Hi! So in this report, which diff should I have linked in the "previous version reverted to" field? I ask because there are 4 reverts... so all four? Or the first one before the reverts? Also, of what use is that to reviewing admins? I honestly never understood what the words "previous version reverted to" means, particularly when it comes to partial reverts–so it's not just an editor hitting the "undo" button, but rather partially deleting text (and, as here, sometimes there are intervening edits between when the text was added and when it was removed, so the "previous version reverted to" isn't the diff of the addition of the text). Thanks, by the way, for processing that report, and for answering this question :-) – Levivich16:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. In answer to your question: we try to distinguish bold edits, including removal of text (not a revert per se.), from actual reverts. Yes, if need be, for each revert, you are supposed to add that said revert was of this or that version, etc. In this case, the edit warring on the same article was clearly problematic irrespective of 3RR, so it wasn't as needed. But ordinarily, yes, it can save a lot of time, especially when considering that the admin looking into the report isn't familiar with the edit history and that a revert may be of a version that goes a while back. I have closed so many AN3 reports as no violation or as a warning because the first "revert" listed was just a bold edit. And guess what? In all those instances the Previous version reverted to field were left blank. El_C16:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C. As soon as he got unblocked, he started the image-dump edit-warring. He has been reverted by at least two editors so far. Dr.K.22:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
☺...hope you don't mind....move a term out of the first sentence to last paragraph where government is mentioned.--Moxy🍁22:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the vandalism of Jennifer Morrison's page
Hi El_C! Thank you for semi-locking the page. I was wondering: why was the vandalism under the Partner(s) section left alone? I thought the issue was that social media isn't an acceptable source for Wiki and yet someone kept adding in information sourced from Instagram and nowhere else. Someone else kept removing the information going back and forth with the other person adding it in. Wouldn't it be better to simply revert the page to a state where there isn't any unsourced information on it? – Onchorda02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at Morrison's Instagram posts and I am unable to verify what Allisonscameron is claiming in their edit summaries beyond Morrison giving photo credits to Gerardo Celasco in two of her recent posts. Perhaps they were talking about a story? However, those expire/disappear and cannot be linked to. It sort of looks like fans are simply drawing their own conclusions for now. Here is a clean version of the page if you think it is appropriate to revert back to it: [1] – Onchorda14:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El C:
Blocking 81.35.37.251 was definitely the wrong thing to do. This block will just further entrench the legitimate concerns 81.35.37.251,myself and others are trying to raise. The block of 81.35.37.251 reinforces the notion that two different standards apply - depending on whether an editor is an admin or not.
Please have a careful look at this list.
[2] You have missed (or ignored) the need to ban Doc James for 48 hours before now, under WP:3RR, and to reinforce that no individual WP:OWNs articles on Wikipedia.
I'm really disappointed you did this. Not only have you ignored a fragrant breech of WP policy because it was committed by one of your peers, but you have exploited your position of authority against an individual who was simply following the example set by an individual in a leadership position (Doc James).
There is an obvious problem here and 81.35.37.251, myself and I'm sure many others are powerless to do anything about. I have already raised this in several places and on several occasions, but at the end of the day, the message being sent loud and clear to 'everyday editors' is that admin will always support admin.
I hope I don't also receive a ban just for raising this issue, but it wouldn't surprise me if I did, because this appears to be the culture around here.
As a person in a position of leadership yourself, I hope you have a think about the message you've just sent here.
I am not aware of any of that background. I blocked the IP for continuing to delete talk page text after being warned not to do so. Which was the wrong call. The right call would have been to discuss the matter. Their unblock request was declined by another admin, as well. El_C08:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before an admin blocks someone, the least they should do is try to understand the situation and what the problem is.
That being said, you ARE now aware of the problem, so please retroactively apply the same standards to the other party (Doc James) who has been provoking this conflict by doing exactly what 81.35.37.251 has been reprimanded for.
You must be able to see that 81.35.37.251 was simply being a copy cat? BOTH parties need to be blocked for 48 hours. :: Before an admin blocks someone, the least they should do is try to understand the situation and what the problem is.
That being said, you ARE now aware of the problem, so please retroactively apply the same standards to the other party (Doc James) who has been provoking this conflict by doing exactly what 81.35.37.251 has been reprimanded for.
I'm not seeing the same infraction having been committed by anyone else — you provide no evidence to that effect (I like my evidence in the form of diffs, by the way). And we don't do retroactive blocks, anyway. Blocks are not meant to be punitive but rather to put an end to immediate disruption. El_C08:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both sides have simultaneously broken the same rule at the same time. Both sides need to be blocked.
Again, the IP was blocked today for repeatedly removing text from a talk page. Your diffs do not show any such infraction, not to mention immediacy. By all means, you are free to seek redress in any forum you see fit. El_C09:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You must not be familiar with the WP:3RR, then. It states:
I'm familiar with 3RR, but you claimed copycat. Regarding a 3RR violations, the matter is Stale now. Again, we don't do retroactive. El_C14:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I mean. Once again, the IP was deleting text from a talk page after being warned not to do so, which is what they were blocked for (disruptive editing). But you claim copycat and submit a StaleAN3 report here, which is confusing. And as mentioned on your talk page, and sorry for splitting the discussion, you actually need four not 3 reverts in order to violate 3RR. El_C14:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few things User:Vitreology. 1) The easier to understand text had been in the Wikipedia article a long time 2) You need consensus to make a change (not keep the existing content) 3) I did not at any point in time breach 3RR 4) The easier to understand text is supported by WP:MEDMOS 5) That IP is moving around in part to hide their editing history. 6) I started the discussion on the talk page. 7) The IP inappropriately filled out the 3RR discussion immediately after the warning. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since someone is likely to kick and scream about my needing to notify you; I happened to mention you here, as I was discussing an action you took at Sir Joseph's talk page. You don't have to bother with it if you don't want to. Vanamonde (Talk)22:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've been warned once before to stay away from me, and I'm warning you again, to stay away from me and my edits. Your behavior is being interpreted as stalking, and this has been going on across several platforms, not just here on wikipedia. You are being asked to stop before this escalates into a more formal situation for you. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this missing section heading -warning even addressed to me? I'll presume that it is and add a section heading for you. In the future, simply adding unrelated text to an existing section heading comes across as a bit of a non-sequitur. Anyway, I don't know who you are or what you're talking about. But I presume that I investigated your edits in my capacity as an uninvolved admin at some point. And, no, you can not warn such a review away. You are, of course, free to seek redress in any forum you see fit. El_C20:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I reverted this edit, where for some reason you added a misformatted protection tag to an unprotected page — then I warned you against doing so here. Anyway, what about it? El_C21:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Best to ignore these at this time as the user has stopped editing the article weeks before issuing these. But please keep me updated if this changes. El_C03:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please take a look at the above editor again? You warned her for NPA previously. I reverted a comment on my talk from her earlier today, and her behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dujuan Thomas is unacceptable. Frankly, I'd say with her singular focus on this one topic, we've got a COI/CIR/IDHT editor here, and a NOTHERE indeff would be appropriate. But that's just my twopence. John from Idegon (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Islam and violence (talk page existing, no consensus), Pacifism in Islam (talk page existing, no consenus) and Pacifism page; user Maestro16 really like to change content according to his personal pov views, without explanation and without consenus at talk pages about that stuff. I already complained some time ago about that also at your talk page. I reverted edits per talk page reasons. Maybe pages should be protected in higher protection or something like that or to user be warned about.178.221.118.83 (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are talk pages at Islam and violence and Pacifism in islam, and there is no consensus at them about changing any content so just to mention about it. 178.221.118.83 (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bold edits are actually encouraged on Wikipedia — if no one objects to the substance of these edits, consensus can be seen to be implied. In the case of an actual content dispute, you are encouraged to pursue dispute resolution and make use of various resources aimed at helping resolve any outstanding issues. Good luck. El_C01:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is for your excellent performance in saving Wikipedia from the harmful threats of vandalism. I appreciate your efforts and hardwork. You are a bold defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATHSLOPU16:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The IP who is edit warring at Insanity defense is a sock of the banned editor User:Daniel C. Boyer. This edit at Drawing, about a woman drawing with her vagina, is material that DCB and his various socks have attempted to add to that article numerous times over the years. I'm pinging @EEng:, who has also followed DCB's Wikipedia career, to confirm this. I pinged @Cyberpower678: -- who had been dealing with DCB socks -- from DCB's talk page, but haven't heard from them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two other points: the claim of "vandalism" when their edits are reverted because DCB is banned is absolutely standard for his socks, and the claim, made here, the EEng and I are socks (they can never seem to decide who is the master), also goes back a few years. All of this stuff is discussed on DCB's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm not sure it is related to their inquiry — it looks like just a bold edit. But what about it? My advise is always to seek the clarifications from the user making the edits whenever these are warranted. El_C15:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I have a request at RFPP but since it is receiving consistent disruption/vandalism today, I thought I would ask you as well. I think a day or two will do. Thanks! S0091 (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C. AlbusTheWhite has just restarted the edit-warring at Greece, dumping the usual large number of images there, including violations of MOS regarding forcing image sizes which seems beyond his understanding. Thanks again. Dr.K.00:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean try? Obviously, it's going to work, as the content dispute is between an established user and IP/s. But, first, I didn't think fully protecting the article would have that much of an effect on an article with only about 10 watchers and less than 100 views over the last 30 days. And second, I didn't want to give the established user an advantage in the content dispute, even though I suppose it's mostly moot since the page is protected on their version. Still, neither user involved in the dispute had attempted using the talk page, so a total lock from the article seemed appropriate. Was there edit you want to make for which an edit request would have been insufficient? All that having been said, I am pragmatic about this and see no need to deny your request. El_C03:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stefka is not being fully honest about the long-standing version of the article. The following piece was in the article at least since March of this year. It was kept in the article until a few days go so I am guessing that counts as long-standing text. It was then that Stefka removed it on Sep. 28th without notice and Stefka has since refused to self-revert.
American government sources told Newsweek in 2005 that the Pentagon is planning to utilize MEK members as informants or give them training as spies for use against Tehran.
I don't understand what this has to be with anyone being dishonest. And why did you split this from the original discussion? It only makes this, contextually, even more confusing. Anyway, if you disagree with a bold edit, just revert it. Just make sure you have a substantive reason for doing so that is based on attribution to reliable sources. El_C05:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to be as plain as possible. Stefka removed reliably sourced and attributed content from long-standing text without providing proper reason and/or discussions in the talk page. Are you saying I should provide substantive reasons to revert his edit?--Kazemita1 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean when I say Stefka is "not being fully honest". The article edit was done on Sep. 28th. Yet, he points to a discussion that was written on the talk page a day later on Sep. 29th! and don't get me started on how plainly the source supports the claim despite your edit summary. (CTRL+F "civilians") Kazemita1 (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits were not explained up until later. Also, you could simply change the wording (say replacing "planning" with "hoping") so that it would reflect the source the way you wanted it to. Instead, you chose to remove the whole thing. You make it difficult to assume good faith.Kazemita1 (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, any suggestions on how to deal with this issue? Some user is making revisionistic edits, giving every single pre-modern figures a nationality, as seen here List of Iraqi poets (apparently a 23rd-century BC figure living in Sumer is "Iraqi", this is just one of many). He has likewise been making a ton of these nationality categories as well [9], which he is spamming across this site. More or less all his edits have been something like that. I would like to point this out as well [10]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, more or less all the Iraqi-related categories he has created [11], which he keeps adding on medieval figures, many of whom were simply Arab, or to a lesser extent Persian/Kurdish/Jewish/Assyrian etc. Scholarship doesn't make use of Iraqi as an ethnicity/nationality at least till the late Ottoman period. It's no use trying to discuss it with him, as his knowledge of English is quite low, and he will resort to racist/nationalist-calling [12] (one of the other examples has been deleted so can't link it anymore), ethnicity bashing [13], or genuine sabotage [14]. Granted, I was a tad bit aggressive/not the most cooperative in my efforts to talk it through, yet it at the same time it is quite clear that he generally has a hard time speaking/understanding English and is really hell-bent on creating/adding these categories, which has been 99% of his edits. Thanks for your help with this btw, really appreciate it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Took me quite the time to compile this, that should be about it if I haven't missed anything. This is highly disruptive historical revisionism. Huge list incoming. EDIT: He is creating more as we speak [15]. This is what he had to say [16] SECOND EDIT: Sorry for spamming, but can we srsly block/ban him already [17]? He has already been warned not to make attacks [18], this is his second borderline racist rant regarding my ethnicity (the first one being here [19]), which is none of his business.
[20] Permission error
Jump to navigationJump to search
You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason:
Ambox warning yellow.svg You appear to be trying to create Category:Museums in Umeå but are actually about to create Draft:Category:Museums in Umeå
If you are trying to create Category:Museums in Umeå, just follow the red link.
If this is the page you want to create, please make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. 93.185.28.78 (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for reviewing the requests. I have no desire to reopen this closed case. I would like your opinion on whether the condensed version[21] was of appropriate length, or if still too much, in which case would you have any advice/resource to suggest me to condense further if necessary? I guess such condensation is useful for any board/mediation/any request anywhere on WP. Thank you in advance. --Signimu (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It probably could have been condensed further, but it was a big improvement from the last two reports. It's always best to condense one's report at the highest level of generality and with a focus on utmost potency — that's pretty much axiomatic. Anyway, your report failed to really emphasize on misconduct and, rather, read like a content dispute, so no further action was taken. El_C18:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Thank you very much, I will use your advices to improve my writing in discussions :-D I understand my complain was maybe trying to be too exhaustive (I really wanted to give all information, including temporal ones, and not mislead or mischaracterize), but anyway that was for the better as I think now things resolved smoothly, and I would anyway try to handle things differently if this happens again. Thank you again and have a great day! :-D --Signimu (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I don't know where to do that, so please can you forward my sincere gratitude to you and the other administrators, as I think you do a great job here to resolve things smoothly and help editors advance (rather than penalize, as they tend to do on the french version ;-) ). --Signimu (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Signimu. Indeed, myself and others, we try to build on a culture among admins which only uses corrective action as a last resort, so your kind words in that regard are appreciated. El_C23:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: this (section has been archived): Whatever you think is necessary. They've already opened several threads, all with a particular ethnocentric view, all wasting a lot of people's time and resulting more or less in nothing.[22][23][24]François Robere (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm just not comfortable protecting an article talk page for more than a few days unless the behaviour is especially egregious. You can always choose not to respond, or take the IP to another noticeboard. Expecting me to go through so much text is a bit much, though. El_C15:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But I am keeping an eye on the article — I had already reverted the user once today. I haven't decided what to do yet, however. El_C18:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By handle I was referring to 'Israelildan' not Zvikorn. I don't want to know people's ethnicity or nationality, and I think it wise for editors not to brandish it if only because it tends to be a bit in the face. I see Zvi is a youngster, so perhaps I was somewhat harsh.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Policy-wise, there is nothing cautioning users from identifying by their ethnicity or nationality in their usernames. El_C18:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Kashmiri (who I'm using as an example because they just thanked me for an edit a minute ago) is a user in good standing who has been on Wikipedia for over a decade without incident. El_C18:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I suppose it could also refer to the region rather than the ethnicity. But to say it tells us "nothing" seems like a bit of a stretch. El_C18:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stretch? Whatelse could one expect from a wanker like myself:) I just can't help seeing ambiguities in otherwise straightforward terms, alas. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I said that's fair enough, but I do feel that is a bit besides the point. You're saying that the username Israelildan is a bit in the face — I'm saying that I don't see why that has to be so. Of course, if the quality of their edits are a problem, that is another matter. El_C19:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Professionally, I spent much of my life arguing that political identities are parlous, that identity is the playkit of delusionary thinkers and nationalists, and, given our immense individual complexities, to be avoided. That's just a personal POV, but it is behind a large part of my work here. So, the flag waving I observe on users' pages, or self-identifications with a state don't so much annoy me as leave me wagging my head sadly. I've never met anyone who fits the stereotype of his or her or their gender/ethnic/national identity. This idiosyncracy should of course in no way undermine the credibility or sincerity of so many editors who would disagree with my rejectionism of any facile labeling of an identity. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate that viewpoint, but there is also the facet of simply being upfront with regards to one's own biases. However poignant or potent or pointed such a reveal may thought to be, of course, it leaves much still hidden. We are complex creatures and labels often fail to encompass the full range of, well, the human condition. But a generalization can often be misconstrued as as stereotype, as well. At any case, assuming good faith tends to produce the best outcomes, I find. And on that note, I thank you for your well-thought-out response. I appreciate it. El_C19:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Warning
I have responded to several messages. Thank you for giving me a warning; however, could you explain how you ensure edits which are unfavourable to an ideology, as represented by symbols and quotes on your pages, did not contribute to a bias in your decision-making? I was merely interested to know your answer. (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, is this regard to your recent edits? Because I took that as a broad philosophical question. In the case of the recent edits which involve you, I have yet to examine the content of the actual edits, and was merely advising you both not to edit war and observe WP:ONUS, and above all other things, communicate often. El_C21:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help as an uninvolved voice on the issues at Hong Kong Police Force. I imagine, given Pageseditor’s continued ignorance of the discussion requests, that it wouldn’t be improper for me to restore the previous edits?
I've added more entries to this disambiguation, since the orginal entries listed is not enough. That page was a disambiguation page about locations named "Hoa Binh" in Vietnam, so it's important that the page include every locations with that name. There are so much more geographical locations named "Hoa Binh" in Vietnam, while the orgininal page only listed about 6 of them. Those red links existed since most of them haven't had articles yet. I'm intending to create an article for each of them later. Therefore I'm insisting that you restore those entries. Cn5900 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you stop move-warring, not to mention moving via redirecting(!), I can maybe make sense of what's happening here. El_C16:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I, however, withdraw my objection to the redlinks. If you're going to create the respective articles, then that's fine. El_C17:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the move of a previous move is what threw me off. Sorry about that. As mentioned on your talk page, I think everything is fixed now. Thanks again for your patience. El_C17:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. Also, I was wondering if you could delete this redirect Hòa Binh, Hòa Binh for me. This kind of half diacritic/diacriticless is so awkward, no one is ever going to use it. People will only use all diacritic or all diacriticless Cn5900 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I think you removed two contributions by mistake in this edit. The last two, the one at 16:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC) and the one at 17:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC) are part of the original content discussion and not connected to the problem edits which started at 19:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC). Would you object to them being restored? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, not by mistake. That said, while it may be a bit of non sequitur if restored, no, no objections. Please feel free. El_C21:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Harrassment, edit warring, cherry picking sources in order to pov-push religious-related stuff, personal atttacks, you name it
Hi El C, sorry for bothering you again, I know you're very busy. You get a big cheeky kiss on your cheek from me for helping with that issue earlier, however, a new one has unfortunately occurred:
Some user is cherry picking sources that are in his favour and uses it to disrupt the GA Heraclius article [25]. He has been reverted by me and another user several times. He forces his religious views on other comments, such as altering my comment twice [26][27](adding "peace and blessings be upon him"). He has now resorted to harrass/attack me even more, calling me a "racist" and saying I will get "punished" [28] and continued to attack me right after he had been warned [29]. Also, he purposely disrupted another article to "joke" (harrass) with me [30], pinging me on his talk page and telling me to revert it [31]. Also, he is clearly calling me a "she" as a degrading term [32][33], which fits pretty well with his rather zealout mindset. He is quite fond of making religious rants as well [34]. Ultimately, he clearly lacks WP:COMPETENCE and is not here to Wikipedia:BUILDWP. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Concerning the "cancer" comment of mine that you recently rev-del'd, apparently at the request of Sir Joseph. Despite the remark being so offensive to him that he wanted it to be removed from Wikipedia, Sir Joseph had no compunction about referring to it when I commented on AN/I that he had violated his topic ban. He also claimed that "cancer" was only one among other "vile names" I called him, a claim that no one -- even I -- can now check because of the removal of the comment.
I am not asking you to restore my comment -- I don't even know if that can be done, and I'm not particularly proud of it in any case -- but I am asking you to similarly remove Sir Joseph's references to it here and hera. You'd probably have to remove Bradv's interposing question, and my response to Sir Joseph as well.
Yes, it can be restored (technically), but as for your request, sorry, I'm just not seeing the equivalence and therefore am not inclined to do so. Referring to a personal attack and referring to it having been revdel'd is not the same as it being actually leveled. I wouldn't even know what revdel reason to input for that, in the first place. I haven't looked at the redacted revision (though any admin can do so), but to the best of my recollection, the other term used was "disease." El_C03:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to the article about Cholera in Kerala in 2012 did not link to an article itself. I tried reloading the page and the link still did not show any information in regards to Cholera being present in Kerala in 2012. I did do a Google Search and found that it was there, but only in isolated cases, which we do not need to include in the article. 2605:A000:1133:91FA:20A2:958D:D949:C1DB (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed something. Don Trump's tweet was reported as bizarre by a RS. I've been following this all morning. Is there a problem in using The Guardian or any other source? --Pete (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were questioning the sanity of a living person by referencing their tweet. I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP. El_C23:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, we talk about the mental issues of other BLP subjects. I provided two instances. Our opinions as editors are worth nothing, but when we have reliable MSM sources that give details and explanations, that's fine with BLP. Books have been written about Trump's sanity by clinical experts. The diagnosis of a narcissistic personality isn't something I came up with by myself, it's solidly sourced, if you had troubled to read the article from The Atlantic I linked to.
That's the whole point really. Everything in that article from a reputable source is backed up with cites to more of the same. This isn't one cranky guy with a political axe to sharpen. This is solid research. You know, the sort of stuff Wikipedia is supposed to be based on. --Pete (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what you were doing — again, you were questioning the sanity of a living person on the basis of their tweet. That falls below the standards that the BLP policy stipulates. El_C01:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, you've left three mandatory fields blank in your report. If you wish for me to evaluate it, please ensure that all three are filled. El_C03:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re your edit summaries on Donald Trump. It would help idiots like me if you used appropriate terminology and better yet a descriptive edit summary. I understand that experienced and busy editors and admins are so busy that they resort to short hand, but those aren't helpful. I always try to explain what I am doing, even if it is wordy. I know a few editors that hide what they do behind obfuscatory copy edit (ce) and the likes.
By the way I came upon someone who thought you are a leftist because of your Lenin quotes and Che. Evidently they aren't familiar with Leninists like Leo Strauss, John Bolton, or Steve Bannon amongst others. As you well known a Leninist is one who has no use for the parliamentarian process and are in favor, like Alexander Hamilton, of a "unitary executive". A Marxist Leninist is a different animal, and even Marxists don't understand the real message of Marx. Oldperson (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advise — I'll try to do better. I don't really want to get into polemics here, but suffice it to say that my view of a representative assembly is more nuanced and allows for dissent. El_C22:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BLP "violation"
I am enforcing BLP. You can bring that up for review, but you cannot revert to restore what I deem to be a BLP violation. That is prohibited.
You know, I checked, and it appears that Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you solely in charge.
Perhaps you have forgotten the point of the WP:BLP policy. Hint: it wasn't because John Seigenthaler thought someone had a bad opinion of him.
I will bring it up for review -- especially since you didn't redact it or remove it, merely obliterate it so no one even knew it happened -- but not right now. --Calton | Talk06:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. But that source's opening sentence reads: "Turkey appears poised to launch a military incursion against a US-backed, Kurdish-led militia alliance in northeast Syria" — meaning, it's likely impending, but you wrote that it was actually happening. El_C07:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we got everything quickly sorted, Dilbaggg. Thanks for updating the article with the latest developments today. El_C18:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you so much for your work as an admin. I am so sorry for what happened in the past. I realised that I was wrong. I am very grateful for your work in Wikipedia. SharabSalam (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SharabSalam! Your kind words and recognition really mean a lot to me. As for what happened in the past, I had already forgotten about it — the literal meaning of the words are intended here: I genuinely do not recall any issues, outstanding or otherwise. All the best, El_C16:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, he insisted to revert me even though we were still talking. [41]
The Fellahin group in Egypt [42]. such Turkish slogans was never accepted by the Fellahin. So the claim that all Muslims in Egypt identified as Arabs is wrong. Why put Turkish slogans on a section about Egyptians views not Turks. Treannmust (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A removal is not necessarily a revert. It could be just a bold edit. You need to establish (with a diff) it as a revert by linking the previous version that is said to have been reverted to. El_C18:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Twice. Sorry, I'm not immediately able to make the connection between the two accounts. But I'll keep an eye. El_C17:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blizzard Entertainment
Hey, El_C. I know you posted a warning on MattNor91's talk page yesterday about disruptive POV editing. I wanted to bring it to your attention that they made two more edits today on Blizzard Entertainment, referring to the Hong Kong protests as "rioting and looting in Hong Kong" and changing the section header to "[...] Hong Kong riots". At this point, knowing that they've already been warned not to do exactly this by an administrator less than 24 hours ago (and that, frankly, it should be reasonably evident that this behavior is inappropriate even without the warning), I think this constitutes deliberate disruptive editing. Based on prior contributions, they legitimately seem to be WP:HERE, but I believe it's hard not to question good faith in this instance. TheTechnician27(Talk page)18:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is a problem. Escalated to a final warning. If they do this again, they risk an imminent block. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Please keep me updated. El_C00:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is not Ezdîkî-related — my mistake. But I still think your changes were not an improvement, because the original gives the reader more information. But I have no strong objections, either. In the other article, though, you removed the native name template — what's the reason behind that? El_C17:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my question. I asked why you removed the native name template and the native Kurmanji text. Also, you did not remove a redirect here — that was linked to the original article. El_C17:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the native name is Kurmanji. To call the native name Kurdish is not exactly because the page is called Kurdish languageS (plural). The reader should know which language it is. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are failing to answer the question. Why native text was removed ({{lang-ku|مسحەفا ڕهش}}). Also, Kurmanji is not a language, it is a dialect. El_C17:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the native name is not in Kurdish but in Kurmanji. That was a mistake. But there should be the Kurmanji template for the native name. And calling Kurmanji a dialect is your POV. There are sources who describe Kurmanji as a language:[46] by the Center for Languages of the Central Asian Region (CeLCAR). 73.218.137.229 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because some Kurdish nationalists enforce their will in Wikipedia. But if one observes the neutral point of view and observes the sources then one sees that it is controversial whether it is a dialect or a language. 73.218.137.229 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the current consensus falls short, you are more than free to advance that argument on the article talk page and make use of any of Wikipedia's dispute resolution resources toward that end. But I would advise a less confrontational approach. El_C18:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not Sock puppetry IP Address because my wikipedia account was hacked by Vandalism people or Hacker disguised as Administrator.
And i made and i revised the article of Angel Tee based really fact sources with Indonesian Websites not fake source and Please you don't Redirected page of Angel Tee because she has still alive on entertaining her carrer, except she has really stop entertaining
I guess they really wanted to get across that asking you to be blocked was sarcasm—which does not translates well over text. El_C15:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I suppose I just don't see the harm of having these redirects, just in case they are of use to someone. We have no shortage of space on Wikipedia! Best, El_C16:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El_C, I was thinking if it was a good or bad idea to edit the Los Angeles article again or wait until there is a consensus and is the Onus on my part. 101.176.22.6 (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The best course of action would be to explain your proposed changes on the article talk page and see what other editors have to say. Right now, you will be violating 3RR if you revert again, which almost certainly is going to result in you being blocked from editing. El_C23:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry. Yesterday was a bad day. I was frustrated. Panam did that thing in a RfC and that made me feel bad. I am very sorry for what I said. Please continue your work in MEK article.-SharabSalam (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:El C; can this page Egyptians be at least protected from IP disruptive edits. Whether it's a Sockpuppet (or may be not), they put things at totally false categories and manage to corrupt the page. Thank You Treannmust (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Thanks for the kind words, they are much appreciated! Sorry, I'm not sure protection is necessary yet, especially since there seems to be an IP contributing positively right this moment. But I configured pending changes, so hopefully that will be enough. If it isn't, please feel free to let me (or the good folks at RfPP) know. El_C01:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello friend. Thank you for your advice previously on what's appropriate and what's not to ask here. I would like your opinion and advice please. May you please check my edits and see if they're problematic? I am being followed by a user called sharabsalam and being reverted constantly because he thinks my edits are problematic but I feel I am being reverted simply because he dosent like the edits. Please let me know if my edits are wrong. I feel I am being targeted because I'm adding information on AQAP in wikipedia even though they are sourced information. I have read some of Wikipedia's rules on neutrality and I honestly think I am adhering to them.
I joined this free editing source to add information because I found a lot of gaps in AQAP related incidents and information during my research, however I am feeling harassed and targeted. My talk page is littered by this user's attempt to question my edits and my opinion on talk page was attacked by the same editor. He has openly told me what I should or shouldn't edit.. last time I checked the internet is free! Please, take a look at my edits and tell me if there's something wrong with them. I am finding it peculiar he's the only person who's finding my edits faulty, and keeps on changing the reason on why they're wrong (first it's the wrong article, then it's wrong information, then finally it's a non-neutral source!) ... I would really appreciate your advice as I don't know what to do. I feel like abandoning wikipedia entirely and adding information here because I'm facing such negative experience so far. I think you're a reliable person to ask for advice, so please let me know if my edits are really problematic, and if so how to improve them, or if I should simply just quit. Thank you! Graull (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Graull. Happy to advise. Let's start with you definitely not quitting. As to whether your edits are problematic, I have no immediate idea. But, being involved in a dispute, indeed, can be stressful. Wikipedia has several dispute resolution resources that could aid you. For example, is The National a reliable source for the purposes for which you attribute it? — that, for example, is a query you may opt to make at the Reliable sources noticeboard. A guiding principle behind these dispute resolution resources, in general, is obtaining outside input. This way, editors who are knowledgeable with the subject under dispute can help steer the consensus onward toward verifiable and neutral direction. This isn't to say that resolving the dispute is likely to be easy or immediate (few worthwhile things are), but that there is a way forward. So I wholeheartedly recommend you adopt this approach, also pivotally, by focusing on the edits rather than the editor. Hope this helps and please let me know if there's anything further I can do. Best regards, El_C20:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your candid and polite response! I wish more users were like you here. I will follow your advice and post in the reliable sources noticeboard and see what people think there. Please, if you see a problem with my edits please don't hesitate and let me know. I would rather advice and instructions came from you instead of other users who are not very mannered. I don't want to feel targeted by other users because of my edits and I would much rather be told in a polite way if there's something wrong with my edits and shown the proper way on how to not make them happen again instead of being ostensibly attacked for a wrong edit and left feeling targeted. Again, thank you for your time to response to my question. I truly appreciate it!! Graull (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Module MLB standings
Regarding this edit which raised the protection level of Module:MLB standings to template-editor: as the creator and primary editor who has added new functionality to the module, I am no longer able to edit this module. I appreciate the motivation for this level of protection, but was wondering if it would be feasible for the module to remain at a lower level of protection. Unfortunately, I am unlikely to meet the criteria for obtaining the template-editor user right any time soon. Thanks for your consideration. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The request to bring the module to that protection level was made at RfPP. So, if you're gonna create a module that has this many transclusions, be prepared that someone will bring it there and ask for for it to be TP protected. I don't mind reducing it to EC, this time, but it may be of benefit for you to apply (and/or work toward meeting the criteria thereof) for that userright. So, all that having been said, Done. Happy editing. El_C23:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. The module was created before the existence of template editor protection. At this point in time, I don't see myself making edit requests on other template-protected templates, but if things change in future, I will bear in mind the option to request template editor permissions. isaacl (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that The request to bring the module to that protection level was made at RfPP, while technically true, is misleading. I requested that module be template-protected in April not because of its transclusion count, but because it was implementing Template:MLB standings, which was template-protected by Primefac (acting spontaneously) in 2018. Your reduction of the protection level of the module has created the impermissible state of a module having a lower protection level than a template it implements, which will need to be remedied by lowering the template to semi-protection or re-raising the module to template protection. * Pppery *it has begun...23:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I request you either reduce the level of protection of this template to semi-protection or raise it to full protection. ECP is not an appropriate choice as it doesn't meet the required criteria listed at WP:ECP. Buffs (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isaacl, after having reviewed the documentation, I realize that per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Extended_confirmed_protection_policy_2#High-risk_templates, I'm actually precluded from EC protection in this instance. I thought of just restoring the TP protection, but with only 3,000 transclusions, I suppose going back to Semi is safe enough (although my immediate instinct was to TP protect it again, I still want you to be able to edit it, so let's just risk it). El_C22:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I always found the name to be awkward (four reverts needed to violate the three revert rule?). And I see so many AN3 reports that list three reverts as if they are a 3RR violation. These reports really do comprise a significant number of all reports filed there. El_C01:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
edit link
Greetings... To repeat, the specific phrase "valid argument" is NOWHERE LINKED IN THE ARTICLE. So the argument of "repeat linking" DOES NOT REALLY APPLY HERE. No warrant to undo...cuz of "I don't like". I agree that (true) repeat linking should not be done, but that's not actually clearly the case here. Specific phrasing is not at all wiki-linked in the article, and arguably should be. Regards. 71.190.0.199 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
show me, sir, where in the article the specific phrase "valid argument" is anywhere linked in the article? I searched, and I couldn't find it.
Maybe I missed it somewhere. Yes, the article "Validity (logic)" is linked elsewhere but not from the phrase "valid argument", and arguably it should be.
One reason being that when you type the phrase "valid argument" in the Wikipedia search field, it yields "Validity (logic)" as the article. So why shouldn't the Logic article that has the phrasing "valid argument" a couple of times link the phrase "valid argument" to that article? 71.190.0.199 (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I told you why, sir... Let me repeat. When you type the words "valid argument" (try it yourself to see), in the SEARCH FIELD of Wikipedia...it gives the article of "Validity (logic)". That's pretty much the only real reason I even thought to "pipe" the phrase "valid argument" in this "Logic" article to go to "Validity (logic)". And for some reason, that very pertinent reason you're ignoring or not listening to. So I'll ask you again, why would Wikipedia even HAVE the phrase "valid argument" AUTOMATICALLY piped in for that other article, in general? And if that's the case, why exactly (and you just admitted that it's because you simply DON'T LIKE IT, violating "NO OWN" etc) should the phrase "valid argument" not be linked therefore? 71.190.0.199 (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a redirect exists does not mean a link needs to be repeated so many times. As mentioned before, the onus is actually on you to gain the consensus for your changes on the article talk page. So I suggest you do that. El_C18:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I respect the 3 revert rule (hence why you see that I'm not undoing or restoring again for now), and I also respect WP Consensus (even if I may disagree). But again, sir, one main reason for this link-edit is because WP itself redirects the phrase "valid argument" TO the article "Validity (logic)" and also, secondarily, in and of itself, why exactly shouldn't the technical phrase "valid argument" not be linked to its appropriate article page, when it can only help more and enlighten matters? What's the harm exactly? Just because the link for "Validity (logic)" is linked other places in the article, so? The point (again) is that it's not linked for this specific phrase "valid argument". And what harm exactly is there in linking that to its correct article page? It can only help, if anything, not hurt. Regards.... 71.190.0.199 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't really care about this too much. If you want to duplicate that link — fine. But once, not twice for a total of three times, as you have been doing. I'll partially self-revert to do so and hopefully that will be the end of that. El_C18:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here I've sort-of unreverted one of your reverts. It looks like you had reverted an edit based on bad presentation, and it looks to me as if the content was correct in the reverted edit even though the presentation was bad. I've reverted the content essentially back to its original cite-supported appearance in this 2010 edit. The content seems to have been changed without support in this 2015 edit. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 08:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I tried to stick to a thank you for that summit + depression reply .. but that was just TOO FREAKIN' HILARIOUS. Thank you for the best laugh I've had in ages. — Ched (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry for your loss. My deepest condolences, Mitch. I know what it's like to lose a close loved one — there is nothing worse and nothing can compare. El_C17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry to hear that. Just today I worked all day, sad about the loss of a great woman, and wife from 1947 to a few days ago. Perhaps play the YT video at the bottom which made me cry (see my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edit war stemmed from the other party changing the infobox from "no specific ethnicity" to "multiple ethnicities" when the cited sources clearly state that it's a non-ethnic language. So how is he justified in putting "multiple ethnicities"? It's plain original research on his part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu Sahib (talk • contribs) 06:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with the dispute to comment. My advise to you would be to engage in discussion on the article talk page. If that stalls, see your dispute resolution resources for further outside input. Eventually, the consensus will be decided, and that would be that. El_C06:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who should I consult to evaluate mine and his edits? Is there administrator familiar with this topic area? Because the sources clearly state that it's a non-ethnic language. I was told that statements on Wikipedia should always state what the sources state.--Vishnu Sahib (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the protected page back to your version, since the other party's position, indeed, did not seem to be grounded in the available sources. El_C21:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it's not necessarily "my version". I did it because the cited sources supported it. I found a third source that claims the same. Should I add it after the protection expires?--Vishnu Sahib (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi—
The page for businessman R.K. Laros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that I worked on was original writing, well-researched, drawing from a number of resources. It got flagged for copyright infringement for a reason that escapes me then speedily deleted. I tried to put it back but now it’s locked. I wonder why it was marked as a copyright issue and wonder how to get it back up if possible. Thanks. Jberk (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was marked as copyvio for infringing on the rights of https://issuu.com/adamatkinson1/docs/rk_done and deleted by TomStar81 — I see you've already raised the matter with him. See what he has to say about deleting the page on those grounds. Contesting it with me is a bit redundant, as I was not involved in that part of the process. I deleted it because it was too short, without enough context to identify the subject. I also protected it from further recreation, until issues pertaining to the article could be sorted, namely the copyrights violations, which presumably limited you to those two brief sentences — two sentences that, unfortunately, amounted to an article which was just too terse by Wikipedia standards. Good luck. El_C15:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Siddha Yoga
Let's discuss your feelings on the talk page for this article. Can you clarify the rule that existing sources can't be used when editing an article that seems to be misleading and not accurately explaining the sourced material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.54.67 (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no "feelings" — I am enforcing policy, especially a potential living persons policy violation. As instructed, you need to quote directly on the article talk page so that your claims can verified by the existing sources that your addition goes on to attribute.El_C18:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upon closer examination, I am rescinding my objection. Also, BLP was not a factor here, I was in error on that front. El_C18:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HS2000
It can also be put on the ak-47 or m-16, but this is not put under "users". I think it is fair and there is no such thing here, because it is a shame to be a terrorist here with the recognized states. This puts the user from Serbia jealous of Croatian success on that weapon, it can be checked from earlier posts so you blocked it, but he made a new acc and change ip. Do what you want, if you want change to change, if you don't want to, I'm not interested, but I think I'm right. Greeting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.188.130 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't, I told you a few months ago to block this user from Serbia if you remember, but unfortunately I have a dynamic ip that changes once a day, my first ip starts with the number 93.138. or 93,136 other numbers are changing because it's such an online service, it can be read from past changes to hs2000 what is the problem and how did you block it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.188.130 (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what General Ization says. Please check this section for further updates (I would drop you a comment, but your IP keeps changing). El_C23:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not much I can say to help. I reverted 93.138.12.123 twice in August when they repeatedly removed sourced content from this article without explanation. (See page 12 of this, the cited source.) That IP then left a message on my talk page claiming ISIS was a "nonexistent state" and saying "this is sock puppets from Serbia", but failing to explain their removal of content in any coherent way. That was the extent of my contribution to that article. That IP and the one you are talking with sound to me like the exact same operator. General IzationTalk 03:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now they're removing ISIS as a user from CZ 75, as well. Again, with the same argument that listing them promotes them as a terrorist organization...(?) El_C03:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I don't mind that. I'm just saying that terrorists should not be with other countries and that this is not right, and you write as you wish. That is my argument, it is unfortunate that terrorists classify them and equate them with other countries, that is not right. Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.140.253 (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, maybe that's something you ought to facilitate a centralized discussion about — perhaps on the talk page of the ISIS article. See what other editors have to say about that argument: that a former undeclared state not be listed alongside recognized countries is a valid position to hold. But because at least two editors disagree with you, the onus is on you to build the consensus for these changes to take effect across multiple articles. So, I encourage you to do so. Good luck. El_C16:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in consensus, let it write anything here. If one does not realize that terrorists have nothing to do with other normal states, then they do not need to explain anything. Now the terrorists are put in the same order with the normal states, so let it be promoted as a normal state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.140.253 (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C! It's great to talk to you again, and I hope you're doing well! I just wanted to message you about some revisions that you rev del'd on the José Gregorio Salazar article citing RD2 as serious BLP violations (did you perhaps mean to choose "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive"?). Note that the article subject is definitely not a BLP (the article subject was a general who died in the year 1838... lol), so the BLP portion of RD2 does not apply here. Aside from this fact, the revisions you redacted were just childish vandalism to me, not something I'd consider a "serious BLP violation" nor something that falls within being "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive". They were just adding "nutsack" and other childish things to the article, nothing that I'd constitute as requiring the use of RD2. I went ahead and restored visibility to those revisions for you. I left some revisions redacted, as they happened to fall under RD2 for using offensive ethnic and lifestyle slurs. Not to worry... you weren't the only admin who happened to use rev del incorrectly on that article and around that time. I just wanted to leave you a message to let you know about it and inform you that I undid the visibility changes you made to some of them. ;-) Please let me know if you have any questions (just ping me so that I'm notified) or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and discuss it with you. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Thanks. I remember that IP for their Donald and Ivanka Trump BLP vandalism. Indeed, I mistook that old-timey General for a living person, somehow. I guess I should be paying closer attention! BTW, do we have a button that's the opposite of revdelete, because I want to nominate this amazing, "spoken by hogs" edit (I also love the other IP's deadpan revert summary of "False information"!). Never a dull moment. El_C03:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just looking out for my fellow editors and admins. ;-) HA! That's funny... What would the "opposite of revdelete" even be (other than restoring visibility to something that's currently hidden)? I'm trying to ponder and come up with something, but I've got nothing... LOL ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)06:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. The page is fully protected until dispute are resolved or the protection time lapses, whichever comes first. El_C15:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, I'm requesting the closed discussion under Spider-Man RM closure? on my talk page be copied and placed next to my closure. This is for clarifying my reasons why I closed it. Thank you! Jerm (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I quite understand — you are welcome to add an addendum to the close or a supplementary to the discussion, you don't really need me for that. El_C20:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just tack on an Addendum <plus text> to the closing statement and/or a Supplementary <plus text> to the end of the closed move discussion, is what I meant. El_C02:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish stone-throwing
Though I try to avoid punitive measures (and in any case am banned from AE per Sandstein's decision), and wasn't aiming for any suspension - my notification of Debresser reflected simply a desire that the editor use evidence and logic, rather than personal opinions to justify their edits. Unfortunately the said editor mechanically reverts a large amount of edits I make to pages he is interested in, and, in my view, never adduces textual evidence or logical, policy-based arguments to defend the removal.
Am I misreading that page's talk page header where it is written:
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, reasonably construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
So the question is, did Debresser make two reverts within 24 hours on a page where a banner indicating this was prohibited has existed for several years.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: it doesn't matter what the talk page banner says anymore. The Committee has recently (March 2019) clarified that there needs to be an edit notice on the mainspace for 1RR to apply: This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}. Which, incidentally, led to the following problematic. Please comment at ARBPIA4 (here) where I outline a possible resolution to this EC-related issue brought by the mandatory edit notice requirement. El_C15:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate the explanation. I just don't grasp the operative value of the rationale or its meaning, if it has one, but that's my fault. I can't offer suggestions, since anything legal like this is totally outside of my capacity to concentrate. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: EC means extended-confirmed protection, which due to the ARBPIA edit notice becoming mandatory, also becomes mandatory. In the AP2 DS, for example, we have the option of a naked 1RR, without protection or other restrictions applied. So that is what I am proposing (bold link) — no legalese involved. El_C17:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't lose time trying to enlighten me. Sincerely, I have never been able to wrap my mind, or what's left of it, around these issues. Give me an article about words for ladles in classical Greek, and I'll be utterly focused on the distinctions between a soup and a wine ladle, I can visualize them. I can't do that with Wikipedia rules, and therefore just apply the simplest reading, which keeps me mostly out of trouble, but makes objecting to what others do pointless, since I miss equivocations. As I say, it's my fault, and I just have to wear it.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair enough position to hold, though difficult to maintain, I would venture to think. Anyway, I agree that we should aim at rules that are simple to follow, but an integral component of that is that those rules also make sense on the implementation level. This, if we are to continue to follow Committee rulings in an exact procedurally-required way, which seems to be the order of the day. In other words, IAR —or the spirit of a rule— is more likely to be lost to Committee legality when it comes to Arbitration enforcement than as can be seen in the application of Community policy. It is what it is in its current state. El_C17:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If proof were needed to underline my incompetence, I need just cite my edit at this article's talk page a minute ago. I'll put the edit requested on my talk page, hoping that a few technical people who have it bookmarked can fix it. Apologies. Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a pretty strong WP:NOTHERE vibe from Special:Contributions/173.176.159.21 - given that they've repeatedly said they won't do stuff like refrain from legal threats or sign their comments because they don't want to help Wikipedia. I understand if you don't want to be the one handing out blocks left and right given that you're also trying to referee a legitimate content dispute, but I'm ready to file an WP:ANI report myself unless you think that's a bad idea. I'm really not trying to put a thumb on the scale here, I'm just asking if I'm way off base here before I open something. Nblundtalk23:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You would not have that problem if BLP was applyied. The disruptive edition page gives plenty of reason as to why. But your good to go. I<m done, frustrated, and wont come back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.159.21 (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a person whose first language is not English, I find English learning an on-going process. In regards to the issue at hand, i.e. square brackets, I want to make sure I understand it clearly. How come we cannot attribute the statement between brackets to the narrator?--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look closely, the comment that they are a "cult-like terrorist organisation" is an interjection inserted by the UK agency into the quote from the United States agency. The IP is saying it is not an interjection. I am sorry for being so dumb. If you could elaborate how IP's changes make sense I would appreciate it. .--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at a move request on the talk page for the Tulsa Race Riot, and noticed that you closed the request without discussion, citing the fact that a prior request to do so (created back in July) was closed as "no consensus," and asserting that the editor should "wait at least six months before initiating the same request again."
I've done some investigation, but have been unable to find any support for this six month figure -- the closest thing I found was on the closing instructions webpage, which says "it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus" to move. (Successful move re-requests generally, though certainly not always, take place at least three months after the previous one...)," which suggests a three month window, but certainly does not proscribe one. Could you explain how you arrived at this 6 month restriction?
It has now been more than 3 months since the original request was made, and Dbrote cited numerous contemporary sources that now use term "massacre" rather than "riot" (the lack of a preponderance of such sources was the main reason no consensus was reached during the first move request), so I think there is an argument to be made that now is as good a time as any for another Move Request Review.
@Waidawut: ordinarily yes, three months would be fine. But I made the decision to double that because this wasn't the only such move request (example). This is constant source of tension and discontent in the article, leading to much disruption in the editing process. You can have another move request in three months (for a six month gap). After that, I'll double it to a year, and I will keep doubling from there, ad infinitum — because this isn't something you keep trying and trying until you get the desired outcome. Move requests are not expected to operate in such a manner. El_C17:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El Cid: From what rule do you derive the discretion to invent and enforce these waiting periods? The webpage I linked above seems pretty clear that move requests are expected to operate such that those that reached a consensus not to move "should probably not propose this move in the future until and unless circumstances change," but makes no such caveat for requests that reached no consensus, and in fact encourages future move requests in these cases (with, again, no mention of a mandated waiting period). Surely an ongoing, robust discussion will be more likely to reach a consensus, rather than one split up by arbitrarily-enforced waiting periods, no? -Waidawut (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need to (mis-)ping me on my own talk page. Sorry, but we're not going to undergo a circumstances change-driven move request every three months. That's just not going to happen, because it would be disruptive to the editing process. El_C18:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the mis-ping (what is the proper way to ping?) -- but you still haven't explained how it is that you have the discretion to unilaterally decide when move requests are allowed to occur Waidawut (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have discretion, in my capacity as an uninvolved admin, to prevent disruptive editing — that includes prohibiting move requests whose frequent timing renders them tendentious. *** You pinged fine, but you mistyped my username. El_C18:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: again, my instinct was to give it a six months breathing room — so in three months. But if another uninvolved admin wishes to overule me in this instance and re-open the move request immediately, I have no objection. But if this move request fails, I will insist on a breathing room of a year, and this time will object to challenges on that front. El_C18:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: at this point, I'm inclined to wait for the three months -- contemporary sources are reaching a consensus of using "massacre," and I think this consensus will likely be even stronger in 3 months. I think it's better to wait 3 months now, rather than rushing and reaching another "no consensus" and then having to wait a year. Waidawut (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I have a request at RFPP but given the constant vandalism by new accounts and IPs, can you protect it? Mozalarab69 has also been reported to AIV. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @El C:, I've commented at ITN [53] that all sources describing Baghdadi's death, e.g. [54][55] and our article Barisha raid, explicitly attribute the claim of suicide to U.S. officials or Trump. It is so easy to acknowledge this and be cautious by changing our blurb to state that Baghdadi "... is dead after a U.S. raid..." that I am astonished we have dropped attribution and stated his suicide is a fact at the top of our front page. Please correct this as soon as possible. I apologize for my somewhat blunt and possibly aggressive tone: disrespect is not intended. -Darouet (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Darouet: not at all, your message if perfectly fine, but I would rather you get ITNC consensus for that change, which I would then be more than happy to implement. El_C20:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great: I welcome your comments at ITN. I have yet to find a source that doesn't attribute the claim of suicide and this is one of the more egregious oversights I've ever seen on Wiki. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the content. Feel free to quote me on that. But my involvement at ITNC was to interpret the consensus, which was for alt blurb-2. I tend to shy from IAR decisions which involve anything to do with the Main page like ITN. Hope that makes sense. El_C20:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting User:UBX/NBA-Clippers. However, the problem is not gone and Jamesmiko (talk·contribs) is edit warring in many NHL and NBA userboxes. He states that since he created many userboxes, he can do whatever he wants and no policies and/or guidelines can stop him. How do I deal with this situation? I tried more than once to engage in a discussion with him, but he just ignores everything and continues to being disruptive. It is also obvious that Jamesmiko is using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thanks in advance. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please unprotect? If you look at the talk page you will see that some of the reverts were accidental edit conflicted confusion. There is no bona fide editorial dispute. The primordial black hole hypothesis is purely fringe material. Occasionally some random editor tries to add it, but all the main editors of the article agree that it’s not to be included. There’s no good source for this theory and the best sources literally are making fun of it. Cheers, JehochmanTalk12:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. You were the last one to protect this page; would you mind taking a look at the recent history? A similar pattern of disruptive/POV/unsourced additions is still going on, and I think semi- or extended-confirmed protection is still a good idea. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request reversion and lock on Science of Identity Foundation
Samp4ngeles has made a number of edits that inappropriately 1) reintroduce 'alternate names' for the founder, an issue that had previously been settled; 2) add inflammatory material from a new tabloid reference; 3) misrepresent material from that reference in an apparent attempt to further harm the founder's reputation; and 4) include a section in the article titled 'Political activities', citing candidates who ran for office in 1976 prior to the formation of the Foundation in 1977. The implication that the Foundation itself is involved in political activity is defamatory since that would be a criminal violation of the Foundation's tax-exempt status. (The link Samp4ngeles provided for the new tabloid reference was incorrect; the proper link is https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10524/55521.) Please revert and lock. Humanengr (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know if I'm going to have time to investigate this, but in any case, please definitely avoid terms such as "defamatory" — it comes across as a legal threat, which has a chilling effect on the editorial process. Anyway, I suggest you raise your concern on the article talk page or otherwise make use of any dispute resolution request you see fit. Good luck. El_C03:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree that {u|Humanengr}'s comments are consistently chilling and unconstructive, particularly with regard to anything remotely related to this page. It indicates a high amount of bias. The claims above regarding use of tabloids, inflammatory material, attempts to harm anyone's reputation, etc., are utterly ridiculous, as the previous edits were constructive. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I missed it. But now that I look at it, let's keep it open, for now. Both accounts are blocked — perhaps that will be that. El_C00:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose there are some aspersions being cast, which indeed should be avoided, but I don't feel this rises to the level of an outright personal attack. What have they said about you, personally? It seems to me that they are saying that your editing tend to generally be less-than-neutral. Sure, it could have been phrased more diplomatically, but as for it amounting to a personal attack? — sorry, I just don't see it. El_C19:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The true personal attacks is to write "vandalism" in an each edit summary about my edit: [56], [57]. Although my edit just repeated the revert to the status quo ante version: [58]. Well, or both of us with El C are vandals here.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It raised my eyebrows that you would revert the removal of a template that says a user support terrorist groups and calls them freedom fighters. I have friends who were killed by a the PKK and I can't emphasize how disgusting that template is.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more interested in proper procedure than I am of editorial personal involvement. You should not be edit warring while the MfD remains undecided, regardless of your personal feelings. The status quo ante should remain in place while the matter is being debated. El_C17:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. You were kind enough to semi-protect this article on 27 October. The protection expires on 27 December and I'd like to ask if it can be extended by a further month until 27 January. The reason for this is that the club is in the midst of a winding-up petition in the High Court and it is widely anticipated that this will be concluded in the next few days with the club's liquidation. I doubt if the fuss will die down by 27 December and I think the article may still face problems. By the end of January, it will be old news and the article should then be stable. We can, of course, see what happens and then re-apply for protection. It depends on site procedure, really. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C. Please could you restore the stable version of the article, rather than reward the party breaching BRD by allowing their version to stay up. Thanks, Number5722:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, though I support having the status quo ante version (per WP:ONUS) while a dispute is ongoing, I would rather not take sides in said dispute to the point of editing the fully-protected article. El_C22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edits
Hey, El C. While I respect you greatly as an admin, I believe these two edits of yours were hasty and unjustified:
Your reason was that references must be kept inside <ref> tags, which is not always true (see WP:Parenthetical referencing.) Furthermore, if your issue was just the references, why did you remove the entire sentences? Or again, why didn't you correct them? As a gesture of good faith, I ask that you restore the removed contributions. Regards, GUYWAN ( t · c )22:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, don't worry about the one related to measurement of elasticities, since I removed that whole section from the article. GUYWAN ( t · c )22:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but now that I'm recollecting, it just seemed too unconventional to me. It still does. But I have no objection for you to restore the additions in any format you see fit. I really don't feel that strongly about this. El_C22:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I decline. As my closure states, the RfC question was poorly framed. But I do believe my closure provided a rough guideline. I'm not going to issue clarifications every time a potential CRYSTAL issue is going to arise in vehicle articles. That's not going to happen. El_C16:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, I don't believe we've officially met. This, IMO: wholly negative BLP1E, escapes CSD. Is there any way it can be deleted without it taking seven days to do so? Thanks! UsedtobecooltalK✨17:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People are trying to vandalize and edit Siddha medicine and mentioning - "The Indian Medical Association regards Siddha medicine as quackery" in multiple places in the article. All the three reference they added doesn't state so. I have initiated a discussion to remove and identify the right interpretation in the article talk page. Please help.90.185.50.46 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well you will be happy to know that I'm done with the arguing. Obviously any sort of explanation I give won't be good enough. I'm done with it all. Find someone else to threaten. Just do me a favor and stay the hell away from me. Arjoccolenty (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of Alybood (and continuing to comment on their talk page). I'll admit that that freaked me out a little, first time I've had a legal threat targeted at me on WP, so I appreciate your quick handling of the matter. creffpublica creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, Creffett. Indeed, threats of legal action (or use of related legalese) produces an enormous chilling effect on the editorial process, which is why it isn't to be tolerated anywhere on the project. Happy editing! El_C18:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The realm of suggestions
If you think, which is the only hypothesis that your bizarre revert suggested to me, that in correcting Stav's misspellings, I was cocking a snook at him, you err. I am on, I believe, good terms with Bolter, he jokes about his occasional misspellings - an irony we need - and I have, without being reproved or rebuffed, occasionally helped him in the past with corrections. These corrections were necessary to make his google searches more efficient: if you write Horbat instead of Horvat, the standard archaeological transcription of the Hebrew, you don't get good results, and the same goes for Gurein instead of Guerin. Wiki is complicated enough without the odour of suspicion haunting even these amicable assists among people who have always worked together collaboratively.Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scurrilous accusation of personal attack then insta-block?
You appear to have fallen for the second of User:Dr.Kierans attempts, at gaming the system/abusing process, the first a well documented imagining of a breach of 1R, when there was none. With admins stepping in before. Having dealt with that first case, of this now emerging pattern, of accusatory behavior without too much harassment after the first. I would leave the abstract idea with you, that while I am no admin, I do think it should be a prequisite of the power you wield as one, that at the minimum, you should be made look into the history of the 2 users involved. Particularly looking for a pattern of accusatory behavior. Noticing it is all 1 way. You know, Before you go falling for what amounts to their tattle tales?
For you instantly fell for this, their now second ruse, of theirs, in believing the figment of his own, now clearly, motivated fantasy imagination, that an edit summary that never mentioned him "was all about him and directed specifically and personally about him". A narrative they invented out of their all to eager mind. A narrative, of their own POV invention, that you incredulously believed, fell for and blocked me and then followed it up with the threat that any further personal attacks will result in a permanent block. How delightful. Yet show me where I directed my statement of fact, that refers to a talk page discussion, on paid editors and our need to be vigilant, show me where this was directed toward him. Specifically? ...for the "personal attack", to have taken place?
In light of the very related, recent statements of facts that have emerged about the specific activities of that Queen Victoria familia,
and the existence of PR spin-doctors, diligently paid to handle the Prince Andrew and other "account" ...you will, I hope with this new insight, review the block you wrongly placed on my account, place my apparently "offending" edit summary here, for other admind to review, to let them decide and also review your attempt to intimidate and threaten by proxy, that the next "personal attack is permanent block". As I never named anyone, therefore you do not have your coveted "personal attack", no grounds to sanction one, none of the requirements to effect one nor enforce one, nor have this scurrilous accusation, remain as one, on my record.
For don't you kind of need a person being named or a "you" in there, for the "personal" part of the alleged "attack", to exist? To operate as Charles Manson and go converting admins of what amounts to "code" in the beatles songs, as is of Dr:Kierans "personal attacks", from what was actually a very broad statement of fact. It is particularly troubling and not the least bit reassuring. So in that, I am willing to bring this abusive gaming of the system, by those with clearly motivated reasoning, that was then followed up with your disgraceful intimidation, to the highest level of administration. Not least because Secondly, I was at work and never signed in or had the time to, during the 2 week block to challenge this troubling as it is scurrilous accusation. As what's stopping more editors claiming every statement of fact, is personally about them and that they "feel attacked"?
You did note, before blanking, that no one was named, in the "offending" edit summary didn't you? No small oversight? When you fell for their ruse, that the statement was about them. It wasn't, as if you took the time and did your due diligence to determine what was being referred to, in response, was the scourge of PR firms, spin doctoring, that are editing wikipedia. An issue I think we'd all agree is serious and much wider than "Dr. kieran", don't we agree? Something I had hoped they would agree with also, though by their response, what of contacting you and claiming a personal attack, we can only conclude, they don't.
If you do not have the power to remove this scurrilous stain on my record, then direct me to those that do. Who would also need to review the history of Dr:Kierans, dreaming in the past of 1R "infractions" that never happened and now this accusation of a "personal attack" drawn out of a statement of fact, as this is the same pattern of "events", that while they'd like to put words in my mouth. THEY actually never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs)
Even if you were correct, your record is not going to be expunged, Boundarylayer — because that's not something we do. I stand by my block and my warning (please do not refer to either as an "attempt to intimidate" — that aspersion is out of line), which were over a month ago. Intimating that a Wikipedia editor possesses "kinship to neo-nazis" is not something that is to be tolerated on the project. Claiming that it was addressed to no one in particular, seems like a weak argument. Please feel free to seek review of this in any forum you see fit. El_C04:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C! Good morning, can you protect this page ~ since the 30th of November, it's been vandalized at least 13 times by IPs. 30 days should be good enough, until after the college bowl games are over. Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not edited with other accounts. A long time ago I did edit some without registering an account. I had some time on my hands, so I registered and I've been learning the ins and outs of stuff on here. Lots of reading. --I dream of Maple (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. I'm gonna be "that guy". You say "yet another incarnation", but you link to an SPI that is all inconclusive/unrelated, where it's noted that the user agents don't match and IW was never known to use a proxy. Are there any publicly-confirmed IW socks? I see a number of editors talking as if IW is some known prolific sockmaster... but is it true? – Levivich04:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inconclusive means that admins should use their judgement. Behaviourally, I disagree on the point of never using a proxy, but that info has been suppressed as it constituted severe harassment of another editor, so a CU who isn't also OS wouldn't be aware of the accounts (tl;dr there are accounts that have been discussed on oversight-l that are likely Icewhiz in my view that were on proxies.) Also, yes, there is confirmed IP socking and harassment that has been suppressed. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just looked at one of the suppressed accounts. Both the account above and it are using an ISP that is used for proxies, but can also have legitimate uses. This is consistent with several other claimed socks at the SPI. The other technical data is also consistent. Given the ISP involved, I'd prefer to report like that rather than give templates. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By several other claimed socks at the SPI, I assume you mean these. I must have been confused when I read that they were tagged unlikely or unrelated, some of them were confirmed to a different sockmaster, and one of them was noted as user agent does not match any of Icewhiz's user agents, and about whom you said I don't know who it is, and I don't think this is Icewhiz.– Levivich05:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note that re: "I disagree on the point of never using a proxy", to say that "this is not Icewhiz b/c Icewhiz never used proxies" is akin to saying "Icewhiz is not socking b/c he never socked before". He didn't need to use proxies before, doh. As for "a number of editors talking as if IW is some known prolific sockmaster", do you think it is a coincidence that an area that had your normal, next to zero levels of socking activity for many years, once a particular editor is banned, develops a number of new accounts that use proxies, display extensive knowledge of Wikipeidia (or are super fast learners...) and edit a number of the same obscure topics that said now-banned editor did, and with the same extreme POV? Coincidences? WP:DUCK/Ockahm's razor suggest otherwise... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
an area that had your normal, next to zero levels of socking activity for many years = bullshit, Piotrus, and you know that. Yaniv has been socking for most of this past year, no? Also, we have trolls who sock and impersonate people just for the fun of it. It's not at all surprising that they would impersonate IW or other recently-blocked/banned editors (like Edgar or Eric Corbett). Someone got wrongfully blocked recently because of that troll, it was at ANI or AN. Also, there are a number of TBANed or blocked editors in this area, it could be any of them. But let's talk about the SPI at the SPI page and not El C's talk page. I only commented about talking about IW as if the unrelated/unlikely accounts, or the accounts that are confirmed to someone else, are actually his. – Levivich05:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No, you're correct. Those accounts are at a different ISP. Apologies on my end, I was thinking of accounts that I'd looked at earlier based on a list discussion that are almost certainly Icewhiz and were on proxies and that I just rechecked to verify. But to your broader point above, yes, we have CU evidence linking Icewhiz to IP socking and harassment of other editors on-wiki in addition to the other accounts I was referencing.Regardless of the technical findings, if someone is being disruptive in the same way as a blocked editor, then administrators are free to block them. The point of blocks is to prevent disruption. If disruption is ongoing, block them. It's that simple. CU can help point out accounts that likely fit this criteria, but it is hardly the only way to find it, even from a socking standpoint. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Language, please. I honestly don't know much about Yaniv (he never popped up in discussions/articles I was involved in), except I think I recall Icewhiz defending him from a block or such; I'd be surprising if he was impersonating Icewhiz to hurt Icewhiz, but then as I said I really don't know that much about Yaniv. My point is that while I am not very familiar with Yaniv I feel I am very familiar with Icewhiz (in the Polish-Jewish topic area) and with all editors and socks in this area and I stand by what I said, which is that 1) this area did not have any significant socking (that I am aware of) and 2) now suddenly articles I and Icewhiz edited extensively are attracting socks. Ex. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz: no socks were active there before, AFAIK, this is a niche topics very few editors edited, yet look at what's happening there now. Why would Yaniv try to impersonate Icewhiz there? What are the odds two new accounts, both with telling signs of 'not a newbie', would foray into such niche topic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like the user's open proxy has been blocked, I don't know for how long. Their unblock request is currently pending. I'm not sure if the user is Icewhiz, but I suspect the account was being used, ultimately, for disruptive and tendentious editing. I, at the very least, was going to topic ban them from EE and ARBPIA, just to be on the safe side. I may yet do that. El_C07:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked the ranges, primarily because another editor made a similar complaint of not being able to edit from work on a nearby range. Unfortunately, Cogent is positively awful about mixing webhosts with end-users. As to the specific IP listed in the unblock, it is running a PPTP VPN server, as well as SSH. Resolving the range, we see a couple fdcservers.net entries, and a mailserver - which was one of the reasons I blocked the range to begin with. SQLQuery me!15:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, See my latest comment @ maple's page. It's not an IT Department, it's Hola (VPN). I've blocked the /29 at the moment, and will be evaluating the 9 /16's I had blocked to see if they need to be reblocked. It turns out cogentco runs it's own whois server @rwhois.cogentco.com:4321, and we can directly query what client has what ranges. SQLQuery me!22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious socket puppets all sticking to 1 certain weird Turkish hoax site as a reliable source
Hello, you protected before the page Turks in Egypt because of a hoax sourcing that the Turkish population in Egypt is 25 millions, literally bigger than the whole populations of Syria, Tunisia,...etc.
These users are all the same person, all acting as different people within the same page:
All these are the same perosn, supporting each other and the IP comes with these accounts at the same exact time all adding the 25 Millions as a respectale source.
I don't know that they're the same person. If you think it to be so, please feel free to file an SPI that attempts to shows them being linked together. Also, I see nothing about the hoax on the article talk page. I agree the notion sounds nonsensical, but it's almost as if there is no record of any of that ever having been discussed, anywhere, even if to refute it utterly. What gives? El_C03:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[64]. I already had my edit summary of "Congratulations! With less than three weeks to go you've snatched pole position in the "most pointless article addition of 2019" contest - and I think you'll be pretty hard to beat now..." typed up, hit enter, only to see you'd already bloody-well reverted... --Begoon14:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that your English does not seem that poor now (same with your comments at ANI), SilentResident. Your above comment is perfectly cogent, even if I disagree with the various inferences you make therein. But your aforementioned mainspace edit was written so poorly, I found, to the point of incoherence. So, you need to do better, by putting as much thought, care and attention into your edits to the mainspace as you do to talk page comments. (Again, I and others had suggested making use of draft and sandbox spaces.) Otherwise, we do, indeed, have a competency issue — one which may or may not pertain to the mastery of the English language. But regardless as to its impetus, it is a problem nonetheless. My own English is by no means perfect, by the way — it is not my native tongue, either, and I struggle with it. But there is a minimum English-language threshold that is required in order to edit here. Please ensure that you meet it. Thanks and good luck. El_C19:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to respectfully disagree that the edit you mentioned reverting approaches incoherence. Like many Wikipedia contributions, the wording can be improved, but I think it's readily apparent that country A and country B are executing specific responses to country C's actions. I agree that a certain minimum level of fluency is needed, and have no issue with friendly reminders. I just think the example you chose didn't help to illustrate your point. isaacl (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly found it borderline incoherent. Describing it as "mildly" in need of copy editing was a mistake, I challenge. I don't think it is an acceptable submission. A lot more care and attention was needed to proofread that particular addition. And that is just the first (and only) addition of their's that I looked at. El_C20:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm just unlucky in having seen much worse edits, including from editors with long strings of good and featured articles to their credit (of course, those are isolated cases; everyone makes mistakes from time to time). I've said before that English Wikipedia can only manage its large stream of incoming edits as long as there are sufficient editors willing to rewrite the inflow to distill and capture incremental improvements. So it is important that at the very least, new editors improve over time in order to reduce this burden. isaacl (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had posted a few suggestions at that discussion and was hoping someone would close it. The discussion had become messy and largely pointless. I have been seeing your contributions on various articles, mainly reverting non-constructive edits, since a long time and I appreciate them together with the perfect wording you used to close the ANI thread. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with Dr. K's choice of words, but I share their concern about your closure. I've opened a discussion below the closed section here. –dlthewave☎20:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI thread was dying for closure. I don't think you need to apologize for "failing" - lots of sysops (including me) could have closed the thread and chose not to. I applaud you for not passing the buck to someone else and it's why, despite disagreeing on content, I felt the need to defend it as with-in your discretion to have done so. Thanks for trying to move the community forward on a difficult task, even if that attempt wasn't as successful as you'd hoped. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say? Sometimes you lose some. Hopefully, I was still able to offer counsel, to both sides. Speaking of which, I greatly appreciate yours. Many thanks, again. El_C22:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to offer my thanks as well. The discussion needed to be closed, but closing it was no easy task. A "closed, awaiting closing statement" placeholder might be helpful here. I had actually started to write one but ended up edit-conflicting with Barkeep.
Sometimes bright-line conduct issues (such as reverting an editor's comments and then gloating that it "did the trick") get lost in the weeds because there just isn't much to say about them beyond "yup, that was bad". In this case folks seemed to agree that SR's behaviour was the more minor issue, but it generated far more discussion because it was quite complicated. –dlthewave☎23:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case would you please remind all involved editors that once a change has been reverted the correct procedure is to discuss the change. Much of my frustration is that only one editor who supported the change actually showed up on the talk page to discuss the edit. This is a big part of how edit wars start. All of the editors in question are experienced and should know better. Once I started the talk page discussion no editor should have restored the disputed material without engaging in the discussion. Anyway, I would appreciate if you would make sure the involved editors are aware of that. Else, why have things like BRD etc? Thanks Springee (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If certain editors are failing to comply with the discretionary sanctions that are imposed on the article, you may request Arbitration enforcement to force them to comply. In any case, I think we are now past the reminder stage when it comes to this article and are, instead, firmly in the realm of sanctions. El_C20:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to keep bothering you and I don't think anyone has risen to the level of needed to be reported. It would be helpful to know if you agree with my read simply to know if my understanding of the rules is poorly calibrated. What we have is Editor A makes BOLD edit. I disagree and revert with an edit comment only. Editor B restores A's changes. My view is B should never have restored the changes without opening a talk page discussion first. If nothing else, 2:1 doesn't really make a consensus to support new material. I open talk discussion and ping B. Editor C agrees with me on talk page and reverts B. Editor D restores bold change. I ping D and like B, hear nothing. A did nothing wrong as they were BOLD and then joined the discussion. B and D, in my view and this is the part where I ask your opinion, shouldn't have restored without going to the talk page first and certainly should have gone to the talk page to support their actions once pinged. Net result is no one is trying to establish a new consensus but by virtue of having a few more bodies they "win" by gaming the system vs by actually following wp:BRD and wp:CON. Anyway, that's how I read it but I would like to know if, as an admin, you agree or if, like John Mcenroe, I'm certain the ball was in because I was the one who hit the ball. Springee (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but until I see an actual report submitted, it is a bit too difficult for me to be able to immediately assess. I reiterate that if you find that someone if ignoring the rules, you are more than free to hold them to account by submitting a report to that effect. El_C20:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please review this edit [[66]]. I think this as well as the edits made at the same time have crossed the line. I don't see how a reasonable consensus can come out of this. Springee (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By my count you have 62 posts to that TP pretty much all pushing the same POV, with a few impolite comments of your own. Perhaps you should try another tack. O3000 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective3000:, can you show any examples where I tell someone to "stop lying buddy"? If nothing else, for my own improvement please show what you think is my worst edit/comment. While I believe we should stick to just the arguments made, I'm sure I'm not perfect in that regard. Springee (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel disappointed, it is ok
Listen. You didn't disappoint us, just this is a sensitive and complicated issue which needs to be closed appropriately.
However I appreciate (and I am sure the others too) your time and bravery in closing this thread, and please don't take what happened tonight personally. I feel very sorry for how this unfolded but know this: we appreciate your efforts nevertheless. Be strong!!! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)23:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, SilentResident. I'm good. Sorry it did not occur to me that the idiosyncrasy problems with your edit were the product of machine translation. If you are able come out with one thing from my efforts here, I hope it would be to be bold, be confident, and write your own original prose. Because I firmly believe the machine-translation is a crutch you simply don't need. Thanks again for reaching out. El_C23:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, I am not a fan of translation machines either. I was forced into using them due to FP@S's complaints that I "do bad translations" and I had no better ideas of how to deal with these complaints of his. But that was years ago and I hope my english language skills have improved ever since to the point of being able to do better translations by myself. Still it could be a lie to you if I told you that I am not nervous with this prospect. Take care! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)23:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A beer for you!
El C (several hours and thousands of talk page kb ago): "Hold my beer while I close this thread real quick..."
I also wanted to stop by and thank you, first for willing to attempt a difficult close, and second, for changing your mind when presented with evidence to the contrary. It is increasingly rare these days, and I respect someone who can do that. You didn't disappoint anyone. I have known you for a long time and I know you are one of the best admins out there. Khirurg (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, El C goons and Gangs, I am not expecting any thing good feedback from bastards like you gangs. If you are release any info against or in favour of any individual or entity, in public, you need to hear other's voice. Idiots!. Can you read below and answer? I am not convinced in the way you are responding to the public edits in pages. And you facist gangs are locking editing against your vandalism against few peoples and entities?.
I dont know who are you and what is your role in wikipedia?. You are misusing Wikipedia for your own propaganda. I don't know how to respond to your activities, other way than in this page.
One thing is clear that you(Gangs) are shielding foreign born Sonia gangs and targeting peoples opposed to them. Misusing name and fame of wikipedia, for propagating your personal interest or the interest of your own gangs. You are just making mockery in wikipedia, removing credible edits against particular persons based religion or sectarion, like foreign born Sonia. Do you think we Indians are fools to listen for your aggression against Indians, favouring foreign born christian religoius Soina? It is Sonia handpicked Rosaiah taken aggressive stand to take action against Brahmani steels, that led to intensive, invasive, intrusive investigation against Reddys and ended up with cancelling the land and stalling the project. You cannot remove or omit this from Indian politics and industries
1. why did you removed the below edits in Brahmani Industries?
2. Why did you removed below edit from Santhosh Hegde? Do you think Hegde did not have known corruption in his won team?. He knows it but doesn't wanted to take action on corruption until some one in IPS rank officer revolt against him. This is proof that he is biased and targeting only specific peoples on the name of corruption. and you gangs are shielding his evils and bias towards corruption, targeting peoples opposed to Sonia gangs, the Reddys.
Quote
There was an allegation against Hedge that he is reluctant to take action, on corruption in his own institution. This is one example that he is biased against certain peoples. See the news article on allegation from an IPS officer in his team, in Lokayukta. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/south/story/hegde-lokayukta-money-cartel-ips-officer-madhukar-shetty-146012-2011-11-17
There were billions of tons of iron ore has been extracted from Bellary mines, by about 100 companies engaged in mining activities. But Hegde didn't wanted to find illegal mining by those companies. See the Bellary region mining activities from the list http://ibm.nic.in/writereaddata/files/07122016174057Directory_Major_2015.pdf. There were no system to verify the dignity of investigating officers
3. Why did you removed below edit from Obulapuram mining company? Do you enjoy monarch and dictatorships in public/social sites like Wikipedia?.
It is evident that obalaburam mining company get intensive, intrusive , invasive scrutiny ind investigation after the brain child of Sonia Rosaih becaome chief minister. And it was evident that the CBI officer Lakshmi Narayana gone to the level of behaving like goons, during his investigation. Do you gangs wanted to protect the Gangs of foreign born Sonia at any cost. Do not force us to take harse decision against you gangs, for misguiding world and India. You cannot run a social site for you own Gang's interest.
Once again, I humbly request you to reinstate the contents you removed as there is credible source provide, like any othe contents you published in the page. Do not try to fool everyone. We are not fools to read what you publish and what you propogate without propoer evidence.
Quote
However, it is political rivalry, favouritism led to misuse of CBI and government authorities against any particular community. In this case, it is then congress chief minister Rosaiah because of reddy brother's good standing with former's political rivalry Jagan mohan Reddy, now the chief minister of Andhra Pradhesh. It was evidenced that Reddys had good standing with India's leading steel manufacturers, for decades, nullifying all the false claims. It should be recalled that Rosaiah rose to power under the dictatorship of then central congress leadership, after death of then chief minister Mr Raja Sekhar reddy. Roasiah's tenure short lived. One such CBI officer Lakshmi Narayana, investigating the case, slapped an IAS officer during his investigation, suggesting that CBI officer was acting as goons in the street for his personnel/caste and in favoured few business mans and ploiticians who are rivalry to Reddys See below references for sources {https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/indl-goods/svs/metals-mining/jsw-reddys-deal-hinges-on-iron-ore/articleshow/6076534.cms}https://www.gulte.com/news/74987/JD-Lakshmi-Narayana-Slapped-IAS-officer-Sri-Lakshmi
On each and every page you reported in wikipedie, there were thousands of news articles available in favaour or against each and every one. Can you verify the authenticity of all those things ?. what you puplsihed were not in full and deviates from real identity of the contents published there in. Needless to explain further, if are openness you must reinstate everything you removed from my edit . Otherwise you will be treated as a Gangs waging war against India , Indians and Indian systems. Just protecting vested interests on the name of social media.
You cannot keep whole world in you pocket. You cannot dictate terms to everyone in the world by keeping few information among many info in the same news. Do you think India and Indians should behave like slave under other religious Sonia and her goons and gangs across wolrd. Bastard . Behave yourselves. we are not babies to obey your Grenard like attack on India, Indians, Indian system or grave yards like information in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8f8:1327:51cb:5d72:c2ce:6687:e4dc (talk)
Hi there. I did most of my editing in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, so I'm a bit out of the loop perhaps, but it seems a little excessive to require autoconfirmed users only for Pete Buttigieg's page for 2 months. I've looked back at the history of that article and have seen no edits made in bad faith. Also, I noticed there was a discussion in the article's talk page about this issue, so if you could shed some light there with regard to your point of view, that would be appreciated. Best regards. Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page was protected on November 4 until the 11th. On the 12th, it had to protected again until the 26th. On the 27th, I protected it, yet again, this is time for considerably longer. This was because a non-confirmed user added a death hoax, which I revdeleted (admins only). Hope that makes sense to you now. El_C19:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria edit warring
El C, I am finding myself contacting you again because we would seem to have a new edit warring situation and you have always been great at resolving and finding a solution. Over at the article 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria we have an editor (Vallee01) who is engaging in edit warring by constantly inserting that the offensive is "ongoing" based on sources that are from before the offensive was said to had concluded. Not to mention he is also overlinking. Its been pointed out to him several times that the sources he is providing are from before the offensive ended but he has ignored this and is constantly pushing his own POV that the offensive is ongoing. He even inserted one source that talks about unrelated clashes in a totally different part of Syria. This fails WP:VERIFIABILITY. At this point this is a miss-representation of the cited sources. Additionally, he just made a 1RR violation which is applied to all Syria-related articles. He has been warned of the violation but he ignored the warning and instead resorted to accusing the fellow editor who warned him of using sockpuppets. This also isn't according to WP:GOODFAITH. The user has only been editing for a few months and I can understand him not understanding Wikipedia's policy thoroughly, but when the editor ignores the warnings openly, continues with WP policy violations and resorts to bad faith comments then I do not know what to do. EkoGraf (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Seems the editor has, at least partially, canceled his revert but is still showing no signs of changing his mind on the issue on the talk page of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, also, an editor who started editing Wikipedia only in the last few days (and this article in particular) made an edit here [67] which is suspiciously the same kind of edit [68] an IP editor last week was also pushing for which you yourself blocked. Based on the editing pattern and the specific kind of edit I think its the same person. EkoGraf (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported someone at the ANI and didn't get the result I hoped for. And you made the final edit, saying it was no violation. This is ok, I am not mad that it was no violation. But I did expect to be told where to report such edits with which I do not agree. I mean I get support at the talk page, but it gets reverted again.
No source provided that I am wrong, and the main reverter declares he refuses to read my sources that are from the UN, who's info in the source is provided as a resource for lecturers. It says so in the source on the UN website. And his source also says the opposite of what the UN has about itself. Where can I report such events, receive advice and help?
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
