never mind - memories: two people on DYK, both connected to Oper Frankfurt, and don't miss yesterday's video of Pink Floyd given to me! - no idea where the white line below the header comes from which is not there in preview --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
coincidence. 26 was at our church, 62 in the Tenebrae readings for last Saturday, - not working today, still Easter, biking and opera, haven't seen pics yet, but it was just beautiful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So many concerts! You're really making up for lost tyme. I hope all the members of the Kyiv Orchestra are alive and well. El_C13:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her private party was on Saturday, great cakes! Later Indian food in the garden! In between, she played for us, on four instruments including baryton, with family members (granddaughters!) and colleagues, from Renaissance to Haydn. - Finally: June pictures updated, with three great RMF concerts! - My story today is very personal: the DYK appeared on Wikipedia's 15th birthday, and describes a concert I sang. I was requested to translate the bio into German for a memorial concert ... - see background, and we talked about life and death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please protect my talk page because today 3 Bulgarian IP addresses started harassing me again and they want me to stop editing pages that had false information about TV channels. It has been 2 weeks now and the nonsense has started again with the harassment (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). LDM2003talk to me!10:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El_C, just wanted to thank you for doing something with this one. It would not have been my call, but I get it, and I respect both your experience and dedication around here. I tried to nudge them in the right direction and saw occasional glimmers, but boy they are a tough one. In my ideal world, they will craft a thoughtful and persuasive appeal statement, but I fear that's my optimism talking. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to pay me the big administrator bucks to make that call! But trying to think about it beyond my Pollyanna attitude, I would have blocked, but not indef. I think they were sort of trying to disengage and stop bludgeoning certain pages...largely by moving on to bludgeoning others. So, two weeks? A month? I guess one more chance, but as I say, Pollyanna attitude. This is honestly not a critique; even the AN/I thread was just needlessly soaking up time. Happy to defer to your judgment. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me for your bold as well. To my reading this user has been using their edits to inflame discussions, not engage them. Likewise, I await their block appeal with interest. BusterD (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's more, like, I saw the pings a few days ago, but didn't have enough spare time to attend to it until today. El_C22:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh
(rhetorical question) Ever have one of those times where you hope that you're throwing someone a rope, and it ends up that they would rather turn it into WP:ROPE?
It was pretty obvious foregone conclusion the destination that that train was heading, but I really had hope that they would see the light of day and emerge from the tunnel.
And now I'll leave all these mix-ed' methaphors be, and just apologize that things did not turn out differently so that it necessitated you needing to act.
Since we are talking about it here, I think this indef block was inevitable. As far as I can tell, .Raven was not going to change as evinced by their behavior after the P-block in multiple talk page threads, including this recent ANI. If the indef didn't happen this time, it was going to be their ultimate fate. So, this was a good call (and a good block). It will save the community from having to put more time and energy into dealing with one of the most disruptive editors I have ever seen on Wikipedia. And .Raven still has the option of successfully appealing the block by fulfilling the requirements for a successful appeal. It is up to them. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Report of Vandalism on Article "Mohamed Yaacob"
Dear El C,
I would like to bring to your attention an instance of vandalism on the article Mohamed Yaacob by the IP address 2001:E68:540F:13D:D100:521C:ABA5:ED50. On 11 July 2023 at 11:15 am, this IP address made multiple disruptive edits, including reverting my edits in the honorific section.
I kindly request your assistance in addressing this issue and blocking the IP address to prevent further vandalism on the article.
The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:
For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Today's music is played by my brother's orchestra, conducted by two very young men on their way up, - the picture was taken shortly after the invasion of Ukraine began, - more detail on my talk. Images reached the day of the Tenebrae concert mentioned in July. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool! Is there a link to the concert itself? Though, I've been on a bit of music break, truth be told. Anyway, just settling back in. Hope you had a good July. Talk soon. El_C14:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My story today - a first - isn't about an article by me, but one I reviewed for DYK, see here. I like all: topic, "hook", connected article (a GA on its way towards FA), image and the music "in the background". - Pics of weddings to come, I promise one cake, the other was too large! Good music, and better even in the concert ending the second day, - Goldberg Variations theme for an encore, after Dohnányi Serenade. - This "Hevenu shalom alechem" - could we write a little article together? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very uplifting, thank you for that! Sorry, I'd really expected to have been back by now, but things keep coming up almost to spite me! Confident that by Monday, though.
About the song: I definitely am happy to collaborate in writing an article on it. I can't say that I know too much about it, outside of the description of it @שלום עליכם (ברכה)#בתרבות, parts of which I was unaware of (German ad jingle for Turkish cigarette somehow?); as well as singing it as a kid a lot when travelling back in the old country, and even still a few times as an adult (upon landing in Israel). I'm confident though that it falls within Wikipedia:Notability (music), so yeah, let's do it! TTYS, for realz this time. All the best, El_C10:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! Is the English transcription correct? Is there an article in Hebrew? - Now: picture of heart-shaped cake(s) uploaded! - Today's story is about a tenor, - why his roles are not linked on the Main page remains a mystery to me. Today is also the birthday of the Bayreuth Festival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC) cake[reply]
Hevenu shalom aleichem, and I also saw alechem and alejchem. What should we take? - Michael McCown has a tenor voice, and I wasn't happy that the role of the Tempter wasn't linked (for the most of the time on the Main page) as if people would know who wrote such a role for which piece. Water under the bridge ... - I understand that part of your brain, but all instrument tenors (tenor recorder, tenor trombone ...) seem to be derived from the voice type. I wanted to begin the song yesterday because it was a happy day, but happily had no time, and today I faced that Berit Lindholm died and had just a poor stub for an article (which I already doubled in size and number of references). - I raised the question on Richard Wagner if his wife Cosima may be mentioned in the introduction. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. Did you know has its rules, and newness is one of the requirements, meaning seven days. It was created on 15 August, so time to nominate ends 23:59 WP's time tomorrow - in theory, - I will sleep then, and you probably also. Which gives us about 30 more hours. We don't have to go for DYK, of course, but if we want to, we should do something. You could point me at sources, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I Did Not Know that Did You Know requires newness — that is new(s) to me. No, no sources in English, but I didn't really look. I was just gonna expand from the source I cited; specifically, about the melody popularized by a Turkish band as derived from the German cigarette advert jingle I mentioned above. El_C11:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understand, do so when you can. I'll look for more but am not too eager for more trouble which DYK always means. - I was busy with (originally unreferenced) Renata Scotto, and now with Gloria Coates, whose article had no life section this morning and came with 3 tags. After that, I can turn to shalom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of that usage, but it's been used for different purposes in different times. Personally, I know it as the El-AL-plane-landed-safely song. The source I provided doesn't mention weddings, but it mentions a few distinct settings, but only 1945-1952. The first one being as a protest song against British rule (1945), while the second one being used to welcome refugees (1946), which perhaps is where the more modern El-AL thing came from. There's 4 additional settings, as mentioned ending in 1952 (first choir performance, in Finland for some reason). El_C00:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I copied from Hava Nagila ;) - and I saw this, this (first para) and this, and just for a smile, this. - If you mention one or two of yours, and I of mine, I think it's long enough for a nomination, and you can add the rest in the 6 weeks that may easily pass until we have discussed enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can wait! - This too shall pass. - Ten years ago on 28 August, I heard a symphony, with a heavy heart because of the pending decision in WP:ARBINFOBOX, and not worried about my future here but Andy's. - It passed, and I could write the DYK about calling to dance, not battle, and Andy could write the DYK mentioning about peace and reconciliation, - look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is RFK Jr.'s Wiki page protected?
The entire introductory paragraph looks extremely politically charged, and begins with a slandering statement. Furthermore, there is barely any mention of his candidacy for President, which you would think would be an important piece of information when describing their life. 93.136.87.210 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, you applied semi-protection to Yejju back in April. Just an FYI that I have increased this to extended protection, given the continued block evasion involving that page. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog(talk)15:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Noticed that you deleted and salted Draft:Zepotha as a hoax. While earlier versions of the draft were hoaxes, the version you deleted was a draft article about the hoax. Would you care to take a second look at the page? Thanks! - Eureka Lott14:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That draft was deleted 4 times in the last two days, so deleting and salting it to prevent a 5th, 6th, etc., seemed sensible. El_C15:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not closely. But feel free to bring it up with the three other deleting admins. I'm good with whatever outcome. El_C15:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As another admin involved in this case, I agree that the most recent revision is encyclopedic in its coverage of the hoax-as-a-hoax, with sources that a glance are a bit weak and tabloidy but definitely make it at least as far as AfD. signed, Rosguilltalk15:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, feel free to recreate it. I purposefully didn't salt it at admin level. It's at WP:ECP, which is one step higher than Liz's WP:SEMI from two days ago, which obviously wasn't enough. Speaking for myself, then, I don't requiere an WP:AFD, but I don't feel it's my call to make, as my familiarity with the subject is superficial at best. El_C16:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As someone who worked on this page, it wasn't reporting the hoax as truth, but explained that it was false. I do think it should have an AfD consensus before deletion, but again I am biased. Cedar Tree17:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what's being discussed here. Rather, the premise is that for the page to be restored, it needs to be kept at deletion (AfD or MfD). Which, again, I said for my part, isn't needed. Again, that draft was deleted 4 times in the last two days, so we're past that, barring time travel. Either way, as I said, I'm content on leaving the decision to others. El_C17:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, WP:ECP restored. As I already said above, I think it's been established that WP:SEMI fell short. Other than that, good luck, hope it works out this time (5th time the charm, if you will). El_C17:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not exactly. The earlier semi-protection was only against recreation, so we never saw if it was effective for the draft article. I doubt that extended confirmed protection is necessary, but I'm not going to argue about it. - Eureka Lott17:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed that this was undeleted and ECP'd. The primary contributor to this draft, Cedar Tree, isn't extended confirmed and so won't be able to edit it. As far as I can tell, all of the disruption since the last speedy deletion (excluding this one) has been from IPs or non-autoconfirmed editors, so perhaps semi would be sufficient? I have been following the Zepotha case fairly closely and recall one or two instances where an autoconfirmed editor was causing disruption, but that seems to be the outlier. —PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've bumped Cedar Tree to WP:XC, though I hope it doesn't send the wrong message as far as this concerning a draft about a Tik-Tok thing of questionable notability that occured on Aug 12 (I'd say WP:NOTNEWS, but is it really news?). Still, they have close to 400 edits, have been editing for a couple of years now, with most of the edits in the mainspace, they have clean block log, etc. El_C10:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Also, sorry for speaking about you rather than to you — I meant to drop a note on your talk page, but it slipped my mind. El_C02:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Panda619 discussion
Hi El C! I wanted to come talk to you one-on-one and apologize again for reversing your actions regarding Panda619. I saw that after the discussion was closed, you re-opened it, but closed it again with the edit summary, "whatever, I'm done". It sounded to me like you were quite frustrated if not angry at that time, and maybe felt that you didn't have the opportunity to speak further about this, or that further action may not have been taken that you might've wanted. That's the reason why I'm here - to tell you one-on-one that I apologize for reversing your actions without talking to you first, and for causing any kind of anger or frustration. We've interacted a lot over the time that we've been contributors, and I really don't want that to change. I just felt like you deserved to hear it from me directly. If you want to talk further, my book is completely open to you, and you're always welcome to talk to me. If I can do anything to help the situation come to closure in your mind, please let me know... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)02:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found it disheartening to find out, Oshwah, that you not only undid my blocking action without any attempt to contact to me about it, but that you also undid my related deletion action. I stand by both those actions btw, and I think it's clear from the discussion that yours were in error. But it's the way that this came across, as if my judgment was impaired—so impaired, that my input was deemed worthless—which I found upsetting. And the flipside was it being done in the shadows, thus avoiding scrutiny (which to be clear, is not my view of your intent). Still, I'm feeling a bit paranoid now. Is there a third action? A fourth? Probably not, but the second (un-deletion) action definitely caught me by surprise — which QEDK not giving a shit (about me) compounded. El_C06:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that, I was away and I had seen that you reverted me (which I was fine with), I was not aware that you reverted yourself again. That said, I simply closed the discussion because the consensus was apparent that Oshwah's unblock was not required, so if anything, I was in support of your action. That said, I do not have any awareness as to what else happened, but I did not mean to cause you any offence in any way whatsoever, so if I did, I apologize. --qedk (t愛c)12:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you closed it immediately after I discovered and commented on the un-deletion, so, I didn't like that. But np, apology accepted, thank you. El_C14:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No - not at all. :-) I assure you that you don't need to be paranoid or need to think that I'm going to revert more actions. I think the intent on what I was doing and thinking at the time was read in the wrong way. The user... just asked in IRC (#wikipedia-en-unblock) to be evaluated, I saw that the block was over a year ago, thought the user was serious about wanting to join and contribute positively, and I made (a bad) assumption that you wouldn't mind. The action wasn't done with the intent or the thought that you did anything wrong and that your block was bad in any way; it was clearly a good block. I'm not questioning that at all. I just also bumped into that edit, thought ...maybe it was a mistake? I wasn't sure nor aware of the context, and I should've asked you via private channel about it. I'm sorry; I just thought "Okay, no big deal, I'd help you out, have your back, and just fix it for you." That's all... Nothing against you in any way.
I fix things for other admins sometimes; nothing against anyone... I do it to have their backs and help them out; not to make a statement, draw a line into the sand, and say that this was a bad action. Normally when I unblock a user or reverse something, pretty much every time - I just let the admin know and they respond and... they don't mind at all. I wasn't aware, didn't think, nor did I ever ever intend for this unblocking or the change to cause you any kind of disheartened feelings at all. To me, it was not a "you did this wrong so I'm reversing this" situation; I just thought, "okay, the user wishes to be unblocked, let's just give the user another shot. No biggie. If anything, we can just block them again - this time without the user having a shot for being unblocked." I'm not trying to make excuses or or say that what I did was right; I'm just trying to help you understand what my thought process was at the time. I offer my 100% apologies to you for this "kerfuffle", and I will use this situation to do better and ping admins beforehand moving forward. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)00:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zuijin
Hello mr El C. Can you please add more informations in zuijin in their page please??? I really need help because in Japanese Wikipedia they are more informations about them and they have famous zuijin. 2A02:1388:408B:8A7E:0:0:FC50:17F5 (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you can make an edit request or ask for help at WT:JAPAN, but I personally am still not interested in contributing to that page. I rarely add content to pages I protect. Which on the day that specific page was protected, numbered in the dozens. El_C14:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same ip has been vandalizing wikipedia for many years
Greeting! I have to contact one of the administrators so I decided to contact you. The same ip has been vandalizing wikipedia for many years and after being blocked it returns again from other IPs. It's about this ip [[1]] , and here he was blocked first for three months, then for a year, and came back again only from another IP [[2]] these are his edits a year ago [[3]] I hope you can solve the problem. Thank you 89.172.83.150 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two sockpuppets reporting each other, if I see correctly. Not the first time I've seen that happen. I usually block both for disruptively reverting each other. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured; was wondering if you had any specific insights about the particulars here, though. El_C14:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ANI is a useful place, but not, surely, for achieving AFC course corrections unless the situation becomes intractable? I respect your concerns about this reviewer. I just wonder if dealing with it more 'gently' might not bear sweeter fruit. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the note, but there are problems that were brought up by another admin, which as mentioned, did not seem to have been directly addressed by the subject of that complaint. I'm all for being gentle when it is called for, and I agree that it largely does here, but I still think changing venues mid conversation was not the best idea. If a new user gets discouraged because their bio was declined for lacking an infobox — that and any similar problems like that, need to be addressed to be resolved (at the least). And such problems are an administrative matter. El_C13:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably remember this user was Cbanned and blocked (by you) for transphobic incivility. Recently they posted a remark on their talk page that just screams transphobic trolling. I don’t think there’s any point in letting them use their talk page to post “edgy” WP:IDHT remarks no-one (well, except me and one other person) reads. Dronebogus (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Just a quick question. Is using one's talk page for WP:SOAPBOX purposes an designated allowable use for WP:BLOCKed editors? Because I don't seem to recall that being the purpose of allowing blocked users to still access their talk page. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the purpose of allowing users the ability to use their talk page is to request an unblock. --Jayron3217:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all aware that exactly where the use of talk pages while blocked varies from case to case, and Roxy's comment was clearly out of line. It was also appropriately lambasted by Tryptofish and did not recur. Being a month old, the whole situation was pretty stale. But don't worry, rather than just reporting this stale issue, they also made sure to make a unnecessary, baiting comment and succeeded in needlessly ramping up drama, which is currently unfolding at the talk page.
So go ahead and pull their tpa for a month old comment that their friend told them was bad, or for their shitty response to the bait. Both are totally policy compliant. But can we also not actively increase drama and make it less likely that a long term contributor ever gets unblocked by baiting them? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Point taken. I hadn't noticed the dates of the comments in question. You're right, and I (as has happened 100% of the time with everything I have ever done) am wrong. I will try to be better in the future. I won't be, mind you, but I will still try. --Jayron3218:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Mistakes happen, and the date issue was easy to miss. The behavior is bad on both sides, so I'm really just hoping it stops, and doesn't continue snowballing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: You are right I should not have responded at the talk page (I was so annoyed I didn’t notice the date, and it was stupid and impulsive either way) but talk page access is a privilege, not a right, and Roxy shouldn’t be given leniency to do the very thing that got them Cbanned (transphobic antics) on it. Dronebogus (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Watching someone aggressively punch down on banned users in this way, and police userspace so vigorously for excuses to do so, makes me feel uncomfortable editing. jp×g03:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks. But I... didn't even know they were married. And sorry, no, I did not see. Unfortunately, I remain intermittently active for the time being. Remind me what is specifically requested again? El_C11:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I know what its importance is for Israel, except speak to its popularity anecdotally from my own experience. As I recall, there was a source that described its possible origins and various usages through the years — is that what you're referring to? El_C12:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above, you hinted at it sung against British supremacy (1945), welcoming refugees (1946), and El Al landed safely song, - all three would be welcome additions, but - as you know - would need a source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I'm remembering now. Its from the notes in the Hebrew source I cited in the article. It references a lecture by אליהו הכהן, a scholar who specializes in Israeli music (work for which he was awarded the Israel Prize). El_C12:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additions. The performance is on yt, and I recommended it to the reviewers while they waited for your addition ;) (check out the nomination, it's on the article talk page) - Today I remember Raymond Arritt, who still helps me, five years after he died, per what he said in my darkest time on Wikipedia (placed in my edit-notice as a reminder), and by teh rulez. - Latest pics from a weekend in Berlin (one more day to come). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be easy enough to retcon. If disruption from confirmed accounts resumes, drop me a line about it here or post about it at WP:RFPP/I. It'll literally take a few second/clicks. Thanks. El_C17:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you add back the previous protection? After the protection was reduced, in the last three months we had to revert many wrong edits from non-extended confirmed users, like the two users of today, wich they did the same thing in October, and I also think they are the same person: one of them changed some numbers, I reverted his edits and then the other user revert back the other user version, can we check if they are the same person?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @El C:, sorry for writing here, but I still think we need the extended confirmed protection, for what I said in December 2023 and also because there is a new user that is doing edit war trying to add things with no consensus and no sources, and is not the first time happening (not this user, in general)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I'm a song guy now (i.e. Gerda writes 90 percent of the content and I take 90 percent of the credit)! But let me ask you this? When the veil is lifted, do light and dark become one? El_C06:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you eventually see through the veils to how things really are, you will keep saying again and again, this is certainly not like we thought it was. Narky Blert (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Universally, no; see WP:3RRNO. But in this case, maybe. It would depend on the particulars, the nature of the edits (e.g. WP:BLP, WP:SPAM, etc.) Regardless, though, if they keeps returning with new IPs, those pages probably require protection. HTH. El_C07:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Gill again
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Good evening. A few days ago there was a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Number of concerns on a COI editor about Richard Gill, who had been doing conflict of interest editing and advocacy at Lucy Letby and Richard D. Gill (he's the one who campaigns for nurses who've been convicted). I was involved in some of the discussions on Talk:Lucy Letby which Snugglewasp was talking about in their report at the noticeboard. You ended up blocking the user from editing his own article and from the Letby page and its talk, a decision I agree with. But since then the users actions have made me wonder if more is needed, especially as you said on his talk that it was a 'final warning'. Today I was going over the article about the guy (which we've found he made in the first place) to see if I could clean it up, since a user put a banner at the top of the page warning that there had been conflict of interest editing there and the page may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. I removed a lot of dubious unreferenced content, a user later said I was doing it a bit too quickly on talk so I accept may not have done it as best as I could. But then Richard Gill appeared on the talk discussion and started being pretty aggressive with me and making unfounded assumptions of me, saying "you are angry with me because we have different opinions concerning the guilt or innocence of Lucy Letby" [6] and then claiming I was consistently not assuming good faith and somehow "vandalising"(!) his article by removing unreferenced content: "You are consistently refusing to apply the good faith presumption to my work on Wikipedia and now it seems you are vandalising the article about me"[7]. I mean I didn't even know who this person was until the other day and I've only been briefly involved in a couple of discussions involving him on the Lucy Letby talk, so I don't understand how I'm consistently refusing to apply the good faith presumption? Then it kind of got worse and he basically started continuing on with the long advocacy-like comments as he'd been sanctioned for on the Lucy Letby talk page so he could just carry on with the advocacy inappropriately on his own talk page, complaining about how "I was attacked by a number of editors of the Lucy Letby article who presumed that I was doing some kind of campaigning pro Lucy on the talk page. I was not campaigning, I was trying to inform them of ongoing developments which may well be relevant in the near future" [8]. The advocacy on Letby and UK law returned with "It furthermore seems that no-one understands the difference between actually being guilty, and being found guilty, of alleged crimes. In the US and most of Europe every convicted person has a right to appeal. In the UK you only have a right to ask for an appeal and it can be turned down by a single judge. Legal scholars agree that UK's criminal prosecution procedures have become strongly biased in favour of the prosecution. The level playing field is tilted" (bare in mind that this was the Richard Gill talk page and a discussion on unverified edits, not a discussion page for Lucy Letby) [9]. Then it was going off on another self-advocacy tangent on him and other campaigners: "The UK public has been whipped up into a frenzy of hatred for a murderer of tiny babies, who possibly is actually not a murderer at all. According to a growing number of people she was a whistleblower in a failing NHS hospital, and this led to four consultants reporting her to the police. Some notable authorities are now speaking out in public in her favour and supporting the movement for a retrial. If I were allowed to edit the Lucy Letby talk page, I would be able to give reliable sources and further information"[10]. So he's also continuing in an unrelated place about his block on Lucy Letby and using that space instead to carry on the advocacy and campaigning.
Another thing is I've noticed which seems to have gone unnoticed in the prior discussion is the extent of the conflict of interest editing he has done. I've found on his recent edit list that he's been editing Ben Myers -- Lucy Letby's lawyer -- who it turns out also rejected the help of Richard Gill in the trial. For example, he was posting links to Myers' web profiles in the middle of the article (in wikivoice) which is potentially more advocacy(?) [11]. So he's been editing the article of Letby's lawyer who he has a personal conflict of interest relationship with. Also, he's been editing at Countess of Chester Hospital (where the Letby murders occurred), literally posting a random link to one of his personal websites campaigning for her (and this was during her trial) [12]. So again, more self-promotion on conflict of interest articles.
So I thought I should just let you know, with you concluding last time to give a lenient p-block as a final warning, further action may be needed. Regards, Structuralists (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Structuralists, paragraph breaks are your friend! But, yeah, those are concerning comments. It's one thing for him to use the talk page of his bio for notable biographical matters, yet another as a WP:FORUM to complain about his sanction (diff). So indeed, further action may well be needed. Please report back here or at ANI in the unfortunately not unlikely chance that happens. El_C21:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Gill again x2
Sorry - I know I must be being a nuisance now! But you said report back here if he did anything else, so you may want to know his continuing behaviour. It turns out that, after those edits to Richard Gill's article I did the other day and since, he has gone on to his personal Twitter to call for followers to "get involved in the Wikipedia articles on Lucy Letby, now spilling over into the article about myself", which he knows full well he's blocked on so seems to be trying to get people to apply his desired edits by proxy: https://twitter.com/gill1109/status/1706191884853404049. Is this WP:CANVASSING? I know there was a question mark over possible canvassing on the original ANI report, but this seems a step above?
Also, he's gone round continuing the advocacy and forum stuff and asking at other Wiki pages for other editors to try and stop edits to his page: [13], [14]. Some of the things he promotes, such as "About 50% of the UK public 'knows' she is a serial killer of defenceless babies, the other 50% is rather concerned that her trial does not appear to have been very fair", have no basis in fact or sources at all, as previously noted on the ANI. And he's still using these spaces to complain about his ban, as you can see. And on his article's talk page he's also been carrying on too with forum-advocacy-like stuff on Lucy Letby [15]. In this edit too he put in the edit summary "Aggressive editing of the article about myself and censorship of expression of the view that Lucy Letby might be innocent" and called for the editor to do something about it - potentially also canvassing? [16]. Anyway, thought it was worth reporting back here. Structuralists (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that. Sorry, I assumed you read the entry beyond the opening line, DFO. Anyway, more info @Pepe the Frog#Kek. The short of it: word got hijacked by racists, later reclaimed by the mainstream, but racists still continue to use it for their purposes. HTH. El_C19:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, are you asking me? Ultimately, I don't think the ideological basis for their despicable provocations really matters all that much. El_C20:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I knew him, as you someone with whom you share a passion, this festival. For decades, he held the annual meetings of the members, greeting everyone personally. He had an amazingly soft kind of determination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Again, I'm sorry for your loss. It sounds like his legacy will live on, though, in those whom his creativity moved, like yourself. All the best, El_C20:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You commented on the arb noticeboard, and I may forget by the time you return, so just ask now, not expecting an answer soon (or at all): "I've probably stopped more infobox conflicts by simply telling disputants that WP:ARBINFOBOX exists." you said, and I am curious to look at just one instance of something like that. I was also surprised that you'd mention that case, when the motion was about WP:ARBINFOBOX2. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good day. There is a lot of disruption and cherrypicking of sources done by editors on Balsic noble family at the moment. I honeslty think that POV pushing like this should have no place on articles about Middle ages. At the same time, one editor, within hours of massive changes on this article, asked to have it renamed, per Albanian POV. Just check the COA description and the way new material has been formulated. Can we get things back to neutral and status quo? Thank you. 109.245.229.163 (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your acknowledgment, Gidon, thank you! Sorry for the belated reply (by a month to the day, as it happens). El_C03:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I proudly remember having sung in an oratorio premiere seven years ago OTD. - With Psalm 143, I finished what I could do, imagine, and it had Hebrew already. For the enemy hath persecuted my soul; he hath smitten my life down to the ground; he hath made me to dwell in darkness, as those that have been long dead. Therefore is my spirit overwhelmed within me; my heart within me is desolate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm more interested in new cat! Also, Ibiza, ooh-la-la. Also also, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)? But how?! DYK that Theleekycauldron ≠ Leaky caldron? The more you now. Anyway, hope to be back more actively in the coming month. TTYS! El_C03:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's cool! From the mountains to God's ear, as they say. About Psalms with lines in the double digis: how about you do it and I check your work. Because it's quite tedious to copy/paste to that awkward table format. El_C07:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
It seems like you're the user who protected the Maqluba page, it seems like that actions has hindered honest research and a thorough look into the subject's history and origins.
I would hope to hear from you about your thoughts on the issue fronting us.
Firstly, thank you for protecting the article that had begun to be heavy vandalized. However I noticed you protected the article to WP:XC as opposed to WP:AUTOC. The reason I reference this is because I have contributed a considerable amount to the article and my account is not yet under WP:XC[17], and as you might of guessed there are further edits I would (ideally) like to contribute already.
I also believe your reasoning for WP:XC as WP:PIA and WP:RUSUKR, while definitely used WP:BROADLY, is potentially a bit too broad given it's based on the biography of a living person, not a war subject. Ideally however, the article would have been WP:AUTOC initially, given the vandalism has exclusively been from IP addresses and new accounts, and therefore likely would not require further protections at this time. Although I do understand you have further reasoning that wasn't mentioned in this arbitration enforcement.
Also to note, there are many articles of American political commentators, that have distinct opinions on the aforementioned conflicts that are merely protected only by WP:XC, seemingly successfully. So I write to you to asking you to reconsider the current level of protection, even though I suspect my opinion is irrelevant, as well as pinging @Patar knight who has been involved in the article for opinion on the subject. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm not challenging you here and saying you did something wrong. You're more experienced than I am. I am asking for clarification.
On November 20, I declined a request for protection of this page because no disruption had occurred on the article [18]. At that point, the article was just six hours old. There had been a single vandal edit [19] but it was innocuous. My reading of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles doesn't indicate that we should preemptively protect such articles. In fact, it seems to indicate the opposite when it says "When disruptive edits are being made...". I still don't see disruptive edits being made to the article (though I grant I haven't reviewed every single edit). I also note that WP:PREEMPTIVE says we shouldn't preemptively protect pages either, though there are of course exceptions.
I readily granted I am not experienced in this area of arbitration enforcement. Maybe I shouldn't have declined the original request. Though, no subsequent damage has occurred. Is it common practice to preemptively protect this topical area? Is there some place this is codified that I can refer to if challenged on it? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. So my modus operandi in these instances is that if an EC user applies a meaningful revert to a contested edit by a non-EC user, then I usally apply WP:ARBECR. On this occasion, the revert in question was by an EC user (Nableezy) who re-added the Gaza Strip section, which yesterday a non-EC user (Hila Livne) had removed. Hope this answer makes sense. Regards, El_C17:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that Courcelles is an admin (and former arb who helped draft WP:ARBPIA3) who believes preemptive protection should be applied to those pages, even if there is no disruption or otherwise contested edits by non-EC users. But I do not subscribe to his view, which I feel is in the minority of current convention. El_C17:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)User:Hammersoft was asking the general question how admins should justify their decisions to apply EC protection to these articles. Under WP:ARBECR and WP:ARBPIA4, the *entire* Arab-Israeli conflict is under the extended confirmed restriction anyway. Non-EC editors can't edit I/P articles, they are limited to making edit requests on the talk page. It is still up to discretion whether admins should apply EC protection on individual pages. Admins may differ on whether to do this, but I myself would be likely to apply ECP if there had been any disruption and if someone requested the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP you banned for a few months is making similar edits
Wanted to bring this to your attention. The edits of this IP you previously banned for 3 months who became unbanned yesterday are problematic at best: Special:Contributions/107.10.129.126
BMK, briefly because I'm writing in haste. Yes, that's not nice, but your Please go to the talk page and get a consensus for your edit (diff) seems misplaced; by treating your preferred edit as the longstanding version and the IP's as the contending one, when it's the other way around. The IP has objected from the outset, a few days after it was added (diff). And I get that the addition's author used Effects of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Background (where that connection is sourced) in their edit summary (diff), but that does not automatically guarantees its inclusion. What I'm saying is that the WP:ONUS is on you, but you placed it on the IP. Or at least that's how it looks like at a cursory glance. Regards, El_C21:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, not sure if you remember my ANI notice on an editor for edit warring and violating 3RR on the page Battle of Ramkani. You blocked that user but it just seems like another user, possibly a sockpuppet has revived the unsourced content on the page. Atp can you possibly mandate a much higher protection level? Noorullah (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
