their way and my compromises are not enough to get them to reach a consensus? Will the page continue to be locked over and over with longer times? until the article basically becomes a dead wasteland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundeki (talk • contribs)

My suggestion to you would be to try to get more editors involved, if need be via a Request for Comment or other forms of dispute resolution. El_C 02:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thanks for your help/time. Sundeki (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found my way here from a recent block you made, criticized by others but considered long overdue by me. But I'm not neutral on that topic so perhaps not a worthwhile opinion. More importantly, I just wanted to say how wonderful the quote from Che on your talkpage is. In many ways it sums up how I view life (and others) and how we should deal with it. I have added it to my userpage, I hope that is OK with you.

I see you've also been dragged into the excitement over whether articles about Cow vigilante violence should be redirected. I have edited some of these articles repeatedly, but I chose not to get involved in that discussion because I am not totally sure how such decisions are made. And I'm not sure that I want to know :) I hope it all works out for the best. MPS1992 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, that's absolutely fine. Regarding the block, I feel like I've been more than fair in that instance. All the best, El_C 22:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for being civil during contention. Manabimasu (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar! El_C 02:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In New York city, doesn't follow "rules": Chinese Community Centre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:CA82:9800:BD8D:12D3:EC9E:8983 (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because that article involves the US, while the Treaty of Nanking involves the UK. El_C 04:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also started a discussion about it on the article talk page. Please feel free to participate there. El_C 04:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a 3 month block too much? Can this block be reduced to, at least, one week? -- 177.135.52.200 (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were already blocked for one week, then 2 week, then one month. So, 3 months was the logical conclusion. The next block is likely to be six months. El_C 07:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any necessity to keep this block for so long though? -- 186.213.48.126 (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of routine here — keeping disruptive anon IPs blocked for increasingly longer duration. Why do you ask? El_C 05:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking just in case a consensus that the Estado Novo was Fascist is reached, I will need to revert the edits by JPratas if this happens. -- 177.42.139.19 (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What's wrong with your current IP? What IP is this regarding? El_C 20:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My IP keeps changing many times for some reason, I don't know why, I'm not doing this deliberately though. -- 177.42.139.19 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I figured it out. No IP has been blocked, you are just asking about the 3 month semiprotection that I applied to Estado Novo (Portugal) and related-articles. Regarding this, I have no immediate intention of reducing the protection length as there has been far too much edit warring by multiple IPs — if consensus is, indeed, established thusly, there is no shortage of logged-in users to apply these. El_C 20:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for curiosity, Wikipedia has for many years considered the Estado Novo a Fascist regime, JPratas then decided (very likely because of personal political views) to try to change that, so, technically, shouldn't JPratas be the one who needs to seek consensus for this? -- 177.42.139.19 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you provide no diffs, and I haven't followed the article/s closely enough over the years to place the context in which "para-fascist" was removed from the lead — but that is certainly a point which you are welcome to advance on the article talk page. El_C 22:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The reported user (User:Afg96) has now made a fourth revert plus another personal attack, in spite of getting an extra message on their talk page warning them not to continue reverting... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 72 hours. El_C 19:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And now they're evading their block, using a static IP: 2001:630:D0:5001::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log). In their last post on Talk:University of Bologna Afg96 quoted EB, just like this IP does in their edit summary... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Block increased to 2 weeks; page semiprotected for the duration. El_C 20:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For quickly fulfilling my RfPP requests * Pppery * has returned 20:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Glad to help. El_C 20:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, fellow Wikipedian. I saw your edits on the references in the Poway synagogue shooting article. Why did you delete the cite web templates and replaced them with plain text? What does "facelift" mean? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete anything — there were just plain urls. El_C 23:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may have accidentally deleted them in your first edit. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, sorry about that. But it looks like it's been sorted. El_C 23:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP keep adding unreferenced genre. Can you block him/her? 183.171.115.47 (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 04:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm pretty sure Anaxial and I are quite finished. 199.247.43.106 (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Yeah, that was just an emergency measure. El_C 06:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, El C - you PP'd Alligator gar on April 22, and said 4 days - it is now 7 days and it's still full PP. It is possible that I counted wrong, but I doubt it. If it was supposed to auto-unPP by a bot, it failed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like the bot was not doing its job. I just removed it manually. El_C 20:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello El C, I just wanted to discuss why the changes on the Akhtar Raza Khan page were removed. The added mentions were just about his son who succeeded him in his position, and that too with appropriate references. Moreover, I notice that you wrote that Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar was the "Grand Mufti of India" - this is disputed in India as it was a self proclaimed announcement and I think it is wrong to be asserted on Wikipedia as a fact - unfortunately the Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar page is locked due to vandalism so I am unable to make an amendment to this. I believe that the Wikipedia editors/administrators have been duped into asserting this as fact. For reference of the dispute, see the reputable Indian Newspaper "The Hindu"^[1]. Please do let me know if you require any futher information. SunniObserver786 (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were removed and the pages were protected because we have had it on Wikipedia with the back and fourth between the two factions. My suggestion is to launch a proper Request for comment on the talk page of Grand Mufti of India where this can be settled once and for all. El_C 22:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, I'll raise a Request for comment as per your suggestion (apologies I'm new to Wikipedia so still learning how it all works!). While the RFC will hopefully resolve the "Grand Mufti" issue, I just want to make clear that Asjad Raza Khan being the spiritual successor is unrelated to the "Grand Mufti" announcement. In Sufism, Grand Shaykhs usually appoint their sons as spiritual successors. Can this at least not be added to the page so that people can be aware of who is Akhtar Raza Khan's spiritual successor? Thank you. SunniObserver786 (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the average reader that may not be that intuitive — when they see the word successor, they may be more likely to think of the Grand Mufti position rather than a more nebulous spiritual successor one. That's something which would probably be better expanded upon in the body than the infobox. But feel free to argue for its inclusion in the infobox on the article's talk page. I'm just an editor like you when it comes to these content decisions. We all follow consensus. El_C 07:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand. Thanks for your help! I shall now head over to the talk page and focus this discussion there. SunniObserver786 (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new in Wikipedia so I need some help and advice Mustaphajajjage (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, what do you need help and advice with? El_C 00:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing El C a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Coffeesweet (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been x-many years? El_C 18:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well happy days! Drmies (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey El C--you semi-protected this article a while ago; LedRush (talk · contribs), essentially an SPA, is continuing to make the same kind of edits that I think prompted you to lock the article. Note the continued edit warring, with no consensus (see talk page), using YouTube sources; essentially it's a kind of whitewashing. I'd block them per NOTHERE, basically, but since I reverted the IP editor I'd rather someone else look at it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new citation which makes clear exactly to what Benjamin was referring in the statement that is now shortened in the article, and which doesn't represent what he's said on the issue. It is my opinion that this is a BLP violation. We include Benjamin's statement, then, rather than allow for his explanation of that statement, Drmies and Greyfell seem to be arguing that it is better to say we don't know to what he could have been referring. Again, this seems like a BLP as he has been quite vocal about to what he was referring.

I've also reverted a new entry into the article which links Benjamin's use of "white nigger" to an article on WP (white nigger) which does not have a UK usage section and very obviously doesn't pertain to what Benjamin was saying. In that edit I did not change the text of the article at all, I merely removed a new, inaccurate link. I find it odd that Drmies would revert that edit and use it as evidence of some kind of wrongdoing on my part. Since the rule on WP is BRD (and to avoid BLP issues), I'm not sure why he wouldn't discuss such a noncontroversial edit with me rather than trying to silence me about discussing it.

I have been an editor for over 12 years and tend to work on articles in bunches as it often takes a long time to both accurately reflect the subject matter and to reach consensus on controversial topics. I don't think this makes me a SPA, it makes me someone who moves from topic to topic over time.LedRush (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Drmies, but I just don't know enough about this user's history, which goes back 12 years. Maybe take it to AN/I for some wider input...? All the best, El_C 04:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision of Elections in India has removed the text, tables and maps, i added with the references and wikimedia. Kindly state the reason behind reverting the said article. Tables and maps were added to enhance the article and make it easier for the reader to consume the relevant info easily. Map-thumbnails gave the info in a very efficient manner. Just by looking at maps one could grasp the changing behavior of Indian voters since Indian independence. So, i humbly request you to please cooperate and help in making the article better and cite the reasons for undoing my constructive edit. I will be highly thankful to you.--Shoonyea (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please start by reviewing our Manual of style and ensure that your addition largely conforms to it. Your introduction stated:

India is a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC country [...]

Why are those wikilinked words in all-uppercase? That's not acceptable here. Also, India has a mixed economy — referring to it as socialist is a bit of a stretch. It has, in fact, according to our Economy of India article, a highly-regulated capitalist economy. As well, the word sovereign is wholly unnecessary as this is to be assumed by the reader, just as they do in the main India article. Finally, republic country is just bad grammar. And all that, even if it were true and grammatically coherent, does not speak about Elections in India but about the country itself. By contrast, our current lead sentence states:

India is a federation with a parliamentary system governed under the Constitution of India, which defines the power distribution between the union, or central, government and the states.

That does speak about facets which are relevant to Elections in India rather than the country at large. And that's just the introduction. Your addition of maps was misformatted in that it made the entire page way too wide. My suggestion to you would be to link your sizable addition on the article talk page, modify it accordingly, and see what other editors think; that is, go part-by-part and see which of these enjoy consensus and how best they can be integrated with or even replace the existing material. Because, at the moment, there is a problem, evident by two experienced editors having reverted you repeatedly. Thanks. El_C 18:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Those wikilinked words are in all-uppercase because this is how the whole line is written in the preamble of the constitution of India and can be seen at Constitution of India and also at constitution of India (pg.22).

Yes, you are right that India has mixed economy but the world "socialist" is written in the preamble for reasons said in Socialism in India. Sorry that i wikilinked "socialist" as "socialist" instead of "Socialism in India".

"sovereign" is wholly unnecessary as this is to be assumed by the reader just as they do in the main India ; agreed but i don't agree with "wholly unnecessary". No offense please.

The word "democratic", speaks explicitly whereas "sovereign socialist secular republic" speak implicitly about elections in India. This is where from the existence and practice of election is driven.

If formatting was not correct then reformatting of maps should have been done instead of removal. I searched and now used "scrolling table" which will maintain the width of the page and hope it fixes the problem. Please forgive my ignorance as i am new. This time I have again edited the page to insert Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha tables with correct formatting as said earlier and not added/edited anything else. I have kept other things for further review and will edit carefully and use talk in future. I have watchlisted this page in the case you have any suggestion/problem. Thanks.--Shoonyea (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, we don't do uppercase like that on Wikipedia, no matter how the Indian constitution is written. As for the rest, I suggest you take it to the article talk page and try to gain consensus for your changes to the lead there. Discussing this further on a user talk page where it's only the two of us seems counterproductive. Other editors ought to be able to have their say, since that's how our collaborative editing process works. El_C 01:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 April 18:22 you locked a part of the page for " Protected "Denuvo": Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content " but did not revert the sources column of the page to a more suitable manner.

There are no sources that would be deemed as not poorly sourced due to the nature of the topic. Who would come out as a reliable source to remark on games which are cracked? This is piracy. The ones doing the cracking are not exactly going to come out themselves, so third party sites exist(such as the site which NFOs are posted on) which are actually moderated. False NFOs are removed.

Leave the lock or not, but undue the edit so that we may have this edit below as the live version of the pages column. Or please add a notice that due to the nature of the topic, suitable sources will most likely never exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/894817450

Thank you for your time. Forkinator (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nfos from piracy or quasi-piracy sites (The Scene) are not deemed to be reliable sources on Wikipedia. Also, the article already has over 200 citations, so I don't see an immediate issue in regards to it lacking these. Thanks. El_C 18:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. El_C 22:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting the article, but I'm concerned that defamatory BLP content--unsourced 'rumors' of involvement with a friend's suicide, for instance--has been locked in under 'Controversy.' That's why I brought this to the BLP noticeboard, and not page protection. Any further assistance would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had the edit summary: This section is not up to par with our biographies of living persons policy as there is only one reliable source (which this section also plagiarizes) — but Drmies beat me to it. El_C 03:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks again. If you're game I've just listed a few other rather abhorrent BLP miscues at my talk page. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Drmies beat me to it, again! El_C 03:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to walk by. It's BLP night--see my log. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for doing all the heavy lifting. El_C 04:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This issue I am seeing is not disruption, but a quality issue. I basically have to do a grammar overhaul of every addition made to the meteorological history and add a total of 4-5 sources there as they also did not source as well. If you look in the impact, it is loaded with typos as well. Noah^Talk 22:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many users does this involve? El_C 22:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an exact number, but I know that at least 4 people have contributed to the issues that are ongoing. Noah^Talk 22:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's all a bit vague. Can you provide a few diffs? El_C 22:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be ignorance in terminology over the dissipation date. These are unsourced edits that do not provide proof of dissipation.

• [7]
• [8]

These edits contain typos and other problems

• "ares" instead of area... also, the addition of reportedly makes it seem as if the deaths may be fake news concocted by that source alone
• is factually wrong on the wind shear part and reduced to remnants part was unsourced, not to mention written in a way that would need improvement

  If you look in the edit history of the page, the user links to the JTWC as his source, which is not the official meteorological center for this cyclone basin.

• same user added the other end of the spectrum, which was also factually wrong
• these edits added in a sentence starting with and

Im sure there are more edits from the past day I could provide as examples as well. Noah^Talk 23:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's good enough. I've taken the article up to ec. Happy editing. El_C 23:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C

thank you from protecting the page; I have uploaded all necessary documents; even the transcription of documents ; the person use the term hoax even if there is evidence which is not an hoax. This page has been vandalised with false allegations. the person needs to prove that what is a hoax. he seems has more power than me; from one side he argued without bringing any proofs from the other side there is me which upload evidence every time I claim something; however he is able to use terms highly offensive and modify the page while I have been prevented to defend. I would like your help please; I am willing to waive my anonymity I feel I have been bullied. I understand if someone disagree but a person cannot deny the fact (I have uploaded them 0 and accuse someone of a hoax without bring proofs. I feel very depressed; all my work on this page has went to the bin because of this. The page is Este Orioles. thanks Araldico69 Araldico69 (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way to get your preferred version is by convincing other editors and building consensus. You do this by submitting reliable sources. I'm sorry to hear you're depressed, but the reality is that you did not handle the dispute well and came very close to being blocked. Please also refer to my comment here. El_C 07:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated [9]. I'd never run across that before. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yes, disturbing, indeed. El_C 00:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you should blame yourself. This edit of mine was backed by this WP:RSN verdict. and this edit was backed by the new RfC. I give it to you the word "unanimous" was extra though.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blaming myself, except in jest. Indeed, that expectation of unanimity was excessive. As well, as I already noted, I'm not sure taking this to RSN was the right call. Therefore, I'm also unsure about how binding what you call its verdict is. I suggest you begin by answering SB's question at Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Page_protected_for_4_days. Thanks. El_C 04:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yeah you are correct. I just thought it was not the proper way "constructed". Thanks for cleaning up and sorry once again. Kante4 (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I already blocked the user by the time you changed your mind, so it was too late by then. El_C 22:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, saw that. Should have gone to bed already before adding an unfinished report. Will do better next time. Kante4 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same vandalism as yesterday, this time apparent evasion by a user you blocked. Maybe page protection? Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 03:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words at MJ's talk. And I wanted you to know I have no problem with you at all. You did the job we don't pay you for as you should have. Another might have done different but when I'm caught on the wrong side of a line, I take what I've got coming. Certainly no hard feelings here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure, and I appreciate that — no, no hard feelings here, either. El_C 03:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hi howdy. Thanks for your recent action at ANEW. I'm absolutely clueless about Arb sanctions, but I'm certain one or both of the AP sanctions apply to the article was there over. Any chance you'd mark the article up appropriately and add an arb warning to the blocked user's talk? Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. This has been  Done. El_C 00:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it appears my recent attempt on Taryn Manning did not help per this and this. Just wondering if you'll reconsider page protection? Thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 03:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, appreciate it greatly! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, recently you have semi-protected Circle MRT line after i had requested at WP:RFP, and i would like to request that the semi protection be increased to Extended confirmed protection as there is now an autoconfirmed account (probably a sockpuppet) making the exact same edits as the IP before this. diff 1(previous edit by autoconfirmed user in April 2019), diff 2(one of the edits by IP 192.190.204.103), diff 3(autoconfirmed user makes exact same edit as diff 2 by IP). This has been a long standing issue on the page and i hope that you can help to resolve the issue. Thanks 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 08:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Also extended the protection by another week to allow more time for discussion. El_C 16:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this interesting: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Letter_from_the_People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran_to_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union.jpg

For translation go to California archives here and CTRL+F "olfat".--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, "up to $300 million" — that's bold! A lot of money, not to mention in those days. El_C 16:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazemita1 & El_C: I wonder why such a historic letter is not used in the article? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. El_C 18:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this expansion. I'm not looking for anyone to get blocked, but it was getting clear that something would need to be done to force talk page participation. Without the extra comment, I'm not 100% clear that message would have been received, so I appreciate you circling back. Grandpallama (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome — sorry for being so terse earlier. El_C 16:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terseness is golden, right? :) Grandpallama (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do sometimes use it to excess, however. El_C 21:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about me going to the report page about him? I literally clicked the link that Marchjuly left me and told me to aim my complaints there. Oh, and my second “offense” was a private discussion expressing my opinions, not even directed at John. This is too confusing and stressful for me. I’m not going to seek anymore “reprimands” for him. I’m done with this bureaucratic website. Ppizzo278 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to lose you, but your behaviour has not been exemplary — that's just a fact. (In one occasion,y ou said you hope he "becomes a better person"; in another you called him a "bully"; and in yet another, you reported him for vandlism.) El_C 22:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Special:Contributions/Scandiblues a Mrwallace05 sock. Sounds like a duck. 2402:1980:8252:C48F:F1F1:85C1:391C:8F91 (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Special:Contributions/Prettything1234 too. 2402:1980:8252:C48F:96D9:2B7C:A4A2:E419 (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no "Scandiblues"--and can you make an argument for why this would be so? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is related to MariaJaydHicky, but I'm also not seeing the connection. El_C 03:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean Special:Contributions/Scandiblues2. Sorry. 2402:1980:8252:C48F:D824:7:26C9:5738 (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A user obsessed with adding genres — but I've seen a few iterations of that before. El_C 04:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I'm pretty sure you can confirm something here on Scandiblues2, esp. since I see a CU block of yours on one of the IPs. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: (hi El C) The two accounts identified by the IP, plus several others, are  Confirmed to MariaJaydHicky. I don't tag MJH socks, but I usually, as I did here, put her username in the block form itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, thank you much. Thanks also to the IP, and to El C for hosting us. El C, can we maybe get some petit-fours here next time? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a terrible host! Here you go. El_C 17:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What will happen if the discussion on the Fascism in Europe talkpage ends without consensus being reached? Will you unblock the pages? -- 179.183.235.148 (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those are not blocks (users get blocked), those are protections (pages are protected). And you don't need to start a new section about this — I would have seen the comment if it was placed in the previous section you drafted. Anyway, to answer your question: I don't know what I'll do yet, but what I do know is I intend on giving considerable time for consensus to form. In the mean time, feel free to add to the article via edit requests. El_C 17:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep those protections even though discussion has already ended? And why keep them for 3 months? Isn't this too much? -- 186.213.22.35 (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've chosen to err on the side of caution, in this instance. El_C 00:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why though? JPratas seems to have indicated that he will accept the status quo, I don't think there is a chance of edit warring happening again. -- 186.213.22.35 (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet there was edit warring. Sorry, I'm just not convinced it would be of benefit to allow IPs to edit those articles at this time. El_C 04:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could the protection at least be reduced for like, one week, or two weeks, or even one month? Three months sounds like too much. -- 186.213.22.35 (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a good possibility that protection will be lifted early, but 3 months seem like a sensible limit. El_C 05:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you at least unprotect the Franco article though? I mean, the dispute there is already resolved, and it wasn't a large edit war like on other articles, so what is the point in locking it? Three months also seems absurd for this context. -- 177.19.117.32 (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 22:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El_C, once again the same issues on the Bordeaux Airport page continues. All future routes are sourced, the reversion of edits that are being implemented by User:Charlesdrakew and User:SovalValtos are creating confusion. They remove and merge seasonal routes and simply delete sourced information for future routes. All edits for BOD are in line with the many thousands of other pages on Wikipedia. This is simply damaging the page creating mis and disinformation. Jack1985IE (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the discussion about this on the article talk page and avoid edit warring in the meantime. El_C 18:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raunak Maskay (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do need something to wake me up, thanks. El_C 10:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see we both started closing the ANI but started from opposite ends. I'm happy for you to leave my close or amend/replace it as you see fit. GoldenRing (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that. No, I'm happy with your closing statement — it reflects what I would have said. El_C 14:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Contributions/98.237.58.40. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/bows El_C 04:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your closing comment used the words "note with regret all the bad blood that the entire Jesswade88 saga has brought to the fore"; implying that (a) this was unfortunate, and (b) that it is somehow over. It isn't, at least I hope it isn't. I'm no fan of bad blood either, and love to avoid it where it's possible, but in some cases - like this one - it's worth it. Jesswade88 (talk · contribs) keeps writing an article about a female academic a day, and I, for one, am quite glad of it, and hope very much she continues, and damn the torpedoes. I'm tempted to write "nevertheless, she persisted", but I gather neither of you are from my area of the planet, so wouldn't know what that means... unless I can wiki-link it... --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do remember the circumstances surrounding Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearings (and please, don't even ask me about William Barr), but she (Jesswade88, that is) seem undaunted — that's my impression, at least, as she is continuing with her admirable project. That she suffers minimal disruption in the course of this is a priority for many now, including your truly. I'm not sure whether it's over —I suspect that it is— but I certainly did not intend to imply so in my closing statement, which was terse for a reason. But as is the case with Wikipedia, as is the case with the human condition, I feel that much of the bad blood was unnecessary. Which is not a value judgment as to whether it was worth it. I agree that it was. But my closing statement did not comment on that one way or another, again, for a reason. I, however do think that we could have gotten the same resolution without much of it. So that's what regrettable and that's the ideal to strive toward. El_C 15:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to request a range block that covers user:67.226.221.120 and user:67.226.221.183 because they both seem to be trying to vandalize according to the filter log. CLCStudent (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I've never range-blocked before and don't know what it entails. El_C 16:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think user:67.226.221.0/24 is the applicable range according to the range calculator. CLCStudent (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but what do I do with that? El_C 16:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It actually looks like they stopped for now. I'll find a different admin if they resume. CLCStudent (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just don't really understand WP:RANGE, but I never really needed to. El_C 16:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. CLCStudent (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:174.0.125.92 is making threats of violence. CLCStudent (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll redact. Did you contact WP:EMERGENCY yet? El_C 20:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No because the chances of it being real just aren't enough to warrant that. CLCStudent (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that, but they do seem unstable and I'm not sure we can make that determination. El_C 20:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have done so. El_C 20:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminum is a chemical element. Except for some elements only known to be created in a nuclear reactor, elements are not inventions, they are left over from the big bang that created the universe and were mostly "invented" in stars.

The concrete page says it was invented in the Syria area, also known as the middle east, not a western civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimm82 (talk • contribs)

No need to write an entire sentence in the header. Also, please sign your username using four tiles (~~~~). You are conflating a few things. First, your addition is the new one, so the onus is actually on you to gain the consensus for it on the article talk page. Second, with regards to Mesopotamia the article was speaking aout the origin of Western culture. You are welcome to present historiograpical evidence that this is not the case, but please don't conflate it with Western culture proper. Thirdly, in regards to concrete and aluminum, you have a point and I am willing to concede on that front. But the place to discuss all of this is on the article talk page. I am open to compromise, but you have to work with me. El_C 01:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally content was removed, was editing from mobile. Shocked to see +29000 bytes were removed. I was adding a ref to a section. Thanks for quick restore.--Vin09 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Happy editing! El_C 17:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you added the Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement template to Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. I understand that the Jeremy Corbyn article should also be ARBPIA extended confirmed given it's content even though this has recently been reduced after this RfC. RevertBob (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't. We don't add articles to ECP if we don't have to. The goal of Wikipedia is to have as little protection as possible. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the editing history of either article, but in the case of the former, another admin has already ARBPIA extended confirmed it (2018). El_C 03:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, I hope you don't mind me raising this issue here but I want to query something. For the last week or so there has been some very low level disruption at List of world number one snooker players, where an IP editors corrupts a table and immediately reverts. This occurs once per day and the edit is always the same. At first it looks like a test edit, but that is clearly not the case given the repetitive nature of the edit. It's not quite vandalism either because the edit is immediately reverted by the same editor.

I requested temporary page protection but you decline the request on the basis that there wasn't enough recent disruption. I am not challenging your decision because I do understand how you came to that conclusion. The disruption was only minor and was reverted almost immediately.

However, I am increasingly puzzled by the nature of these edits. They don't really cause a problem to the article because they are reverted immediately and only occur once a day, but am I alone in finding the behavior problematic? What I really want to know I suppose is your rationale for what constitutes "not enough disruption". Does the disruption have to occur more frequently, or be more permament in its nature to be considered a problem? Or if this had had been going on for a month would you have semi-protected the article then?

Should I just ignore this or should I come back to you in a week or so if it continues? I am just trying to get a handle on the best way to deal with it. Best regards. Betty Logan (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should question me because on closer look, I was wrong. Corrected (semi for one month) with apologies. El_C 04:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C. I noticed that, following my report, you removed Merelli's in-text attribution, which should be included according to the rules:

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.

Why did you remove the in-text attribution? Or was this a mistake? 160.39.234.40 (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If. I reverted to the other version because the RfC clearly determined that the statement is authoritative. Also, the author is not an editor in that context — which you seem to deny saying, for some inexplicable reason, even though your version clearly states: "According to Quartz editor Annalisa Merelli." And please don't use terms like "lie" as it implies bad faith. Use "false," instead. Sorry, but as mentioned, it seems increasingly tendentious to me, which isn't good. El_C 16:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the author is not an editor in that context — which you seem to deny saying, for some inexplicable reason, even though your version clearly states: "According to Quartz editor Annalisa Merelli." I made a mistake. If you read the diff you linked to, you'll see I didn't deny calling Merelli an editor, but merely asked where I had done so, in case I made a mistake (and I did). You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

the RfC clearly determined that the statement is authoritative Where did it "determine" that? The basic fact of the matter is that Merelli is not a specialist or recognized expert on Evola. This doesn't mean her views shouldn't be incorporated in the article, but merely that they should be attributed to her in-text. Why do you find this so objectionable?

160.39.235.225 (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it objectionable, in fact, I have no strong opinion about whether there should be in-text attribution, but I did find your mistake problematic. El_C 23:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the reason Sderot was unprotected was because of the deletion/restoration as a history merge by another admin. When you delete and restore a page, it loses protection. It was presumably a simple oversight to forget to restore the protection. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. That makes sense. El_C 17:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to explain it because I saw your post on the log. The same thing happened to me recently where I was cleaning up an article and the protection was lost. Enigma^msg 15:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the page for United stars currency and added a common name for the $100 bill minted after 2013, blue-face. It’s called by that name because of the blue security strip that goes down the front of the bill. I saw that you reverted my change, so I made an account to see if there’s a way we could still incorporate that name in to the page. Vexanxd (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it seemed like original research. Do you have a reliable source you can provide? El_C 19:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I thought it was more common than it really is. I’ll work on getting some sources and get back to you. Vexanxd (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks. El_C 19:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a good amount of research I’ve concluded that it must be a local slang term where I live. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia legitimate :) Vexanxd (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fer sure. Thanks for looking into it. El_C 19:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop undoing my edits to Cold War II. An infobox is needed for this article. Nothing controversial or disputed is included in the infobox therefore it's NOT vandalism. 207.233.45.12 (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was vandalism — I said it was original research. El_C 19:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your close of the SNC-Lavalin Affair at ANI. Granted, the discussion as a whole was about due, but the proposal that might have resolved the matter was open only three days, and still active. Please consider reopening that section for at least another 48 hours, as there is a chance of resolution. Otherwise there is no resolution, just reinforcement of a widely shared sense that WP is unable to deal with disruptive behavior. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objection noted, but it was not premature. No, we're taking a break from this on ANI. You've tried to resolve it for a month there, with no success, that's long enough. Adding more subsections to it did not prove helpful. For that subsection, three days is long enough to see whether outside users are interested in voicing their opinion on the proposed resolution. I don't see another 48 hours making a difference in this regard. Sorry. El_C 21:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Jerzy has deleted your comment at ANI (and changed some of my stuff, but it's fine). Isa (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a pattern. It doesn't seem like our concerns are sinking in, however. El_C 09:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's troubling, but I decided to ec-protect the page, instead. El_C 16:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Hope it was long term. The issues re BLP and notability are too complicated for noobs anyway. John from Idegon (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to remove Len Small from the article since I have given a source saying he was acquitted and not convicted of any crime. So why has it been reverted and the page locked. John says I need consensus, but since I am literally showing you that he never went to jail, why is consensus needed? HeggyTy (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because consensus is how Wikipedia works — and there does not appear to be consensus to exclude those pardoned. I suggest you try to gather this consensus on the article talk page. El_C 17:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, thank you for your statements on my behalf at the WP:AN#Continuous disruptive editing/sockpuppeting by users Bilcat and Trekphiler. Unfortunately, now that Andy Dingley is involved in the discussions, there is no way that I can participate. (He and I have a long "history", and it isn't a pleasant one.) I have been discussing the IPs edits with another admin, but unfortunately he appears to be offline, and may be so for several days. If you're open to it, I can email you with more information on the IP if you're interested. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. But I don't know when I'll get a chance to respond. El_C 17:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like this dynamic IP was probably User talk:DbivansMCMLXXXVI. See User talk:2600:100A:B01C:2427:186F:B1D0:2426:6261. I have interacted witj the user before, and from looking at the contributions, there are definitely similarities in article interest and editing style. I've dropped a note about it the AN discussion on the blocking admins page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few questions:
1) Since I am trying to get outside opinions on a talk page discussion on Talk:Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991 per WP:Consensus, how many people do I need to invite to join the discussion?
2) I'm still not sure how a consensus is reached. Do we just do a vote among the editors after discussing? DemPon (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a set number of people necessary to arrive at consensus, but at the very least, a third opinion would be helpful. No, consensus is not reached with a vote but rather through discussion where participants try to persuade one another and often compromise. El_C 23:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can also hold a Request for comment, where editors can note their preferences (again, not a vote). There's also other avenues of dispute resolution. El_C 23:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you note he is editing war by himself with IP and account,as he always do before.And he never change his sin,keep using several IP accounts as his sock,Just like 67.188.179.66.--115.82.9.114 (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not note that. Do you have any evidence that someone reliable on the English Wikipedia could verify? El_C 17:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Bbb23#Submit_some_information_about_socks. --61.224.12.136 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to fill my talk page with text. I see you are also editing as 175.96.65.160. What is going here? Briefly. El_C 23:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remind you that there is a madman who likes to fight with yourself. And it is not clear whether this madman is splitting with a bunch of accounts and IP to fight against himself. In addition, he has edited records on many wiki projects, among multiple socks.I don’t know how many socks he has because he has been acting and using proxy IP.We can only catch him from the point he insisted on or the evidence he deliberately left.--61.224.12.136 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to start a new section every time. This conversation is still happening. You didn't respond to my question. Another question: are you an admin in another-language Wikipedia? Why do you not register an account here instead of using multiple IPs? You're just making things needlessly complicated. El_C 23:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That guy is the most complicated, using multiple accounts and IP in multiple wiki projects.I don't want to answer who I am, but I can be classified as someone who hates China's use of various means to control the media.(include wiki).Just because he is complicated and difficult to handle, I don’t want to use a formal way to execute him.But if you feel that letting him go through all kinds of wiki projects is reassuring, you can let him go.--61.224.12.136 (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not giving me enough to work with. I assume good faith until I have a reason not to. El_C 23:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1.43.153.248. Remember this IP first.I will find out because he is acting on the Vietnamese wiki and English wiki. I think you are confused why I will leave a message on your page. Nothing, but I think he is very funny and fights with himself. I am afraid that you think there are two people over there, so I specifically tell you that there is only one person there, and that he is talking to himself. Especially after he took some time to talk to you about page protection.

I actually only want to leave a message to Bbb23, plus someone has already talked about this, so I copy the message in Bbb23 to you. This is the beginning and the end of this talk. Everything I have here is just a continuation of the message to Bbb23.Because I found that I was wasting your time, so I paused or ended here.My talk with you was only based on what I thought was funny, you were involved in his own fight with himself.

• PS:If you are really interested in this topic, I suggest you visit a different wiki project and look for the target from the editing history of all his socks.This actually takes a lot of time, so it may be faster to visit him directly by his globally locked accounts.--61.224.12.136 (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you link to these, instead? El_C 01:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If you think the information on Bbb23's talk page is not enough, I can try. As I said, it takes time, a lot of time. He used to report his socks to prove that he is not a sock. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/UserDe .
• The most common commonality is the abuse of sandboxes, and the content is basically copied. The most classic is that he himself reports himself. Other common points like edited content will be repeated over and over again.

I think that except for he himself reports himself, those statements I have talked about on the talk page of Bbb23.

• Other globally locked accounts.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Bfr(566)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Brewstang
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Chuamp
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Dali0Lama (Note:He can use chinese.)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/FemiMazi
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Gomenasa
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Iserfs
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/MaxPprem2 (It can be noted that the account name is very similar to the account he reported, in fact, the editing content is also consistent.)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Pipcai
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Sennti
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Widgetsz89 [

--61.224.12.136 (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Let's see what the CU investigation turns up, then. El_C 01:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, the Split discussion which opened on April 30 and tag placed on article page Burning Sun scandal may be ready for a consensus. Do you mind looking at it, I am an involved editor and think I am not supposed to close? (looks like Meloras, Tibbydibby and myself oppose and NowIsntItTime (unclear). Thank you.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it's pretty obvious there's no consensus to split at this time. I'll remove the tag with a note. El_C 02:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Ramayana is real history of India DR. AMIT KUMAR SAXENA (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to create a section like any other region of the world has. But that addition does not belong on the lead. El_C 17:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMIT KUMAR SAXENA (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but your addition is subpar. I had to fix a lot of grammar issues that should have been proofread. It also is far too brief, making terse legal claims and then simply moving on to mythology. All in two sentences. That's just not up to par with the other existing sections. El_C 14:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello El C

The statement regarding the government of Iran has been on the article for quite some time (a year if not several), now it's suddenly flooding with people randomly removing it (the one being a random user with like 10 edits, 30% of them being reverts) and not even bothering to write a message on the talk page. How does that work exactly? Imho it should be restored back to status quo, since no consensus has been reached. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Maybe launch a Request for comment for some more outside input, where you can make that very argument. El_C 16:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So basically I have to clean up for others who just remove sourced stuff (disruptive editing) and don't even disuss about it? And their disruptive revision ends up staying? I'm good. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia rules but I do know as long there has been no consensus the original revision should stay. Someone can't just spam the revert button to have their way. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disruptive editing, it's a content dispute. And I'm not allowed to pick sides in it, even when I want to. Yes, the status quo ante may likely weather this in the end, but the version that ends up being protected during a content dispute's edit war is ultimately random. El_C 17:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed something regarding the answer to your question: "the article under contention, who started editing it first?". Can I discuss this with you here? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. But easy on the TLDR, please. El_C 02:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only have a moment so I will have to keep it short anyway. User:SashiRolls edited the article under contention after a discussion relating to the Séralini affair at Talk:Glyphosate with User:Kingofaces43 and User:Tryptofish. It wasn't as though Tryptofish randomly followed SashiRolls to WP:Séralini affair, if that was the implication. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the implication. I was just trying to find out who gets to edit the article under the IBAN. It turns out it is Tryptofish who does. El_C 03:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just responding to the ping after just seeing the AE, but the sanction on Tryptofish came as a huge surprise. El C, could you specify why you went two-way?

My main concern is there wasn't really evidence presented of Tryptofish being a problem to indicate they needed a ban. Even Sashirolls last unblock appeal was heavy with declines due to WP:NOTTHEM problems (see Ivanvector's comment) also seen at this AE. A one-way would have accomplished the same thing with fewer complications, especially if you mainly intended for Sashirolls to avoid where Tryptofish edits. I completely understand wanting to get something done even if it was a no-fault two-way for Tryptofish, but I'm also wary of cases where people get hounded by an editor and swept up in sanctions too.

Your clarification above helped with some concerns, but I'm also trying to make sure this doesn't cause confusion down the line. I'm not planning to add more TLDR on your page beyond this. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying the have those two stay away from one another, and this is the simplest way I could think of, based on evidence from both of them that lacked both clarity and cohesion. But I have to admit that SashiRolls' battleground response to me just a few minute ago, does not inspire confidence. I said that much to them just before they blanked their talk page. I found their veiled threats particularly troublesome. Indeed, maybe it ought to have been one-way. El_C 04:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their response is not unexpected based on what I just linked to (the GMO topic gets messy when editors like that pop in). All I'll say is do at least mull over changing it to one-way, but it's probably better to let Tryptofish talk to you at this point on that, so I'll stop pestering. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first one to break it will settle the question. – Levivich 04:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Sorry for the double-post, El C, but in trying to be brief I poorly-worded my earlier comment. This isn't about pitting two editors against each other, it's about finding a way for them both to keep contributing to the encyclopedia without either one of them feeling bothered by the other. I think this temporary "time out" will help, and hopefully it can be appealed and dropped after sufficient time. By the way, if the editor interaction analyzer doesn't work for you, you should be aware that this is the full list of articles the two of them have ever both edited: Jill Stein (Sashi first), Séralini affair (Tryp first), Glyphosate (T), Roundup (herbicide) (T), Monsanto legal cases (T), Pizzagate conspiracy theory (S), Criticism of Wikipedia (S). So it's 4-3 in Tryp's favor, and it's only 7 articles anyway. And they've been editing for years. This does not strike me as a huge burden. – Levivich 05:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Levivich, for the much needed clarity and perspective. El_C 05:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're just trying to end conflict between two editors, but my concern is that SashiRolls' conduct has yet again not been evaluated. You stated: "This report has become too lengthy. It's difficult to tell what's going on anymore. I'm not sure other admins would feel motivated to look into this.". This is exactly what happened at the AN/I report I had referenced. Unlike the conflicts between SashiRolls and Tryptofish, and SashiRolls and Snooganssnoogans, which seem to stretch back years, my conflict with SashiRolls was isolated and brief, and I have provided evidence of SashiRolls' battleground behavior that I feel has both clarity and cohesion. If you (understandably) did not take a look, I showed that SashiRolls falsely accused Snooganssnoogans of stalking him, and then attacked me for showing that truth. SashiRolls' pattern of filling reports with convoluted webs of false accusations (accompanied by editors' obligatory defenses) has effectively shielded SashiRolls from scrutiny. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be so. But at the time of making my evaluation, both users presented evidence that was neither cogent, cohesive, coherent, nor crucially, condensed. I don't view an IBAN in the context of user-specific DS as some sort of badge of shame, but merely as a tool at conflict resolution. Something had to be done and someone had to do it. Certainly, I would advise SashiRolls to tread lightly in the future, especially in light of the exchange we had yesterday and the aforementioned veiled threats contained therein — which I was unimpressed by, to say the least. El_C 16:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that what you did was a good resolution of their conflict, but I think you should expect that SashiRolls will not tread lightly in the future. This is what every administrator before you has repeatedly advised him, but from what I have seen, SashiRolls will continue to threaten or attack anyone and everyone who crosses his path, as he just did to you, and as he just did to me one month ago. When he was unblocked in November 2018 there [was] considerable skepticism of unblocking, even among some of the supporters, but I have not seen a lot of critical eyes looking at their post-unblock behavior. Instead, SashiRolls has continued to become Somebody else's problem, to quote User: Robert McClenon. Something still has to be done and someone has to do it. I am doing my part, but an administrator has to do theirs. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel like I did my part, and I stand by my decision based on the quality of the evidence presented. It's easy to criticize in a breath after the fact, but I find those sort of exclamations, ultimately, unhelpful. El_C 17:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to say that I support how you handled that particular conflict, but I want you to do more.  My personal experience with SashiRolls was never litigated so if you could make that happen I think that would be helpful. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry, I've sort of had enough of all of this, for now. But if future issues arise, please don't hesitate to drop me a line. El_C 18:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate for me to add my experience with SashiRolls to the current AE discussion? I've already made several failed attempts at getting this looked at, but American politics AE may actually be the right venue. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IBAN was a good idea: it will put a stop to the harassment that has been going on since 2016 at Jill Stein. The ABAN was not a good idea. For improving articles on Roundup, Glyphosate, the Séralini Affair I have been effectively banned from any page related to Monsanto, gardening, garden, flower pot, Japanese rock garden, Chinese room, religion, fruit, etc. Perhaps more crucially, I am effectively banned from writing about cyberbullying, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:Tag Team, WP:Disruptive Editing on wiki. It is not a threat to say that I may chose to write about these things (particularly tag teaming) and this affair in other venues. ~~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those absolutely were veiled threats, and they were out of line. I don't want to see you two editing the same articles, pure and simple. We already established that the reference is to substantive edits and that it does not apply to project pages, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with that line of argument. (See Levivic's comment for context.) El_C 17:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I have a small question by way of clarification. You stated in the decision: "an WP:ABAN on articles the other party has edited first." At WP:ABAN, it says: "The word "article" usually refers only to mainspace pages. If any other related pages (such as the page's talk page) are to be covered it will usually be stated explicitly." My understanding of your intent is that the sanction applies to the article talk pages of covered articles, in addition to the articles themselves, but you did not state that explicitly. Could you please clarify explicitly that article talk pages are also included? (If they are not, there will be a world of trouble.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I basically want you to stay away from, and neither comment at or about, each other. El_C 17:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. With that, I'm sure that I understand fully what you intend. As far as I'm concerned, everything is fine with me, no problems. I also want to say thank you to the editors who suggested a 1-way instead. I appreciate that, and I will say that it is more like what should be happening, but I actually do not care about the difference. El_C, thanks for your help. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. SashiRolls has blanked their talk page again. They have a right to do that, but it is never a good sign. Maybe I am more likely to avoid them than some editors are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For info, I've archived my talk page to the User Talk:SashiRolls/The Been. I've also recently helped someone trying to write about an Algerian mosque which you (correctly) rejected at AFC [here]. Feel free to comment on whether you think that page (without the images) is ready to go into mainspace now. Since there is celebration going on here I will remove this user:talk page from my watchlist so people will stop being tempted to revel. Back to work, everyone. Please leave El C alone. ~~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that is intended to be an accessible archive please add a permanent link to your talkpage. If you would like to discuss further please invite me to your talkpage. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the ping worked, but sometime when you have a chance please take a moment to reply to the request for clarification on my page. Best, ~~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that. El_C 03:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also copy my opposition to the unnameable user asking for having their half of the I-ban lifted. Based on the quality of the evidence produced, it should be one way in the opposite direction, but a two-way ban was proposed for lack of time to properly investigate the depth of the SWAPP suit statement.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls now says I will happily pitch in to compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and recurring actors to help the press get a handle on what is going on If that's not casting aspersions I don't know what is. They are implying that myself, Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 are paid shills of Monsanto and threatening to report us to journalists. This should not be acceptable when there is zero evidence whatsoever. SmartSE (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced conversation is WT:RFA#Why not recruit admins to fill underserved area?. – Levivich 00:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, even though I didn't expected the I-ban to keep things tamped down forever, I wasn't expecting something like that on the topic so quick again . El C, just as background, we had to pass a specific principle on aspersions at the GMO arbcom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions in part because of battleground behavior and shill gambits outlined in the principle. That threat of getting the press on this is is getting into that territory, fits more as a parallel with a WP:CHILLINGEFFECT that is never ok. That kind of stuff is why I asked for a topic ban originally.

I don't want to be the one pushing for more after just after they got sanctioned, but I agree with SmartSE this is going beyond normal griping after getting sanctioned and into very unacceptable territory. That's as much as I want to say on it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning left, but I was seriously considering just blocking. As mentioned, it's one thing to issue veiled threats to me ("time for the press to be alerted"; "being frank when interviewed"), it's another to do it to other users. That will no longer be tolerated. El_C 00:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and also to Levivich. Looking around more I see that this is not the first time, hopefully it will be the last. Belatedly adding the diff - apologies - it was getting late. SmartSE (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request that the part of the sanction that applies to me be lifted, thus changing it from a 2-way IBAN to a 1-way IBAN.

I think that I have amply demonstrated that I have been acting in a responsible and trustworthy manner, and I would prefer not to have the restriction hanging over my head any longer. I recognize, of course, that if hypothetically I were to abuse the situation, the sanction would be reinstated. I also have no intention of interacting with the other editor in any case. I do not want to cross paths with them, and I have zero interest in editing the articles that they edit, and it's just the right thing to do anyway.

I'm making a courtesy ping to Vanamonde93, as the other admin who was involved in the case. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand why the sanction was imposed as it was, I have no objections to reducing it to a one-way IBAN, and would have a preference for that outcome. I do not however have the time to investigate this further. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just chime in as the original AE filer that I mirror Vanamonde's thoughts. As discussed above, Tryptofish's sanction was essentially no-fault with no real evidence brought at the AE against them to require any warnings etc., so changes to the sanctions are mainly just making sure there won't be more disruption from Sashirolls at this point. I think the conversation after the initial sanction has shown that the relevant conflicts involving Sashirolls aren't so entangled that a two-way is needed even if "no-fault". Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2-way, no fault IBAN was placed on both users as a matter of expediency. Because no one had the time to investigate this request further — it was simply too lengthy and convoluted, spanning a considerable timeline. Vanamonde93, who I consider as informed about this as I am, if not more so, says they have no time to investigate this further. Well, neither do I. Sorry, I'm just stretched a bit thin right now to justify devoting any additional time to what is essentially a formality. A rather hollow formality, because it's a no fault sanction, anyway. I'll tell you what, though, if and/or when Vanamonde93 finds the time, they should feel more than free to implement a one-way IBAN and may do so without consulting me further in any way. El_C 15:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KofA, for the support. And a sincere thank you as well to El_C, because I know that everyone here is a volunteer and you have made a genuine effort to deal with this situation as best you can. I'll also ping Vanamonde93, to make sure you see what El_C just said. I actually do agree, and have agreed all along, that 2-way no-fault is no big deal as far as I'm concerned. But I also believe that it's a no-brainer to see that a 1-way would accomplish everything necessary that the 2-way does, and I don't have time is an inadequate explanation for putting a restriction on me or on anyone else. I'm not particularly bothered by the 2-way, but I also see no good reason why it should remain something that I have to have hanging over my head. I'm in no hurry, and I'll let this sit for a couple of days before deciding whether to take this to AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to wait. I have no time to investigate this further. Yes, feel free to bring this to AE — if it's, indeed, such a no-brainer, your request should be granted quickly. Again, I have no objection and do not need to be consulted in anyway. El_C 20:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (Posting here because it seems the AE hasn't been filed yet, and because what prompted me to post this was something El C posted here.) FWIW, speaking from extensive experience, "2-way, no fault IBAN"s are not actually a thing, even if some editors who have never actually been subject to them assume they are. (This is not meant as an insult to such editors -- TonyBallioni, one of my favourite Wikipedians, is one of them.) In the past seven years I have requested such IBANs on several occasions, and requested they be lifted when they were no longer serving their intended purpose, with my requests usually being granted. But in the past six months or so I have had about a half-dozen users suggest that the existence of such IBANs indicates that I am a problem user in and of itself, regardless of the fact that I only requested the bans to minimize drama, and several of said users have proposed (and been granted a sympathetic ear by the community!) that I be site-banned for having those IBANs (even going back and counting the bans that were lifted all the way back in 2013, claiming them to still be in effect). I fully sympathize with Tryptofish's "hanging over my head" point, and support lifting his ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• El_C, I know you said I didn't need to consult with you further, but I've just posted the AE appeal, and I'm required to notify you. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Poland - while being in the non-STABLE version or using a non academic sourcs published by an individual designated by the SPLC (at RSN, no consensus to use) may fall under WRONGVERSION (though frankly, user introducing such a source for Holocaust history should be banned) - a version with BLP violations should not be allowed to stand. The present version states - "Based on research into court records, Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes that the possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned. - this is a severe misrepresentation of Krzyżanowski - and beyond that, due to the modern politics involved, may be seen as extreme political stmt. This should be removed. See Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Krzyżanowski which shows Krzyżanowski actually wrote more or less the opposite in Polish. In a subsequent English paper citing his Polish work he wrote: "The persistent anti-Semitism in the immediate aftermath of the war, violent attacks and the fear that plagued Holocaust survivors in Kalisz and many other Polish cities often pushed the surviving Jews out of these locations, forcing them to settle in the larger Polish cities or to emigrate. Moreover, the new social, economic and political reality of post-war Poland did not facilitate the rebuilding of the lives of individual survivors. The aforementioned problems, together with the difficulties in recovering private homes and communal property – an issue that deserves a separate detailed study65 – resulted in the lack of the stability necessary for postwar resettlement...." (ref65 - his chapter in Klucze i kasa) - "These processes broke the survivors’ social networks and resulted in the disappearance of the Jewish community in post-war Kalisz and in many other Polish towns.. Krzyzanowski, Lukasz. "An Ordinary Polish Town: The Homecoming of Holocaust Survivors to Kalisz in the Immediate Aftermath of the War." European History Quarterly 48.1 (2018): 92-112. This is a young scholar, and being named next to such a stmt may impact his career. Respectfully - this should be removed.Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the context of "relatively large number of properties" — can you quote the entire passage which includes that quote? El_C 04:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The context is initial court decress, in two small towns, which granted a possession order - not ownership. The decree was theb usually sold to the invaders occupying the house who were not evicted. Quote of entire page (translated):

1. It is difficult to say whether the three examples of attempts at judicial retrieval of movable property belonging to Polish Jews can be considered typical or rather exceptions. Cases regarding movables are undoubtedly a rarity among the documentation of municipal courts in both Radom and Kalisz. The vast majority of preserved files concern buildings and squares. It seems likely that movable property of Polish Jews, otherwise less real estate, was recovered if at all) without the mediation of the state and courts, by direct communication between survivors and Poles who refused the thesis. The principle also seems to claim that the majority of items belonging to Jews, which were in Polish hands during the war, never left these hands and perhaps even to this day they are passed on to future generations as family keepsakes. A more detailed description of the fate of Jewish movable property in post-war Poland requires the use of other sources than court files. If you want to explore this topic, you should turn to personal documents and relationships.".
2. "It is impossible to determine the total number of cases of the private property being recovered by the Jews after the Second World War in in Radom and Kalisz. On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin8. In order to reclaim their own or their family's assets, the Jews had to fight against regulations limiting the rights of persons deprived of property and to overcome many other obstacles. Because of the poverty of the survivors, the mass emigration of most of them from Poland and Warsaw, with the complicated situation in which many Jewish properties found their way after 1945, most of the recovered properties were immediately resold to Poles. The rapid sale also depended members of criminal groups involved in the illegal takeover of Jewish real estate. The cases of restitution of estates declared by the state as "abandoned" did not change the general trend of Jewish ownership in non-Jewish hands, which may be considered the last stage of the expropriation process that began in the Polish territories during the German occupation and continued after the war. The transfer of ownership, initiated by the Germans and continued after the liberation, met the approval of many Poles who became the owners of Jewish property. This process was also in line with the post-war communist regime, which tended to create a homogeneous and mono-ethnic state82.

As for the modern day far right politics - [10].Icewhiz (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those far-right protests are, indeed, disturbing. As for your major query, based on the full quote, I'm not sure that I'm seeing any outstanding BLP issues that would necessitate editing the protected page. I realise that most of the recovered properties were immediately resold, and that this can, then, be seen to signify the last stage of the expropriation process. But weren't Poles themselves also subject to post-war communist expropriation of private property (under whose government ownership is supplanted by possession for Poles, too). Or are we speaking primarily about personal property in contradistinction to private property? Anyway, from what I'm able to deduce, it may be a novel interpretation of the material —I'm not familiar enough with said material to conclusively tell— but to argue that this goes on to damage the reputation of a young scholar... I'm just not sure that this is so. El_C 05:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krzyżanowski is a reputable scholar - reading our article one may conclude otherwise. Polish private property (as opposed to large businesses) was not nationalized (outside of Warsaw) - so no - this is totally different - private Jewish homes were invaded into (or, in some cases, transferred by the Nazi authorities) during the war, and "legally" taken over on the basis they were "abandoned". Inheritance laws were tightened so that distant relatives (limited to "direct line" - e.g. sons, not cousins - who were previously able to inherit) wouldn't be able to inherit (Poles - generally had surviving close relatives. Furthermore - the Polish state (as stated by Krzyżanowski in the next page - ""In this way, the Polish state became the beneficiary of the murder of millions of its Jewish citizens, who were deprived of all their property before death) took over properties the Nazis "nationalized" (or stole, the usual terminology). Beyond the out of context use of Krzyżanowski, he wrote (translated from Polish): "It is impossible to determine the total number of cases of the private property being recovered by the Jews after the Second World War in in Radom and Kalisz. On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin". Even if we were to use this out of context sentence, it is being misrepresented in several fashions:

1. It is limited to Radom and Kalisz only (particular courthouses, in two small-medium towns (less than 1% of Poland).
2. It is qualified "On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded" - a qualification that is important given the widespread fraud covered by the same author in the rest of his conclusion.
3. He says clearly "possession, not ownership" - in the technical discussion here (where the court gave an initial decree - which didn't actually transfer the property nor evict the tenants residing illegally within) - this is an immensely important distinction.

Out of context use, coupled with attribution of something he didn't even say in that sentence - yes - we are placing a reputation damaging statement in Krzyżanowski's mouth. Our misquotation may imply he belongs to a very small and a very extreme historical school of thought that is rejected by most reputable scholars inside Poland, and overwhelmingly repudiated by international academia. Krzyżanowski is currently in Free University of Berlin (postdoc[11]). Even if this were a "novel interpretation" of a BLP's research (stated in our voice - and attributed to him - "Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes" - we're stating this is his conclusion in our text, not merely citing this) - it would be a BLP issue to be removed. In this case - this is far beyond novel - to the point this is career damaging. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Krzyżanowski quote reads: "On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded that possession, not ownership, of a relatively large number of properties was restored to the Holocaust survivors who returned to their places of origin." While the article states "Krzyżanowski concludes that the possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned." Both passages refer to "possession" (though the original emphasizes "not ownership), and both passages refer to "large number of properties." In what way is there misrepresentation in this narrow sense? Granted there is a superfluous "the" before possession, but that seem like more a grammatical error than anything. El_C 07:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the following ways:

1. The statement is clearly qualified to Radom (213k pop today) and Kalisz (101k pop today) (present in previous sentence, this sentence is "in both cities") - and not to Poland as a whole (38,430k pop today) - the study is on two locations, less than 1% of the population of Poland - Krzyżanowski doesn't generalize this sentence - at best this sentence can be used for Radom and Kalisz.
2. Krzyżanowski qualifies his statement to "On the basis of court files from both cities, it can be concluded" - he does not draw the conclusion himself, but says that looking at the court records one can conclude - this distinction is important as (and this expanded at length elsewhere in the source, as well as in the continuation of the paragraph - "The rapid sale also depended members of criminal groups involved in the illegal takeover of Jewish real estate.") there was widespread fraud in these cases - what is written in the court record doesn't actually necessarily mean the claimant was actually the owner/heir (as opposed to someone presenting himself as such).
3. "returned" is incorrect (as evident in the chapter, and as Krzyżanowski is very careful in qualifying). The properties weren't actually returned (despite the possession order) - " possession, not ownership" in this case means a "court order for possession" (which is qualified with "On the basis of court files from both cities") - it did not evict the actual tenants who resided in the property (to whom there was generally a rapid resale).

Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate some of these distinctions, like that "returned" is not (legally) "restored," and so on, but all I really care about is whether there is a reputation-harming BLP violation, which my evaluation still concludes against. Some leeway is allowed when it comes to historiographical interpretation. But I might well be wrong about drawing this conclusion in this case, so feel free to take to BLPN. I'd happily conform to any consensus reached there. El_C 16:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is beyond the pale (I'm afraid you don't realize just where we're placing Krzyżanowski politically with this very out of context and misrepresented attribution - if the darned sentence didn't have "Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes" it wouldn't be as bad (as no one reads citations, and WP:OR/misquotes of citations do occur) - but with Krzyżanowski's name in our text - this quite bad). I won't be taking this to BLP/n (if I were to take it anywhere - it would be AE - BLP/n will be a mess of involved editors and go no where) - as if you don't see the problem - I suspect there won't be a consensus this a red-line BLP vio (even though it is - at least for anyone who is aware of the nuances involved here). If you would consider just removing (struck in quote) the attribution - "Based on research into court records, Łukasz Krzyżanowski [pl] concludes that the possession of "a relatively large number of properties" was returned. - I would be much obliged as this would resolve the BLP issue vs. Krzyżanowski who really may be harmed here. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see the problem (getting some outside input at BLPN). And I don't think this would be looked at favourably at AE. But neither do I see any pressing harm in removing the author's name from that passage, so  Done on that front. El_C 16:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As for BLP/n - look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? - outside editors are keeping out of the topic area, unfortunately. Mainly involved voices.Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The currently protected version does NOT have "BLP vio"s in it. Icewhiz is disingenuously pretending that because his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the source is not reflected in current text then that's a BLP vio against the author of the source. That's absurd and WP:TEND.

The current version is just as stable (or not-stable) as Icewhiz's version. Most of this material in either version is of pretty recent vintage. Icewhiz just likes to pretend that whatever version he prefers is *always* the "stable" one. This is of course also absurd.

The reason why outside editors are keeping out of the topic area, as indicated by Ealdgyth, the only actual "outside" editor in the RSN discussion, is because of people who refuse to compromise and who spam these discussions with walls of unreadable text. People like Icewhiz. It's absurd for him to try and pretend that the problem stems from somewhere else when it's exactly him that *is* the problem. On this topic area and others too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the name just to be on the safe side (even though I felt it to have been mostly unnecessary, but didn't see the harm in doing so, either), but I did keep the passage — it's just in Wiki voice now. Sorry, I don't have any immediate plans on getting further involved in this beyond having issued the protection to stop the edit war. Mostly, because it involves parsing the historiographical consensus from a lot of material that I am scarcely familiar with. El_C 19:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking Special:Contributions/66.199.206.130. You're so fast! I was about to contact you about blocking them! :) - BilCat (talk)

I'm good! El_C 18:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scary good, LOL. - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Glenn Gilbertti Returns to Impact Wrestling 17 may 2019 Jocer Blandino (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to attribute that to a reliable source. El_C 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the children-in-law and grandchildren from the Duggar family section? AC12AC (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons outlined here. El_C 04:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darryl Kerrigan: This might be a better place to talk about the RfC than the Arbcom case page, I think they frown on that. Also, WP:NHC but I counted 11-54 so I dunno what's going on there... the last yes vote wasn't bolded though (edit: And Curly voted twice). El_C, would your close include any prejudice against having a new RfC depending on the outcome of the Arbcom case? Since it was close, it's conceivable that might have an impact. Safrolic (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I miscounted just now, but I don't see how that matters all that much. RfC is not a vote and I used my discretion to weight the arguments rather than merely tally the preferences. I don't see what the RfC closure has to do with the Arbitration case nor do I feel that what the Committee decides has any bearing on this particular RfC. El_C 04:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the RfC closure doesn't have anything to do with the Arbitration case, and that's not what I mean. But as I understand it, the case is about resolving an underlying intractable conduct issue. I think it's very plausible that conduct issue could have affected the RfC itself. The resolution of that issue might cause one or multiple of the most passionate editors on either side to not take part in a future discussion. Also, I want to point out that you just defended your closure finding no consensus in a 9-5 vote due to the argument strength, stressing that it was close, and two editors changing their !votes to no had an affect on the outcome. But we just counted again and saw that it was 11-4, over 70% support, and one of the editors who 'changed their vote' (the one you double-counted), is the editor whose actions removing "LavScam" from the lead caused the RfC in the first place. I know closing isn't about counting heads, it's about argument strength,... but arguments are supposed to be pretty dang strong to go against a vote spread that large, I thought. I'm not asking you to undo your close here- that would cause more problems than it'd solve, with the open case. Asking instead that if the committee finds that there is a conduct issue meriting sanctions or editor restrictions, which would have impacted the RfC had they been in place before, it would be alright to re-run it. Safrolic (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. It depends on what the Committee decides, but I seriously doubt it. I, however, reiterate that I do stand by my no consensus closure. I evaluated the arguments and closely weighed each preference (that I had to quickly re-count these now, and may have miscounted, is not relevant to anything). Certainly, feel free to bring it back up once the case concludes. I'm not going to tell you not to do that. But I don't want to give you false hope, either. El_C 05:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the close, but you have already ready why. The numbers are not determinative, but they are not irrelevant either. The arguments about prevalence convinced one, and not many others. The initial concerns about weight were not able to be addressed as alternate terms were not forthcoming. Some editors conduct there (not yours) may need to be the subject of arbitration, which is why I raised it. But I take your note that it is not the proper forum. I shall strike it through, as removing it now may not be appropriate (unless I later hear otherwise).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to necessarily strike it, but I think we've exhausted that venue for that purpose. Anyway, as mentioned, this was part of a whole series of RfC closures I did at ANRFC. It was not the only unpopular closure result, but out of the ten or so RfCs, it was by far the closest. It really hung by a thread. But a decision had to be made, and I made it. And for better or worse the matter is now closed. That's just how Wikipedia works. It's not perfect, but it's better than the (pure vote) alternative. El_C 04:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed some politically charged RfCs myself and done so against a strict vote count so I am no stranger to the concept. I was prepared to close that RfC and would have done so in the opposite way. I ultimately decided not to because I am friendly with the person who opened the RfC. However, I have a very hard time seeing so much policy weight in the 4 nos to outweigh the arguments the 11 were making. Could you explain better how policy would outweigh the sort of comments made by editors such as Britishfinance, SWL36, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic who made at least as policy based !vote as any of the four editors who suggested the answer was no. I wasn't originally going to say anything but since it's already been brought up, I would like to better understand your thinking in light of WP:NHC If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, it was those arguments advanced in the Note for closer section, wherein the application of due weight into the rather fractional nature of usage did not see counter-arguments with as much substance as to its prevalence in reliable sources. El_C 04:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, thanks for your reply. I want to think further before responding (or deciding to even respond in a substantive way). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC made no mention of whether the term "LavScam" could be mentioned in the article – it was just about the opening sentence. Rather than trying to overturn this RfC to make it seem like there is consensus to put it bolded in the first line (which there clearly is not), could we work together to find a way to include this and other terms used by the media into the body of the article in a more neutral way? Many of the participants in the RfC made good points, and I'd certainly be open to further discussion. – bradv🍁 05:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the different names given by the media should be discussed in the body of the article first, and said so in my vote originally. This is the second time I've linked that vote to dispute someone else's contention that its sentiment did not exist. I'm not sure that it's clear there's not consensus, even the closer said it was close- but I do think that the same conduct issues which affected the RfC will also make revisiting or rearguing about it during the arbitration a distracting waste of time. I'd like for everyone to see an interest in letting it be for now. Safrolic (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I brought that up more than once. Nobody bit. Priorities appear to be elsewhere. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Please figure out whether there is consensus for that usage (or variations therein) before adding it to multiple articles, Novel compound. While discussion is ongoing, the convention is for the status quo ante to remain in place."

Ohmigosh, El_C; Nice4What has been pushing a non-neutral POV by repeatedly deleting the neutral word "survivor" from 3 articles. In two of the three articles, presence of the word "survivor" was the status quo – it was not added by me – and Nice4What has the gall to claim that my restoration of the status quo constitutes edit warring. Speaking of ongoing discussion, 188.176.129.120 posted a comment that was supportive of removing the neutral phrase "abortion survivor" at 21:48, and Nice4What declared that a "consensus" had been reached only two minutes later. Novel compound (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As said on the talk page (surprised that I have to repeat this), but that was because the other two editors involved in the dispute had agreed too. As you can read in the IP's initial post, they noted I had started a talk page discussion while they were about to do the same. Nice4What (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with the discussion (where?) to tell whether consensus has been reached yet. El_C 12:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Oshwah, which was originally an April Fools joke, is now running amok and threatening to become a social media page. Or am I just an anal middle-ager trying to deny teenagers some good clean fun? I'm tempted to AFD it, or at least ask for full protection, but I'm trying to decide if I'd be peeing in the wind first. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so! Sorry, but it just seems to me like some harmless fun (indeed, among some of our younger editors). I would be inclined against taking any action at this time. El_C 12:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the honest response. I'll leave them be. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting article with an edit summary saying "(not appropriate to add names of victims)" caught my eye. I'm not contesting this here, but I'm not aware of any WP policy or guideline regarding this appropriateness concern; perhaps I've missed that because this is an area of concern which I've not previously run up against. I ask because the edit brought the contrast with Maguindanao massacre#Victims to mind. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:VL. The general trend seems to be against listing victims of mass casualty events. I also think that WP:BLP (and all of its weight) should be invoked to guard non-notable victims' privacy (and more crucially, that of their families), even when sources exist to that effect. I'm not sure if that's considered a novel application of BLP, but WP:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown ("exercise restraint"), WP:BLP#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event ("individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources"), and WP:BLP#Privacy_of_names ("when the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated") leads me to believe that it isn't. El_C 12:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll bring it up on the talk page of that other article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe that someone named Ahmedo Semsurî who is a Kurd and always try to make the Yazidis to Kurds or Christans, acts in a good faith? I know that you are not familiar with this material but „Kurds typically claim Yazidis as ethnic Kurds“.[12] and for many Yazidis it is an insult to be called Kurdish. Many Yazidis get angry when someone called them Kurdish. It looks very much like vandalism and an attempt to explain the Yazidis as ethnic Kurds and to provoke the Yazidis. Now he has also added a source claiming that the Armenian Apostolic Church is a Yazidi religion. As an administrator you need to know if someone has good intentions or not. This is really frustrating but Wikipedia does not reflect the world. Nevertheless, one should try to present articles as possible as they correspond in reality instead of looking for sources to show the articles in a different light.46.188.123.197 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am not a mind reader and, again, am not familiar enough with the pertinent history and historiography to want to be drawn further into this content dispute. I already suggested for you to make use of such resources as the Reliable sources noticeboard and the Neutral point of view noticeboard, and I stand by that recommendation. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with all of this innuendo and aspersions of bad faith. Also, please consider registering a username. All these multiple IPs are making this needlessly complicated and confusing. El_C 23:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, did you mean to UNprotect editing at Iran? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protection automatically expired today. El_C 11:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the protection as it offers participants (including me) the occasion to cool down - while the dispute continues in talk pages. But it may be a little extreme as the reverts were only for the WP:EL section, not the rest of the article, and the subject is evolving rapidly, so it is lacking new developments. Thanks.ping me if you reply, I don't follow your talk page--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lacoste, doesn't matter what the edit war is about, what matters is that it takes place. If you need to add to the article, you may do so via edit requests. El_C 17:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to remove all page protection? The IPs have begun deleting sources and sourced content, and another 48-hour PP may help keep it stable as the traffic peaks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's on the Main page now, so it's best to keep it open for as long as humanly possible. El_C 22:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if it gets truly untenable, please let me (or RfPP) know. El_C 22:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You posted on a bunch of talk pages in the past two days that you are placing them under 1RR (much needed at least for some of them!), however you did not log the restriction of any of them in Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019. And I didn't check all of them, but Rafał Pankowski‎ for instance doesn't have an edit notice nor a talk page banner. If left in this manner - it's probably unenforceable (though an ambiguous state of AE-rules I guess). Could you follow through here ? Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 13:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! However you also need to update the Talk page banner - e.g. see Talk:Jeremy Corbyn which has a page level sanction - it has a "Ds/talk notice|blp|long|restriction=1RR" on top. Or Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland (which has a bunch of restrictions) - which has them all listed in a tmbox on top.Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not gonna do that. That's overkill. El_C 13:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not asking for those restrictions - they are an overkill. But the talk page banner is required IIRC.14:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the case. Talk page template should be enough. El_C 14:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several IPs and accounts which engage in vandalism by indiscriminately adding "Ezidkhan settlement" stuff to articles. Please take a look and take action if needed. I'm asking you since you've recently protected similar articles. wumbolo ^^^ 13:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather protect the remaining articles than start blocking a bunch of never-ending random IPs. Feel free to list those here. El_C 13:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the need to protect the heartbeat bill page from vandals, but it isn't being updated regularly by extended confirmed users, and it is an actively shifting page. The information is almost 2 days out of date, and no one with access to edit has viewed it recently. Wouldn't it make sense to reduce the protection to semi and monitor heavily? That way, thise of us who don't quite meet extended requirements can still help update it. Darkwolf0218 (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not a sufficient reason to reduce protection, in light of the level of disruption suffered by the article. Non extended confirmed users are welcome to propose changes to the article via edit requests. El_C 04:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was odd, hard to see it as a coincidence. I revert and someone with a couple of edits comes in to revert me? Also, the person I reverted to a dab page and turned it into an article.[13] Interesting guy this blogger. [14] "Some provocateurs now argue that disallowing exceptions is not just an uncomfortable outgrowth of a strict moral position, but an act with affirmative benefits. “Rapists love abortion because it helps them cover up their crime,” Matt Walsh wrote in a column arguing against exceptions this week. “If [a] hypothetical 15-year-old victim does have her baby, the rapist father could be conclusively proven guilty with a DNA test. But if the incestuous abuser can enlist Planned Parenthood to destroy the evidence for him, he will walk away scot-free and continue molesting his daughter for years to come.” Wow, just wow. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Indeed, I was surprised to see that the 2019 AEL section was blank before I added to it this week. Despite the existence of WP:ARBAB, it seems as if the abortion sets of articles have become a sort of free-for-all and I'll have none of it. El_C 19:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't WP:Tag Team supposed to be against the rules? Calthinus is appealing to his friends to enter the article and back him up.[15]76.168.122.183 (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for other experienced editors to examine a dispute is not against the rules. Sorry, but this has become too disruptive, so I have semiprotected to page for three months. Feel free to continue the conversation on the article talk page and try to gain consensus there. But please watch for violations to our living persons policy — I can't stress that enough. El_C 20:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put words in my mouth. You allege that I described a living person when in fact I described an article in a shady newspaper.76.168.122.183 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fair enough. It's still rather inflammatory, but it does appear I have misread. El_C 21:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This IP and Ymladdwr was probably User:Jacob Peters. My very best wishes (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C I asked for permanant protection though because too much vandalism and edit warring Prince Narula — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.229.148 (talk • contribs)

We'll cross that bridge in November. El_C 21:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I warned the IP user they were being disruptive. Even though they made a couple of correct changes that I could double-check, most of the other changes removed truthful information from the article about participants - one example is that they removed the genre of "Danger" from a magic act that involved extremely dangerous magical tricks, which boggled my mind. Anyway, thanks again! GUtt01 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. They are free to return to the mainspace in a week, hopefully, this time with explanations to their edits. Until then, the article talk page will do. El_C 22:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP user has an established user on Wikipedia. A short moment ago, I saw the same exact edits being done by Joshua7900, in the exact same manner as the IP user, with no explanation. I don't know what they are doing, but I have sent them a warning to not conduct any disruptive editing on the page; that was why the Semi-Protection was put on the article in the first place. GUtt01 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I up'd the protection to extended confirmed. El_C 22:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there appears to be resolution on the talk page. Please consider removing the protection on the article. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 23:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the protection, any chance I could make a wrong version argument? The material was discussed on the talk page several times and now he has started a RFC on the subject after his last two discussions found consensus for inclusion. Shouldn't the material remain in the article until the RFC is complete since the RFC is about removing the material? PackMecEng (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the RfC is about whether the material should be retained (consensus for inclusion). Whether it is retained right now has no bearing on that question. Whether the material should be removed (consensus for removal) is the same question in reverse. But no consensus would, in this case, see the passage retained. Dialectical loopyness, eh? Smart to phrase the RfC question in the affirmative and lucky to have the negated version up. Bad RNG, PackMecEng. *** As for contested material already having consensus, I'm not sure that is clear in this instance. The argument Pharos makes, for example, seems substantive and compelling. Just so you know, I recently closed an RfC (discussion) that was 11/4 as no consensus. That was really close, mind you, but I'm just saying: I'm not one to be impressed by the raw numbers. I care about the strength of the arguments and agreements. Anyway, I digress. So, yeah, let's see how the RfC is closed and go from there. El_C 02:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have upped your page protection of Uncyclopedia as the edit war just seemed to go on (and I am tempted to make it 1 or even 2 years ..). This is the second time that we have a spillover of a fight from Uncyclopedia to here (the other one in October 2015), and I am afraid it is not going to stop. (if someone wants to override my decision here, feel free to revert back to a lower level). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is extended confirmed not gonna work, do you think? El_C 08:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly (and I don't mind trying), but this is deeply rooted (some of the accounts that were active in 2015 will likely be extended confirmed). And I guess the post you reverted on my talkpage (thanks!) showed how deeply rooted this hate for Wikipedia is. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Seeing how deeply entrenched this fixation is, let's go with your approach, for now. El_C 10:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel sorry that I apparently protected the wrong version, but then, I did not not expect that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just ran into a psychic IP today — nothing is gonna surprise me anymore! El_C 10:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User: El C a user protected Dipika Kakars page and forgot to add the symbol, could u do that please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.229.148 (talk • contribs)

 Done. El_C 10:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi admin, will you please see this article as it was redirected and you locked it and it was redirected as a result after discussion takes place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananya Panday, and redirect is removed without any discussion at talk page. This BLP is failing WP:NACTOR as only one released movie she have right now and also there is a persistant block accounts history at Ananya Panday and after the protection they were shifted to Ananya Pandey. 122.8.238.126 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 18:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed our old "friend" Jakey Petrov likely doesn't even read his sources and we could write miles on issues with how he uses them [16]

I'm not from Russia and do not have any Russian or Slavic ancestry nor have I identified myself as such, but Calthinus derogatorily called me "Jakey Petrov" in order to attack me for supposedly being Russian. His racist logic is that anyone who disagrees with him in that article is Russian. 76.168.122.183 (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, calling someone a "racist," is a serious personal attack, especially when it's made on the basis of such flimsy reasoning. It is simply unacceptable. Please don't do it again. El_C 18:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You put words in my mouth. I described his logic of assuming my nationality as racist. I absolutely did not say that he is a racist. I used racist as an adjective for his words, I did not use racist as a noun for him.76.168.122.183 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your section title speaks for itself. It is highly inflammatory and is not something we tolerate on the project. El_C 19:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioning that Jacob Peters was not Russian, but Latvian communist and Soviet Chekist. But I am sure that IP knows it.My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:Abdnow is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed. El_C 19:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She is still at it. CLCStudent (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, had to step out. El_C 20:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El C for your comment on my talk page. I have added 4 more international unbiased sources on this. There is a ton of references out there, including a 100 page report by Amnesty, but I feel this number does the job for this article. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on your talk page, violating 1RR to add those was the wrong call. But I will let this go with a warning, this time. El_C 22:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree on violating the 1RR rule. I didn't revert anybody's edit. I added more sources and new wording as per you comment. AND you are not part of the edit warring waged by AntonSamuel. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't restore the Lavrov quote, et al. after already being reverted once before today. If you do this again, you will be sanctioned, even if not by me. At the event, the sources seem okay, so I'm not gonna report it and am warning you instead. El_C 22:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that mistake on Bangladesh. I was trying to edit a part of the article but somehow i ended up removing the whole article. I did that by mistake, It won't happen again. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comeonduckling (talk • contribs)

No worries. I figured it was by accident. El_C 11:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :D Comeonduckling (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	A few days overdue but worth giving. Trillfendi (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the recognition, Trillfendi! I try. El_C 18:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note, a user Ouseph1997 continuously adding POVs and wrong information in the article Syro-Malabar Catholic Church on founded date, theology and native name. Though I started a discussion in talk page, this user is not ready to share his views there. Also he never add any supporting references, edit summary etc. Requesting to revert his changes and warn this user on his destructive edits. Thanks - 171.61.105.42 (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Up'd the protections — that should do. El_C 16:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Will you please take a look at Laki language, Feylis and the other pages that have been reverted by Shadegan for no reason other than accusing me of Pan-Kurdism. Thank you. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a word with them. El_C 20:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting all those pages is a move in the right direction, but I honestly believe that letting the stable version be the version he reverted to (which all have profound issues) is poor. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell what is or isn't stable at this time. I'm inclined to wait and see what Shadegan's response is. If it continues to be below par, or if they fail to respond, indeed, I might revert back. El_C 21:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and thanks for the reply. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Laki language should also be protected like the rest of them, especially since the user doesn't communicate. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 15:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello El_C,

The abuse from Andrewgprout continues: now he is deleting from the talk page (Special:Diff/899226217) and edit-warring (BRR: Special:Diff/899315905) to enforce his action. He's unwilling to discuss. Please talk to him, after our recent discussion with Bbb, I'm afraid to file a report. Thank you. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   10:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you should be. Why are you adding {{anchor}} with their username, in the first place? I've never seen that done before. El_C 15:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of anchor id could be anything. The user name was an obvious choice to mark his response to be linked from the EW report. I did not expect the choice of id would matter, but in the future, I will choose an id that reflects on the content, not the user name. As the anchors are referenced from the reports, he is breaking links. Deleting from talk pages is not accepted by the guidelines, thus I ask you please restore what was deleted. I have done it once, and cannot do it again.

I'd like to note that I don't appreciate being told I should be afraid. I feel threatened. I've proven my recent block was not called for by policies, as I've quit the EW, while OPs continued. The above diff shows OP is still edit-warring, and my right to raise such issue should not be threatened.

I do my best to give constructive feedback, with respect to your and Bbb23's continuous work for the stability of Wikipedia. I ask you to give equal respect. Thank you. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   16:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except, you should be concerned. About being perceived to be making tendentious edits. As said, I've never seen {{anchor}} used in this way. Why can't you just edit the talk page normally, without such distractions. El_C 17:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have explained the reason adequately, and anchors are not visible, thus not a distraction. Can we address the real disruption of deleting from talk pages? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   18:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not adequately, not to my satisfaction. El_C 18:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am Jacky. I have been trying to make changes to the Wikipedia page but you seem to have protected it. The Wikipedia page contains wrong info and the information may harm me. Please assist on deleting the wrong info. Preferably I would like to completely delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.222.10 (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're in a conflict of interest. Feel free to make your case on the article talk page where you can expand on the reasons behind your proposed changes. El_C 21:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that? The information is affecting me negatively and may even cause financial loss. I am not a Wikipedia expert. All I ask for is for the article/page to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.222.10 (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not likely to happen. You explain your proposed changes to the article on the article talk page. El_C 21:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked and I don’t know where to explain at? Can I did out who created the article? Because it contains wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.222.10 (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how to explain this anymore clearly. El_C 22:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page stalker) @50.121.222.10: Dear Jacky!

To talk to the editors of the page, visit the associated "Talk page" by clicking the "Talk" button on the top left (direct link), then click "New section" on the top right (), there you can introduce yourself, and list the information that you wish to be removed, or added. See the wikipedia policy on biographies for the rules of removing problematic material. Provide evidence, that shows the information is incorrect. The best way to do so is to list links on the talk page of articles from "reliable" media sources, that reported about you. Editors will read these articles and correct the page accordingly. This might take days or more.

To see the editors of the page go back to the article and click the "View history" button on the top right (direct link). You will see the edits listed, with the user name in the middle. By clicking the "prev" link on the left side in any row, you will open that edit and see the changes made. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   23:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They clearly already know how do edit a talk page and create section headers, they did so on this page. I suspect a language barrier. El_C 23:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... "they" have not edited the article talk page yet. It's not obvious for an outsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aron Manning (talk • contribs) 00:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you meant to criticize my post: being helpful never hurts. Be positive ;-) —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   00:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Must you? El_C 00:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from refactoring on my talk page. El_C 00:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was editing my last reply, and did not expect you answering in... 1 minute. It is a weird merge result... feel free to move it down, as you see appropriate. Thank you for your understanding. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤)   01:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expect me to be swift, always. It's okay, Sinebot got to it. El_C 01:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You just blocked this user. Would you kindly also block his sockpuppet?: User:136.228.172.210 Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 02:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I asked for the page protection of India national basketball team. You said there is not enough disruptive activity. 17 of the past 25 edits have been pure vandalism by 6 different unregistered users. This has been going on for many years. In fact, as soon as protection of this page is lifted, the vandalism continues. If that does not justify protection then what does? Thank you so much -Stephreef (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said there's "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection" — the last edit was over a month ago. El_C 05:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear El_C, during the past days due to inattenion by involved users and as a result ethnocentric abuse by some users that are involved in ethnic conflicts between two Iranan groups (Lurs and Kurds), all pages related to Lurish people have been under mass invasion to change their background and identity towards their desires and wishes. You can have a look to the recent edit history of pages: Lurs, Feyli Lurs, Iraqi Lurs, Lak people, Laki language, Southern Lurs, History of the Lurs to find their catastrophic footprint. Unfortunately, there are not Lurish users in the English wikipedia to demonstrate the facts butI wonder how some ethnocentric totalitarian users are doing everything to their desires and wishes in such a bad way?!! I expect you to help to clarify the facts by returning the original pages and I promise to bring their questions in the talk page of each paper. BestSHADEGAN (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you double-down on "ethnocentric" — not a good sign. Sorry, but you took too long, so I'm not gonna change those back now. And those are some very serious aspersions ("ethnocentric totalitarian users"), which are not acceptable. Please don't do that again — there will be no third warning. Indeed, I expect you to compose specific, well-thought out objections (on the basis of reliable sources and due weight in the scholarship and mainstream) to those changes you wish to see undone, in each individual article. El_C 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
		This is for your excellent performance in saving Wikipedia from the harmful threats of vandalism. I appreciate your efforts and hardwork. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Path slopu! Greatly appreciated. El_C 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tomsmith81727 - an account solely for reverting?. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll have a look. El_C 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C,

I really appreciate this, but I didn't see any AE alerts or warnings; maybe I missed something. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I mistakenly sent it to the wrong user who were besides them in the edit history. What an embarrassment. Luckily, they did not seem to have noticed. Still, not good. Now  Done here. El_C 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the problematic editor was actually User:Cautious. It's possible (even probable) that the IP is also User:Cautious, but I don't think they'll notice it on that IP talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,"Vassal" is very dirty word for someone who has not been defeated in a war conflict ,but has voluntarily joined the Union to cooperate with another kingdom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.74.35 (talk • contribs) I guess Sinebot is on vacation again!

I'm not sure that this is so, but that is certainly something you could have argued on the article talk page, had you not continued to evade your block in order to attack another user. You have now been banned from those articles, so there is nothing to talk about. El_C 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of how difficult it is to respond to accusations at AE and stay within the word limit:

Icewhiz says: 06:32, 26 May 2019 - restoring WP:BLPSPS (not under ABOUTSELF exception), with several REDFLAGs. (see Talk:Antony Polonsky#Alleged PDF by Stachura).

That's about 20 words, depending on whether you count the date. Here is the diff he provides [17]

To adequately respond to this I have to point out that:

1. This references a letter that a BLP (Stachura) wrote in response to the criticism of him (by Polonsky) already included in the article for some reason (the article is actually not about Stachura)
2. The criticism itself was in response to a review the BLP (Stachura) wrote about a third party (Chodakiewicz) (the article is actually not about Chodakiewicz)
3. I would have to point about that WP:ABOUTSELF does indeed permit the use of a source published by the author in this case (since it is a response to a criticism of him)
4. In any case, the criticism that Stachura is responding to is ... itself a WP:BLPSPS vio (if you believe Icewhiz's interpretation of ABOUTSELF). The criticism is a letter from Polonsky. The source for this is... the letter by Polonsky! So, according to Icewhiz, it is okay to use one person's SPS (a letter in a journal), but NOT another person's SPS (also a letter in a journal)

To summarize this part, Icewhiz thinks it's just fine to use a SPS letter which attacks a BLP (that he doesn't like) but thinks that using a letter which responds to the attack is some super awful transgression that must be punished by WP:AE!!! And that's putting aside the issue of how one actually interprets ABOUTSELF. Can you see the problem we're dealing with here? There is no consistency in application of policy by Icewhiz here. It's a "I get to do it, but if you do it I WILL BRING YOU TO AE AND SAY AWFUL THINGS ABOUT YOU!!!". It's sheer hypocrisy and cynical WP:GAME.

But wait, that's not all.

If you're confused about what any of this has to do with the actual article, I totally understand it. To respond to Icewhiz's accusation I also have to provide context:

1. The article itself is about Antony Polonsky.
2. This article, unlike ANY article I have ever seen has a section titled by Icewhiz "Criticism of other academics" [18].
3. Generally we frown upon "Criticism" sections in BLPs unless the controversy is quite notable, but this isn't even that here. It's worse. The article was WP:COATRACKed to include attacks on OTHER BLPs (that Icewhiz doesn't like)
4. What Icewhiz doesn't mention is that in a follow up edit I simply removed the entire section. Frankly neither Stachura nor Michilic nor Polonsky's letter about Stachura belonged in the article as this was not even a notable event in Polonsky's long and distinguished career. These aren't even journal articles arguing with each other. They're freakin' letters to the editor! The ONLY reason this was added in there is so that Icewhiz could use Polonsky's article to attack Stachura. Which is a pretty blatant BLP violation. I removed it. That's what should've been done.

See how convoluted this is? At first glance, it's just a single diff and what looks like a straight forward accusation. But it's not. It's a response to a response to a response which is a BLPVIO (I think that's the right number of "a response).

Like I said. It's simple to make a false accusation against someone. It takes a lot more to explain why that accusation is false. As the saying goes "by the time truth gets a hearing, the lie has traveled half way around the world".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I know I'm wordy and over explain things (I think that's a good thing sometimes), but can you see how responding to a single 20 word accusation I can pretty much eat up half my word limit (actually the above is almost 500 words but with some effort I could cut it down I guess)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the talk page, the controversy section has been there for years. Are you implying Icewhiz created that section a few days ago? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really, a section just titled Criticism of other academics? But I don't see them having reverted its removal. Yes, I appreciate the difficulty. They have since shortened their request, so that should give you more to work with. But I can't but advise you to follow my original suggestion, for now. I'm still waiting to hear from others whether this should be settled at AE or go straight to Arbitration, so you may as well master some sort of a response. Finally, I do note that issues of, at the very least, civility and battleground remain, so it's possible for you to be subject to some sort of sanction or restriction on that basis alone. El_C 20:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He may not have reverted its removal, but he is bringing that up to WP:AE, right? If the section indeed needed to be removed, why are my edits suppose to be sanctionable? Why doesn't Icewhiz present the fact that I actually removed the whole section (which looks like an attempt at misrepresenting the situation)? Why does he apply BLPSPS to one author (the one he doesn't like), but no to the other (the one he likes)? In this particular case, like I already said, it's the sheer hypocrisy and the cynical abuse of Wikipedia policy by Icewhiz that is glaring (which is reflective of the general problem here, and really the underlying reason for these disputes, as mentioned by User:Zero0000 at WP:AE).

More generally, even shortened, there's 15 diffs there - you say less is more, but how am I suppose to know which one of these am I - and the admins - are suppose to take seriously and which ones are just gonna be considered fluff? To keep within the limit I would need some guidance as to which ones to respond to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VM, I really don't have a answer to that. It likely is an inherent limitation of the AE format itself. Myself, I have no problem ignoring the word limit, but other admins do. Regarding Polonsky, again, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to respond further to that here on my user talk page. Ultimately, I would say that focusing on context rather than getting bogged down by details may be your best bet in convincing other respondents that there is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed. El_C 00:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

In regards to VM's comments above - I added nothing of substance to Polonsky, I did remove, for good cause (after running across some of the other sources in a different context), content in 2018. Polonsky's letter to history (which was published and printed - so PRIMARY, but not BLPSPS) was in the article from 2012.

As for the word limit - I cut it down. I think it is at around 500 now. Should I cut more?Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded to that on the AE board. I'm not sure how appropriate it is to continue discussing all of this outside of that venue. At any case, less is more. El_C 20:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]