::This is highly problematic conduct, I challenge. So, I don't think a week-long block is especially draconian when we also take this into account, in addition to today's events. And who knows if there's more misconduct I'm simply unaware of — maybe there's nothing, maybe there's something. Who knows. Regardless, for such a fraught topic area as [[WP:ARBGG]], I think those two incidents alone, to me, signify conduct well out of step with even the most lax of standards. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
::This is highly problematic conduct, I challenge. So, I don't think a week-long block is especially draconian when we also take this into account, in addition to today's events. And who knows if there's more misconduct I'm simply unaware of — maybe there's nothing, maybe there's something. Who knows. Regardless, for such a fraught topic area as [[WP:ARBGG]], I think those two incidents alone, to me, signify conduct well out of step with even the most lax of standards. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
::: Given the extent of {{tq|problematic conduct}} in the ARBGG topic area that has been brought to your attention but which you have completely ignored, I find the preceding comment (inadvertently?) hilarious. I cannot imagine that if you had seen an editor blatantly accusing someone of - horrors - sexism, other than your esteemed self, that you would have blocked them for a week without talk page access, whether on the first or the second offense. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
== WP:BLP (maybe) ==
== WP:BLP (maybe) ==
Revision as of 02:17, 21 February 2021
If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – Che.
El C, contrary to your edit summary- I noticed you were gone, and missed seeing you on recent changes. You are one of my favourite editors. This is for you. Regards, dvdrw04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Free hat! Today, while cheekadeepetting, this lady who saw us from a far, came over and said: "Can I tell you something...? You're an angel of God."(!) To which I of course replied: "All hail Atheismo!" [nah, I said: "thank you, maddam, that's very kind of you" — what else could I say?] I took an especially neat cheekadeepetting photograph today: it remained visible between my thumb and index as it flew away, giving the illusion it was bee-sized! What an unexpected, and sweet, effect! El_C02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I've been meaning to ask for ages. What is the link between revolutionary socialism and chimpunks? Did I miss that bit in Animal Farm? Is it something to do with resting the means of damn making from beavers? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No link; but are you referring to Groundhog? (see left) There is a Groundhog-Chippie connection, which I was trying to further cultivate (see right). El_C11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. There are a couple of admins I usually contact when I see something that needs to deleted, but unfortunately they let real life interfere with their admin duties. You are online a lot at the same times I am, so it's good to have another person to contact if needed. I generally only ask personally if it's both serious and urgent. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I realize.my wording above presumes you'd be willing, and that I didn't actually ask, so thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Romania
And all I got was this... Whoa!
I can live with your highly arbitrary closing summary of the RfC on the Talk page, so I do not want to persuade you to change it. However, you closed other on-going debates as well. Could you open the other debates? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Good day, see? Take music and flowers to your liking ;) - It's great to see your name so often on my watchlist. One area where I often wait for admin action - not now - is WP:ITNN, where we nominate for recent deaths to be shown on th Main page, and often the time between an article found [Ready] and then is [Posted] seems [too] long to still call it recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, sorry for touching some wound ;) - Same for me: last year, I nominated a great pianist for RD, after I first had create an article which took time, and then carried away to also make it decent, - and by then her death was so long ago that she wasn't mentioned at all. The more woman, and the more foreign, that danger seems imminent, and if I may bother you in case I seee it coming again, that would be great. At present, it's a man, listed 20 Feb (although who knows if that was the day?), and nobody even commented yet, so nothing to be concerned about right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated him, so am not the most independent to judge ;) - and I'm already busy with the next, a woman, but mostly not foreign. - I really think we have some unintended bias there: the most prominent figures (white U.S. males) get speedy attention, and appear soon at the top position, while the female foreigners - often reported late to start with - take so long to even be noticed that they get only a place towards the end, finally, - as long as we go by date of death and not "in at the top". Result: those who are promminent already get preferred showing, more in front, and longer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: sorry for the belated response — I overlooked your last message. Apologies for not being able to assist with that one. Please don't hesitate to list more. I'll try to be more cognizant of this thread next time, I promise. El_C03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda’s corner is lovely. When I have more time in my life and can do things beyond blocking socks, I plan to spend time there getting some of the Holy Thursday hymns on the main page. Gerda, if it’s not too late to find one, let me know. The Pange Lingua is always a first choice, but if there are any others you can think of, I’m open. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely corner, thank you! Today is The day of music, two choirs singing. I'd like Beati improved - but it's in the evensong, perhaps I'll get to a few more lines. On IWD, I should also get Elinor Ross in better shape ... - but singing comes first. Listen to Beati by voces8, another article needing improvement. Singing comes first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the ITNN page, 6 Mar, Carsten Bresch. We will possibly never know when he died, but should use 6 - when the world was informed - as the day by which we go. I may be alone with that view ;) - Lovely lively colours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting, and I added "Posted", but don't want to pass credits. DYK you know that it is as easy as clicking on the words "credit" in the nom? Nice progress on the soprano, but out for singing (alto), second round. A good source for her death would be a nice addition, anyone. this is all Spanish to me, and the English one is a blog. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about you? - I asked the decliner for reasoning, but got no answer. I think it might be better if it's not a personal thing between them and me, so an independent pair of eyes might help. - I don't go via AfC, nor does my friend LouisAlain, but last year many of his translations were sent to draft space, for lack of refs, just because de and fr have different ideas about referencing. I try to rescue, that's all. Then get a ridiculous template on my talk recommending the Teahouse, and still see the ridiculous decline template recommending to seek help from an experienced editor, - the things we do to voluntary contributors ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging me, El_C! Concerning Dimash: Oh wow, I really didn't expect that! But I'm happy you enjoy it! It's funny, it's not even a genre I usually listen to. But the first time I heard him 2 years ago, I immediately loved his music. I love his voice, his emotional interpretation; and his vocal skill, range and versatility are just enormous. And he seems to be a very nice and humble guy, which makes it even easier to like him. PS: "eclectic and esoteric variety"? Wow, that sounds interesting. Jasmin Ariane (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
♫ Welcome to the corner, Jasmin! Yes, I love Dimash's Sinful Passion, New Wave, SOS d'un terrien en détresse, Ogni Pietra (Olimpico), Opera 2, and more. Indeed, music-wise, I'm all over the place. Yesterday, I was listening to the Mahavishnu Orchestra, I'm listening to Charlie Byrd right now (because I love bossa nova, above all else), and I'm listening to the China Philharmonic Orchestra in the car currently. So, yeah, all over the place. Welcome, again! ♫ El_C16:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but otherwise, your userpage isn't easy to parse, due to the fact that you actually use it. I edit mine like once a decade. El_C18:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. There's a YouTube video at the bottom of the page, but it's just some people talking in German (which I don't-Opa-understand) alongside some German folk music (not my cup of tea). Then, you link to Nikkimaria's talk page as an ill with numbers and stuff, but it still only links to their main user talk page. Quite confusing. El_C13:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
entirely my fault, I thought I had the video in the article, but no, only on the talk of Martinevans123, and when I'm absent-minded, I confuse ill and diff, Nikkimaria. But hurray, I just expanded the soprano, sufficiently I hope. Need fresh air now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't really like that song. Didn't dislike it either. Was just kinda meh. Personally, I prefer the Israeli children songs I grew up on, like הילדה הכי יפה בגן, for example. El_C16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Degenhardt would have been delighted! Not a song to be liked, - did you read the quote which I translated (improving on Deeple) per the talk request. Song talk about unpleasant smells, ending with a crime and a corpse swimming ... while the surviving grubby children keep singing that you better don't play with them. - Thanks for yours. Did you read my advice for M? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not. Quoted where? Also, after Opa, I'm afraid to ask, but what's a "Deeple"? Yes, I saw it. Sound advise, but I'm still concerned that further cognizance will nonetheless be needed in order to avoid utter disaster in the future. El_C16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
my next mistake, DeepL - as you know everything about me you'll know that I am an infobox warrior who had to be restricted by arbcom to prevent utter disaster in the future. For 2 years I was too proud to appeal. I should have known SBHB's advice in the case, but then we might not have gotten to Beethoven ;) - RfC for Ian Fleming, and I stay away, I stay away, I don't play that game any more - please, be never afraid to ask! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The church pic - as you will have seen - is in my user infobox for 2021. I don't know the singer personally, but she sang for us several times, Bach's great works (all explained if you follow the link, also (below there) that some like to receive my thanks and appreciation), and she sang recently in cantata services that I pictured (her page). On all these pictures, she is too small for "about her", and my lead is smaller "about me", of course. - I knew nothing about the translator, but she was a red link on Deaths in 2021. The bitter-sweetness is between her and her ex-husband, a novelist with an article who wrote her obit. (They had four children when they were divorced, and now he has ten.) - The delegate called me to task for the Bach cantata, so I will have to not follow spontaneous impulses for a few days, - hope no one dies whose article has to be written. In the cantata, BWV 1, I have a problem. The article was all built on one source (and all other Bach cantatas at the time also, btw) which one user denies reliability. I wanted to keep it, supporting it for all facts - only recordings, anyway - by a second source, trying to be faithful to the article history and to retain what editors did before me. He removed it. Quite generally, I have a problem with expansions which ignore what former editors achieved, see BWV 53 and Ian Fleming for recently mentioned examples. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look "despicable" to me, but I am far from an authority. This is not an area with which I am familiar. El_C18:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, El C. Hope you're well. An IP started adding a Greek translation of toponyms across many villages in Albania - inhabited by a Greek community and also many that have a small Greek community or none at all. I reverted some of the IP's edits, particularly in places where very few Greeks or none at all live. Many editors have reverted the IP's edits and have warned them on their talkpage. Now, Khirurg began reverting back the IP edits[2] without any consensus and claiming that somehow I'm following him [3] because I restored some articles to the pre-IP version which he is trying to make into the new WP:STABLE without discussion. These WP:LEDE name changes can create a very tendentious situation and I don't think that they should be decided via who does the most reverts.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You very well know that virtually all these villages are almost entirely inhabited by ethnic Greeks, and that this is sourced, and the source is present in the articles in question. The "many editors" is just Bes-ART (talk· contribs), who went reverting every single one of the IP edits indiscriminately, without care and without explanation [4]. This amounts to unexplained removal of sourced info. You also participated in this, for example here [5] (almost entirely Greek) and here [6] (25-50% Greek). In the latter edit, you justified your revert on the ground that the original addition was made by an IP editor; as if that somehow justifies blanket reverting. IP editors have the same editing rights as you do, and that's not an excuse to revert them. And yes, you reverted me within 3 minutes at an article you had never edited before [7], which leads me to wonder how often you sit there refreshing my contribs log. I must say I'm flattered. Now instead of the usual admin-shopping, how about you explain based on wiki policy why the alternate name of minority-inhabited villages should be summarily removed. Let's hear it. Khirurg (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first edits made by this IP were all erroneous, biased, and often using references that did not in fact mention the subject of the change at all. In some cases using the 2011 Census which in fact did not mention the ethnicity of the population by villages but only by Counties. Not to mention the fact that many members here on the one hand oppose the use of this census data but in some articles are interested in using it. Therefore this census will either be used for all articles or will not be used in any of them. Looking at the first edits I reverted all the articles to their previous status regardless of whether they are OK in some articles or not. Having said that, for me, it is ok to put the name in Greek in those where there is a significant percentage of the population of this ethnicity or other ethnicities. But let's use a certain standard because although there is nothing wrong with using the Greek alphabet in the infobox, it would be better to use transliteration in the Latin alphabet or only in the Greek one and not both together. This makes Infobox look ugly. Bes-ARTTalk10:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was monitoring the IP's edits again to see if they were edit-warring and then saw that you began to restore them. This is not the way to put forward edits which don't have a consensus. I'm OK with the Aliko edit, but you have no consensus for the edit on Delvinë and many other ones which concern villages where Greek is spoken by a small community only. Edit-warring is not the way to include edits which weren't part of the WP:STABLE. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Maleschreiber, I'm not well! My car got majorly dinged a couple of days ago (no one hurt thankfully; I wasn't actually there), which is gonna be expensive and is a real drag. Plus, nobody wants to be my friend lately, it seems. Sorry, don't know if I'm up for an insane Balkans run right now. At the risk of reusing the same lame joke twice in matter of minutes, perhaps someone else can step up this time...? Best wishes to all, El_C01:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about your car, El_C! My youngest son had a mXXXn slam into his car while it was parked on the street. Luckily the mXXXn's insurance totaled it and gave him a hefty check. Good luck dealing with insurance! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kansas Bear. The insurance folks are all really nice people, the problem is that they're just not especially competent, which is adding to my stress levels. Oh well. C'est la vie!El_C01:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, just what I needed. You said something nice today, DYK? "Maybe a week, ten days, at most." A month seems long for someone defending an invaded area, iban or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate you looking out for a friend, Gerda, but Mathsci was blocked back in Nov (as opposed to a year ago), with that last block being for a full week. So, to me, a month seemed like a reasonable escalation. Weird how both cases involve the same admin, NinjaRobotPirate (I'm a fan), talk about criss-crossing paths, again! El_C15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See, I never want to be an admin, and - believe it or not - this horrible infobox warrior has never been blocked. But I mused at times what that time-out would teach me. Did you keep an eye on BWV 53? (I look away. I look away, but can't help seeing it's still busy. FS made a nice comment today - in the BWV 1 FAC - about I'd not recognize "my" article If he edited, which is soo true. Remember the Magnificat that was my kick-off for the year, until ...) Some suffer that better than others, it seems.) Eric Corbett would just sit blocks out (at least for I while), and that's what I probably I might do as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I know probably the least about WP:ARBINFOBOX2 than all the other AE topic areas. I mostly engage the politics and history ones — although WP:ARBBLP and WP:ARBPS are key ones, too (with an occasional WP:ARBGG incident happening from time to time, as well). Anyway, my familiarity with that Arbitration case pretty much approaches zero. Sorry, no, I've not kept up with, well, anything really. I haven't loaded my (~100K) watchlist in, like, maybe 3 months now...? El_C16:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also know nothing about ARBINFOBOX2 ;) - I had enough after the first. Seriously. In a nutshell: I liked Carmen better as it is now than what it was in 2013 but I can't show you because it was just deleted. Just took seven yer to get resolved, but I will carry the label forever, probably. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonono, there was no 1. The arbs probably thought they'd solve Teh Problem then, forever. The real problem: the case was requested by a friend of mine (as a surprise) to have someone look at the massive opposition that the introduction of {{infobox opera}} received. You can imagine: everybody jumped on the train with complaints about everything that ever went wrong with infooxes. In the end, after what I thought was a fruitful workshop phase, they restricted a few people (including me), and told everybody to find consensus on each article's talk page, which was the perfect invitation to have conflict and unkindness forever. I left the circus in 2015, due to health issues, but you will still find people claiming that I drove editors away. The most recent edition is Ian Fleming, where I was amused today about a cleverly worded edit, - look for "boilerplate spiel" ;) - Our cat IP - perfect match to the header higher up- responded, less amused, it seems (see user's talk, deleted). Thank you for the beautiful flowers!! I'll listen later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I listened, should have known which flower :) - I love what the orchestra is doing during his last word, these strange harmonies. He's not even looking at her, just focused on himself. I mentioned the opera today, DYK? (MarnetteD) ... memory lane --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
meow - everyday, I thank the author of today's featured article, DYK? - today I did it and wondered how long it would take to be reverted - 20 minutes - meow - it's funny and sad --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad this animosity endures, but it is what it is. Oh well. It's probably best to leave them be —here, too— unwanted is unwanted, and that's that. El_C11:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...? Sounds a bit mean of a mean it, honestly. Also, how does WP:TFAA even happen? What a mystery that process is! I, for one, can't make heads or cat's tails of it.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C13:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you a long time ago not to comment on “my” talk page, and that position hasn’t changed. Your comments are, as El_C put it, sincerely not welcomed. Commenting when you’ve asked not to can be taken for harassment, and that is exactly what it will be every time you do it. I have deleted similar messages from you in the recent past (example), so why this hasn’t sunk in yet, I really don’t know. I will make it crystal clear here for you, yet again: do not comment on the SchroCat talk page again. 213.205.194.182 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TFA
Easy answer: Three elected delegates put something in the days, which may be by their choice (they take turnes monthly), or by requests WP:TFAR. Everybody can work on the blurbs that lie in the future. The delegates have the tricky job to have only one bird and one hurricane per month ;) - On TFAR, you see two suggestions by me for the articles of others, and one that made me slow down work on BWV 1, because the only possible day for it in 2021 is wanted by someone else. In the old days, people would then fight, with a point system of relevance, newness, recent similaraties etc, but I just slow down. Support whatever you like there! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, no magic Elves? Now the mystique is gone and I'm sad... Which instantly turns to seething rage and paranoia. Off I go to make a 3-hour documentary about how them damn commies stole my TFAA. Wait, who am I again? El_C14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(I told you the formerly despised Wehwalt became delegate, no.) What can I do? I gave you flowers already. If you are yourself again, you could really help Nikkimaria at BWV 53, now that she is alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your close of the Zvikorn report on AE, I have always been perplexed by what, exactly, "previous version reverted to" means on AN3. I don't often file reports there, but I did file two recently, and, as usual, I really didn't understand what was being asked of me. When you have a free moment, could you explain it? Ping me if you do, please -- and thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, that WP:AN3 paramter is simply asking that the filer demonstrates with respect to their list of diffs showcasing the alleged reverts, what version the earliest diff cited had reverted. Just so as to prove that it wasn't simply a bold edit that is being misconstured as a revert. Hope that makes sense. El_C14:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Beit Shearim
Hi, El C. I am asking you to look at the section "Depopulated" vs. "Displaced" in the Talk:Beit Shearim article where I have asked you to decide in my case if this article falls under my Narrow Topic Ban issued here on 18 August 2020. Please give me your fair and undivided judgment. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, David. As far as your topic ban is concerned —which seems to be the most elaborate topic ban I've ever seen on the project— it does not appear to be a violation, as it involves events well before 1948. Note, though, that a village displaced of its inhabitants reads awkwardly to me. Probably better to state it as: a village whose inhabitants had been displaced. Regards, El_C14:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time.
And ONLY if you have time. Please take a look at this page Witold Pilecki, the ongoing discussion [8], new account edits in breach of ARBCOM restriction[9] following a revert without concensus reached, (discussion ongoing) to the version of the restricted account, by another fresh account that (I think) just passed the restriction threshold [10]. Links to discussions[11],[12] Note that Bob not Snob participates in both discussions, so is aware of them. - GizzyCatBella🍁13:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing my ANI case! I think you missed two accounts, though (the last and third-to-last in the given list of socks). Especially the former has been active in the talk page abuse I mentioned. Also, should this vandal return with a new account, would I be able to request TPA revocation alongside the SPI case? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't catch the one already blocked, just saw the one who wasn't and figured both that didn't pop up on my watchlist were not blocked. Thanks for clearing this up. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere, too. Protected three 2 pages that I immediately encountered. Seems to be some weird Hania Amir fixation...? Oh well. But why an SPI? Who do you suspect of being the master? El_C12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, make that two. Not sure why I protected the same page twice at the same time (or that it was even possible), but meh-here-are! El_C12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! The master is IrzaKhanz69, according to Pahunkat in the ANI thread linked above. (I don't know if I can necessarily blame them for the fixation part, of course; Hania is pretty attractive, and there's a reason I edit Kinza Hashmi so much...)Anyway, I managed to total my car about an hour and a half after messaging you, so forgive me if it takes me a while to reply further. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, no! My own car got majorly dinged too a few days ago (see this thread), but not totalled. What a drag. At least you're okay (I hope!). Sending positive thoughts your way! El_C14:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I'm not sure whether to be sad or relieved that I'm not alone. I'm sorry for your loss...Yeah, I'm fine, thankfully; I don't think my car could say quite the same, though :-/Thanks for the cheer-up, though! It was exactly what I needed to brighten up my day at that point :-) M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, now that is totalled, the axel and everything. Impressive. Still, for me, $8K is nothing to sneeze at. Guess I'm rental-ing it for the next few weeks... Fun times.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have a novice user, that more or less try to cooperate, however I raised an obvious question ([19]) for which I get a correct answer ([20])...besides this, I ignored a third IP editing which may be the same user logging out...with all of good faith could you explain him/treat the situation about the validity of multiple accounts? (did he forget his password, or?) Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, KIENGIR, not trying to be difficult, but what is preventing you from making those further inquiries and/or clarifications? Regards, El_C13:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean at this point my role ends, I don't know what to do, there are some policies about abusing multiple accounts, and maybe the user don't know this, I just want to prevent him/her from troubles in the future, and I was thinking I should not cope with content issues with him/her until this is not clarified (since such issues we should report to admins, even if it seems technical). What do you suggest? I could only tell what I did now for you, and likely the user would turn to an admin as well even not kowing the exact policies on this...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
KIENGIR, I think starting with something basic like {{uw-login}}, and maybe some otherwise basic explanations to that effect, would be best. Granted, we generally wish to centralize an individual contributions to the utmost, just for best recordkeeping practices, but this is still early days — obviously, it isn't like, say, SchroCat's use of an IP above or CaptainEek's use of AdmiralEeks above that. Rather, it's seems like somewhat ordinary growing pains fare. So, slow and easy; calm and friendly. Sorry, I'm feeling a bit stretched thin right now, so unless there's a need for more immediate intervention, I'd prefer you (or anyone else) were to handle the non-urgent end of it on your part as best you could first. Good luck! Best regards, El_C14:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got distracted earlier! I'd run a CU looking into this, which came back Likely. Same IP, slightly browser. IP Seems to house a few other probably-unrelated accounts. SQLQuery me!00:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just glanced at it. Sorry, there's no way I'm doing that today! I'm burning both ends of the candles right now, so I gotta pace myself. El_C00:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisahn, right, you ask me, here, like so. But can you show that there is a lot of protracted edit warring going on? Because I'm wary of throttling a page that sees that much activity. Not sure why you pinged Octoberwoodland here. They are not an admin, so they do not have the authority to grant your request. El_C00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there hasn't been much edit warring. Just like Octoberwoodland, I thought the page was already under 1RR, and I thought it would be useful. But if you'd rather not do it yet, that's fine with me as well. If problems do arise, I'll come back here. But I hope it won't be necessary. :-) (The ping was just because Octoberwoodland started the discussion at Alalch Emis's talk page and might want to chime in here.) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just understood that moments ago (the ping). Anyway, in general, restrictions are added by need only. The general consensus among admins is to wait and see, and only if needed add 1RR. And if that isn't enough, only then move on to additional enhancements, like Consensus required (i.e. gradual escalation). Regards, El_C00:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is time I knew more about do's and don'ts applicable to infoboxes. Could you let me have the link to any WP that applies to Infoboxes as such? Qexigator (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some users get hot about infoboxes, while for others it's the normal thing to have. Before adding an infobox to an article without one, check for warnings in edit mode, and for discussions on the talk page. Recent example Ian Fleming, nonono. Those who made the article as nice as it is today don't like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to MOS:INFOBOX. This comfirms my experience when I have been looking at or editing other well-established articles on impottant topics: the infobox is 'to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored,,,The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance,' If well done, they can be very helpful when needed.' Qexigator (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--Written, composed and performed by Guy Mazig (2014)
This one only took me 25 minutes, what do you know? How this one was so easy I really have no immediate explanation for (the first one took me so many hours to refine). [Update: a few minor adjustments, but still feels way, way (way) easier than the last one. Like, by several orders of magnitude.] El_C16:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I Want Us To Be Realized" English translation
If we don't wake then we'll remain forever
Inside the maze without finding the exit
We'll freeze in place and not break the ice
Who will make a move, you or I?
If we release when we spin, we both
Could shed all that is on us
Then nothing would surely come between us
And we won't remember our difficult beginning
It's hot, it's good, but it reaches the edge
We are just playing with fire
You don't need to think too much
All in all I just want us to be realized
If we only look and not touch then surely
We won't resist, not withstand the tension
In the end it will happen, we'll burn the entire field
And nothing will go back to how it was
So if you want to stretch the moment
From something small that will turn to mega
Then let's continue dancing and also try
To turn around until the fall
It's hot...
--Written, composed and performed by Guy Mazig (2015)
yes ;) - that pic was taken by my much-missed friend who made the good version for Ian Fleming, and my illustration for the infobox wars (see the link to the workshop, and in my 2020 talk archive). - On the other topic, Bach, we have now another ANI, by Smerus, Nikkimaria is fighting, I shake my head and try to look away, and Mathsci is still blocked. How many more editors in good standing are going to be burnt? - I like the singers music, but the images best when I see him, not graphics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second time today where I've had Che quoted back at me — looks like it's gonna be one of those days... Enjoy your outing! El_C11:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back from sun and snow: sorry if that landed wrong. I was a bit in a rush, and reacted to "all roads lead to IF". I don't care about IF, at all, the number of my edits to his article is zero, the number of my edits to the talk page is zero. I had not thought of him in years until the ongoing RfC, and my edits will remain zero. I use his name as an example, because - with the RfC going - I can mention it, otherwise if I mentioned a name from the group someone would come and cry "canvassing".
I thought about the animosity, and what I can trace back (because I really don't understand it), and looked at what I wrote about Ian Fleming on the page deleted as a call to battle. I made a note of the name, that it was infobox person (red background indicating that it was lost) and the above-mentioned diff of a good version from 2012 piped to the date. That's all. I had forgotten until I looked it up now that my friend had made the good version. When we lost him (later that year) I spread the image all over the Wikipedias, even Hebrew (with some help from a friend from Jerusalem). My first reaction had been to leave, but then I didn't want to do his enemies that favour ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, that is some lovley greenery. So nice. Also, you can CANVASS me any day, Gerda, but should probably note my propensity to call (!)voter fraud whenever things don't go my way (diff). Anyway, trying to take it easy today, with the occasional bouts of critical drinking.El_C19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, easy today, will explain "canvass" some other day, also why I think the animosity is inherited, because the listing described really doesn't explain it, - although I can see (now) that the red background - about as red as your top image - could be seen as inflammatory. But a reason to leave Wikipedia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Easier today, with progress on BWV 1. Back to the beginning, Hebrew: we miss Yoninah, terribly, and one of the many things she would have done for me is adding the text of a psalm to the article, compare Psalm 45 and Psalm 43. The text can be found at the bottom, in External links. I could probably manage but would feel safer if someone did it who could actually read it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Oh, good, glad to hear it. Yup, I well know Yoninah for her top-tier contributions. I wouldn't count our losses yet, though. She's only been gone less than a month. Hopefully, she'll return soon. *Sending positive vibes*El_C11:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One this day nine years ago, I told Voceditenore that she is a voice of opera and reason. In 2018, she said: "And, no, there haven't been infobox squabbles in ages. I personally use them all the time now for biographies and operas. There are a few diehards left, but the general attitude from both perspectives seems to have settled on live and let live." So why is it that some still can't settle on live and let live? - The next cookbook author is scheluded to appear as TFA (with a nice infobox btw, as the last), and I will keep the usual thanks to the creator for myself as insistent, but I don't understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It could just ebb. In 2018, it was no concern. Why is it now? Why can't we just edit the little boxes as other content: someone adds, and if someone reverts, consensus needs to be established. Instead, someone adding, or requesting, or just asking where it went, is considered a warrior. The question where it went often goes like this: when a certain group of editors expanded an article, they collapsed it (thinking that was a compromise, but making life harder for those having physical trouble to click the "show" button). That caused a little edit-war, which was "resolved" by taking it away completely, with a discussion like this on the talk following. Ever since, we have been reminded that there was this consensus not to have one, and we are supposed to believe that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, I am like-minded with you in that interpretation. WP:ONUS should generally be observed, like elsewhere. Indeed, there really isn't an excuse for not doing so. In theory, per WP:ARBINFOBOX2, WP:ACDS allows admins to just straight-up make it (ONUS) a requirement by adding Consensus required to intractable infobox disputes. My sense is that most admins just do not want to touch these because it usually ends up amounting to a zero-sum game, at best — myself, I don't really engage infobox disputes in an AE capacity, because the history and politics AE topic areas keep me busy enough (diff). El_C16:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood. Admittedly, I do not have a firm grasp of what's happening on the infobox front. RE: translations. Many thanks! I appreciate your praise very much. Also Val's. Strange how it took me hours and hours to do the first one, an hour to do the second one, and 30 minutes to do the third one. But I think I'm now finally satisfied with the final form of all three translations, so at least I'm done with the constant tinkering (though not to jinx it!). El_C16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For more understanding: imagine - if you can, it takes courage - for a moment that back in 2012, the infobox had been kept as it had been for years then already. Imagine. - Certainly thanks to presentation here, Arik Brauer made it to the stats, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of my favourite books growing up... Reception looks great to me. I think he did a fine job. Top tier musicology. El_C16:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonono, I could never write such a thing (+ I'm not a "he" as the writer is, and yes, the obvious "he" just merged it). Two ways to the answer: you follow the links in the edit summary (better the second), or you look at the new article's talk page. Unless you just guess why I come to you of all people with this question, and may guess right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, for reasons which are my own, attending to this dispute, in any administrative capacity, just isn't something I wish to engage at this time. Sorry. El_C20:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's very much okay to express. Also, we can be in diametric opposition about whatever from time to time. That is also okay. El_C23:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they consider it a term of respect, like calling you Colonel or Your Honor? As Grandma used to say, just don't call me late to dinner. :) That apparently was a hilarious joke 100 years ago. :) —valereee (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain that I need to explain exactly why you deserve this barnstar, suffice it to say that you spend a lot more time cleaning up WP:AN and WP:ANI than any admin should be honorably required to do. One hopes that perhaps watching the soothing, spinning star will help you relax some. :-) WaltCip-(talk)15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is excitement!. Message added 03:12, 12 February 2021 (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.
"he seems to be at his wits end at this time" about sums it up. The worst of the behavior has stopped, but there's two factions that are numerically balanced, and neither is willing to budge an inch on any aspect of the article whatsoever (you'd think a more readable page with the same content would be something everyone's interested in, but no). So the talk page has just devolved into endless stone-walling, and unless and until an uninvolved user with no opinions on the content is willing to try to rewrite the page, I don't think any progress is likely to be made...Vanamonde (Talk)19:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:AE would probably get you the best results. As for how: attach whatever evidence showing that the IP/s is actually them. No stale reports, please. El_C22:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For your attention
Regarding this, you might want to do the same to the other two accounts listed here. There is also a list of similar names here that haven't been used in awhile but which may need watching. Also, this does not bode well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's no need to bother with anything that isn't an active incident or is otherwise stale. As for Commons, sure, someone should let them know. El_C23:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement
Hi El C,
I thought I should post something here because my name has come up in some of your recent discussions. I was previously known as Mclarenfan17, and I have largely been retired for the past six months. I have been intermittently active over the past few weeks, mostly because of virus restrictions.
I have noticed that I was referred to you because of arbitration enforcement. An editor, Tvx1, claims that I have been editing from an IP address to circumvent an arbitration ruling. I think these claims are being made in bad faith as the editor in question had a habit of wikilawyering, which was noted in the arbitration hearing. Case in point, this edit that he made around the time he went to arbitration enforcement. It ignores a consensus that was established on the article talk page, a discussion that the editor did not take part in. He is well aware that there is a small number of editors on the article, and so appears to be using arbitration enforcement to try and stop me from making any edits to the article and allowing him to ignore the consensus. 1.129.108.95 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mclarenfan17, as an individual subject to an Arbitration sanction, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports, it is inappropriate for you to be editing from various IPs, sometimes in contravention of your interaction ban. Please either log into your Mclarenfan17 account, or if you lost your login details, create a new registered account clearly identifying yourself as such. And from that point forward, please ensure that you adhere to the conditions set by the Arbitration decision in the strictest possible sense. El_C00:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it is inappropriate for you to be editing from various IPs"
I understand this, but my device has a dynamic IP. I do not know how to change this; had I known, I would have taken steps to change it sooner. As very few of my edits have seen me cross paths with the other editor, I was under the impression that this was okay. 1.129.108.95 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, it isn't the end of the world. Just make sure you login from now on, each and every time you edit, and we can definitely go from there. El_C00:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C,
I noticed that you have recently put indefinite protection on several pages as part of arbitration enforcement. You also noted that the discussion regarding me "fizzled out". This is because, as I explained to you, I am on a dynamic IP. I cannot change this; I do not even know how to. I would register a new account, but last time I did that I had to request one, and that took six weeks. How am I supposed to contribute to the arbitration discussion when a) my IP is constantly changing, b) I edit from a mobile device and so do not get notifications when messages are posted to the IP talk page, and c) it takes weeks to get an account registered, but the arbitration discussion is closed within days?
Furthermore, if you read Talk:2021 World Rally Championship, you will see that the reason for the dispute has largely been resolved. The edits in question were reverted because they broke the format of a table, rendering it completely unreadable on the mobile site despite the changes being made so that the article would be more accessible. I reverted those edits to the last good version because I did not know how to fix them, but knew that a major edit would be coming within days and was concerned that it could make the problem even harder to fix. I advised other editors on the talk page of the problem with the expectation that they could find a solution. Everything that I did was in good faith. I didn't even look at who made the original edits; I looked at them and thought "this is a serious problem that I cannot fix, but if I don't do anything, it's going to create bigger problems". 1.144.105.233 (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mclarenfan17, I don't see what that has to do with the heart of the matter, which is that you continue to evade your sanction by using multiple accounts. Until you adhere to the instructions set above, you are effectively a persona non grata on the project, and efforts to deter you from making any edits will now be undertaken with extremes prejudice. El_C22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I am not trying to evade sanctions. I cannot log into my old account because I forgot the password. I tried to register a new account in the past, but that took weeks. How am I supposed to take part in the arbitration enforcement discussion process when it is closed within days? Please understand my position here - I cannot satifactorily meet all of the conditions required to participate in the procesd. If I try editing from an IP, I get accused of evasion. If I apply for an account, it takes weeks and I am accused of not taking part. I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't. Nobody has said "this is how you fix things so that you edit from a static IP" or "tell us which username you registered and we can get it approved" or "tell us which username you registered and we'll take it as a sign of good faith in the arbitration discussion because we know the process takes a while". Nobody has offered me any solution to the problem, even though I have consistently pointed out that I don't know how to fix it. And then, when I don't immediately do as instructed, I get further sanctions from the very people I just told "this is a problem and I don't know how to fix it". 1.144.105.233 (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mclarenfan17, trying or not, you continued doing so after multiple warnings. Not sure how it takes weeks to register an account. Never heard of such a thing before. But even say that's the case, however long it takes, that's how long it takes. Full stop. El_C23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm using the wrong word here. In registering an account, I specifically had to request one. I had to fill in a form with my preferred username and e-mail address, and it would be sent off to someone to review and approve. I was directed to Wikipedia:Request an account, possibly because of my dynamic IP. The first time I did it was shortly after I forgot the Mclarenfan17 password. I did not get an e-mail about it for about six weeks.
"But even say that's the case, however long it takes, that's how long it takes."
Well, my concern here is that the arbitration enforcement message was posted on the 12th. You closed the discussion on the 18th and described me as persona non grata on the project because I was not taking part in the discussions. What would you suggest that I do here? I cannot participate because I am waiting to hear back about an account, and get in trouble because I'm not participating. But if I do participate while waiting on an account, I get in trouble for circumventing the rules. By the time the account is approved, the decision has already been made.
Now, I did everything in good faith. When the issue was raised, I owned my actions. I could have ignored it and pretended it was someone else, but I didn't. The person who filed the report was clearly on a fishing trip (and had previously been told as much) - they had no concrete evidence to support their claim and ArbCom recognised that they have a history of wikilawyering, using the rules to punish editors they disagree with. I have been transparent at every step of the process, and so all I am asking is some reason to believe that if I follow the instructions of the arbitrators that I won't just have a different rule thrown at me.
So let's say for the sake of argument that I apply for a new account right now and that it takes six weeks. And in six weeks, I go straight to arbitration to deal with this. How do I know that I'm not going to be told "you had your chance to deal with this six weeks ago" and then get slapped with further santions despite following instructions to the letter? 1.144.105.203 (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casperti
There was a consensus [22] of many Wikipedia users to oppose the edit Casperti just made again,[23] even though these were exactly the types of edits which got him topic banned.[24] The ANI thread confirms it.[25]
Now after coming off from the temporary topic ban, it seems that nothing has changed.
He started a DRN thread on 11 February (see WP:STICK) to dispute the same content from Pashtuns and it was speedily closed.[26] He invited only 1 editor (who didn't even participate in ANI) instead of inviting me and other 3 editors who vehemently disputed his edits to Pashtun.
He continues to misrepresent sources on that article per his recent edit. The Census link he uses mentions the number of Pushto speakers in India, but not the number of Pushtuns (Pushto speakers ≠ Pushtuns). A reliable source says that over 100,000 Pushtuns were granted Indian citizenship in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir alone and Casperti was pointed this out many times.[27] Repeating entirely same conduct that led the topic ban is surely WP:DE. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)03:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the above discussion was cut short, I'm going to further expand and expound about some of my thoughts on the matter. When DGG said to Sarah: And it's curious that what we personally believe is always the mainstream — I didn't like that. Speaking as someone whose social philosophy views are in no small measure outside the mainstream (to which I'm acutely aware), when it comes to depictions of Holocaust historiography, as representing a social scientific consensus approach, that's all I actually want. Yes, I agree with DGG that APL content should also feature some components that touch on popular sentiments, but I think it's absolutely key that these are carefully qualified by the realWP:APLRS — and it is this body of work which needs to form the central basis for any overarching wikivoice presentation.
The whitewashing coming from Poland serving to minimize Polish culpability (or involvement, call it what you will) in the Holocaust, is not just despicable and reprehensible, it also injects itself into a scholarly discourse where it does not belong in a deeply insidious way. So, I'm thinking maybe Sarah is right, after all, about me supporting the respective appeals of GCB and VM having been a huge mistake on my part.
I mean, my conscience is clear about having advocated for their appeals to be granted on the basis of sheer merit (giving a 2nd chance coupled by abuse amelioration). But my conscience is not clear about the real damage resulting from those appeals being lifted, which they now both bring about, eroding verifiability for this key subject by advancing a fringe view (and who cares how popular that fringe view might be in one country, to the point of it even being legislated outright!).
Anyway, in theory, to combat that, we have APLRS, which is meant to serve as barrier against substandard material. Just like we do with WP:MEDRS for medical content. Both of these enhanced sourcing standards are equally important, in my view, and serve as a great credit to the Committee and community that passed them, respectively.
Hi El C, I was going to write to Ymblanter but then I read the banner (I hope everything is ok), so I thought I would contact you. I would like to give you a report of what is happening on Navalny's article (and not only), because I consider it quite particular and of a certain gravity.
Extended content
Since February 3, I have been forced to protect the article from the removal of the controversial content of the past of this politician (approximately 6 years of documented nationalist militancy from 2007 to 2013). I started fighting with the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson and User:Nicoljaus, and now I'm continuing with User:Nicoljaus and User:My very best wishes. In particular User:My very best wishes removed with confidence a huge amount of data [28][29] (only the controversial ones, making the article a sort of LinkedIn profile, where only the positive aspects are shown), then justifying them in this way: "the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography"[30]
Here I summarize all the parts of the article that are in the process of being destroyed or that have already been destroyed:
Russo-Georgian war: Navalny's suggestions on how to manage the tensions with Georgia: arming of separatists, noflyzone and shot down Georgian airforce, deportations of all Georgian citizens - using racist insults. (source The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, Politico, RollingStone, Al Jazeera) (There is a long discussion that seems engulfed [31])
The point of view of User:My very best wishes is this one:"He is mostly known as an anti-corruption activist, and yes, involved in Russian politics in general ("smart voting"), etc. But he never was an officially registered presidential candidate, for example. Given that, his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant" So, according to his point of view, it would be "Undue weight" to bring this whole part back.
Racial slurs against georgians: The same thing happens on the article Anti-Georgian sentiment always connected with Navalny's racist insults against Georgians. Even there, the whole part is removed from the block from User: My very best wishes for "Undue focus". [32] (and luckily a user intervenes to stop the operation [33]).
Stop Feeding the Caucasus: "He endorsed a nationalist-led campaign called Stop Feeding the Caucasus to end federal subsidies to the Caucasian republics." (NYTimesREFRL)
At first he removed everything.[34] Then, when the part was restored, he removed [35] any reference to the fact that it was a campaign launched by the nationalists (as it was written on the RS)
Russian march: "He also has been a co-organizer of the 2006 Russian march. [...] In 2011, Navalny defended his attendance at the march, where BBC News reported that racist slogans were chanted, saying to reporters that the rally was an outlet for anger at the government." The source said he had only attended. But for sure he was co-organizer of the 2011 Russian march, User:My very best wishes is also a native Russian speaker, but he can't find a source that can certify it, so he prefers to remove everything. Who cares if there is also written on several RS (BBC, Der Spiegel, The Moscow Times, RFE\RL)
2013 Biryulyovo riots: "In 2013, Navalny defended riots by nationalists in a Moscow district on his blog which was sparked after a murder was blamed on a migrant." (The Nation, and then I found more RS like TIME, Deutsche Welle)
Video for NAROD 1: "He starred in several videos recorded for the NAROD movement, in one of them he compares dark-skinned Caucasus militants to cockroaches and calling for arming the population to shoot them." (The GuardianNYTimes, Financial Times)
Video for NAROD 2: "In another video for "NAROD" he is dressed as a dentist, with an on-screen caption describing him as a “fully-trained nationalist,” and compared illegal immigrants to rotten teeth that needed to be “carefully but forcibly removed” from Russia." (The GuardianPolitico)
On the issue of the two NAROD videos we have opened a discussion [36] that reached surreal levels. User:My very best wishes states that "not every sourced defamatory content about living persons belongs to WP". He is literally accusing some of the biggest newspapers of the world journalism of having produced defamatory content. I understand a little Russian, I went to see those original videos, the journalists did nothing but correctly report what they saw, without adding anything else.
The NAROD movement: Strangely another controversial issue which User:My very best wishes has removed, [37] and which was then partially restored, that is, the movement with which Navalny did the most controversial things, such as allying himself with the xenophobic racist organization called the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI). Here too, the magic word "Undue weight" pops up. To demonstrate how User:My very best wishes doesn't care about the question itself, he first begins: "There is no such organization, and apparently never was. Please give me a link to website of this organization if you think it really exists or existed.". (Here there is a long discussion about Narod movement [38]) When I gave him the link of the site, with all the activities of the movement from 01.11.2007 to 25.05.2009 [39], the answer his is "I am sorry, but this is internet garbage.".
Just to underline how User:My very best wishes doesn't care about the facts themselves, but about the protection of Navalny's reputation, he took a part of the text already inserted, where Navalny defined himself as a "democratic nationalist "and deliberately distorted the meaning of it without even reading what the source said. [40]. Since the discussion started, has started also leaving me incomprehensible (perhaps derisive) messages on my talk page, citing my first edits on Wikipedia.[41] Or by reverting [42] my old edits,[43] showing that he taken the matter a little bit too personally.
On the other user User:Nicoljaus that is backing the deletions on Navalny's article (he is not the one to implement them, I must admit this), I have some doubts about how he behave, I'm sure he is in good faith, but he seems to be defending Navalny from a political point of view, constantly talking about the Kremlin's influence on the media [44], with phrases like "The Kremlin has spent a lot of money to demonize Navalny, regarding the Georgian question" and "Despite the Kremlin's best efforts to demonize his opponent, only a few publications follows this narrative.", or accusing me of adding "bad things" on the article. These are answers given in the face of the my hard work of search for all the multiple western RS brought. Not fair in my opinion.
This looks to me like a whitewashing operation mainly carried out by a user, and backed by a user who supports Navalny. I may be wrong, but I have spent enough days in these discussions to understand that I am not facing interlocutors who want to find a way to report the info with neutrality. The topics that have been put into question are now numerous, I don't even know if I should open an RFC (I still don't know how to open those RFC) for each of these points listed. I'm afraid this thing will go on indefinitely and I can't handle it alone. My impression is that we are facing a clash of tons of RS against smoky "Undue weight" accusations everywhere.
UPDATES 15 February 2021
User:My very best wishes has started doing selfreverts,[45] for example about the Narod movement, since he read this report. Maybe it's a way to lower attention now that the alleged operation has been mapped out.
User:Nicoljaus restarted the full deletion of controversial contents (NAROD part completely removed).[46]
If I'm right, I'm asking you to help me. I invite you to check my edits, about 220 almost on Navalny's discussion [47]. I've spent days turning the web upside down searching RS, and now I'm really exhausted... I really don't have the energy left to handle this alone. If instead I'm wrong, I apologize to everyone.--Mhorg (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC) - modified 15 February[reply]
Mhorg, I'm sorry but I am unable to commit to such a significant investigation at this time. Perhaps another admin can spare the time for this, or maybe there's a noticeboard that could be of assiatnce...? Best of luck in being able to resolve the dispute amicably. Regards, El_C20:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C No problem, thanks anyway, I can understand that the issue has taken on colossal dimensions. Could you suggest me the Noticeboard that is more appropriate to leave this message? I've never released one. As for instead of contacting another admin, being the first time that I am in these disputes, I really don't know anyone else. I don't know if you can help me find one. Thanks for your patience.--Mhorg (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhorg, I'm afraid no one in particular comes to mind. As well, I'm not sure I'm able to advise on the right noticeboard because I don't really have a firm grasp about the nature of the dispute. I mean, it does fall under the WP:ARBEE topic area, so I suppose the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard could be be a good candidate, but you should note that complaints submitted there are subject to a strict word limit. Regards, El_C21:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on comments by Mhorg above and elsewhere he wants to expose nationalists. This is hardly the case because he started editing in the project from creating a large series of links to YouTube [48], such as these: [49], [50] (an example of link: [51]). These video were created by separatists (some say international terrorists) to promote their cause. The guys on these video are real nationalists, ones who actually kill people on the territory of another country. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the perfect comment that proves that the person in question is completely misunderstanding his role here on Wikipedia. Instead of collecting and showing information based on sources, it takes action of a political nature. Thanks for proving your true intentions again.--Mhorg (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tt's funny how you try to divert attention from what you were trying to do. However they are not promotional videos, they are videos directly released by the channels of the organizations. And they are used as source to establish their existence. This should be evident (or maybe I'm too optimistic).--Mhorg (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info about AE
Hi El C, I already asked User:Robert_McClenon[52] the question of the 500 words. I still don't understand if they affect both the diffs section and the space for my answers below together. Actually, the diff part is below 500 words... but I had to answer a lot to defend myself from accusations. Speaking of wikihounding... MVBW has precisely targeted my old changes to revert them, just to annoy me. Isn't this stalking or wikihounding? Thank you.--Mhorg (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhorg, again, I didn't count, so I don't know. But to reiterate, my impression is that it is likely border-line at this point, at the very least. El_C19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, how have you been? I just took a look at my watchlist after an absence of almost two weeks, just to see that several IPs of the same range have been making disruptive edits on articles of settlements in southern Albania. Their disruption includes removal of sourced content and modifications that counter with what the used sources say. Since they are being continuously reverted by several editors, including User:Bes-ART and User:Maleschreiber, I wonder why nobody has made a report somewhere already. The IPs include [55][56][57]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi991, how have I been? Let me see. Spending inordinate amount of time translating a song — check. Writing lengthy, primordial treatise — check and check. Trying to navigate the pitfalls of "neo denialism" of the Armenian Genocide — check, check, check. Yes, it's been that kind of day. About your request: one IP blocked, the other deemed Stale, for now. Skore semi'd for 2 weeks. Now, you can draft a range block proposal (in detail), or you can request for additional pages to be protected. Up to you. El_C23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not complain, IMO your day has been amazing. It is great you do all of that work in a single day; as a lazy person I would need a week or two :P On the IP stuff, thanks a lot. If they continue, I will make a request for range protection rather than protection of that large number of articles. But lets see: tomorrow is Valentine's Day, and hopefully they will have more lovely things to do ;) Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of us had a New Year's gettogether, but we're all already pretty intertwined in each other's lives (for a number of reasons), so just a bit drunker than usual...El_C01:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs has been reported here by User:Maleschreiber days ago but it continued getting worse last couple of days. Yesterday I also reportet it for edit warring. There are at least 4 IPs with same geolocation in North Macedonia. It seems the articles might need protection but there ara too many of them, basically all southern Albanian villages, cities and counties as well. And thats not possible. So lets see how it goes.Bes-ARTTalk09:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, my car got wrecked that day, so Wikipedia (in general) wasn't exactly a top priority for me during that time period. Anyway, short of Tony having taught me about IPv6 range blocking (prompting him to then write WP:/64), the only range blocks I really otherwise impose are those ones already vetted/prepared by users whom I trust (LightandDark2000 comes to mind as an example — shoutout!). I may know my way around ACDS topics (and GS ones, too), but I'm not really that tech savvy, truth be told. El_C14:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ip uses the same arguments with Armanqur's arguments on talk page and has similar edit summaries. They also remove modern Iranologists and linguists (Limbert, McKenzie, Daryaee, Russel) and some Medieval historians' notes which provide better context for the reader as to why the association between 2 is regarded as "old" by James R Russel.
Creating strawman socks to demonize opposing editors, removing useful contents from the section, edit warring through his ips and his account is disruptive. Please lock the page. 176.54.37.31 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now one more user has become a part of the same edit war and removed modern scholars, historians and Iranologists' opinions (Limbert, Daryaee, McKenzie, Russel, etc) from the section again:
Instead of removing the specific outdated content he mentioned, the user outright removed everything completely (including the opinions by modern experts). Was it a constructive edit? I'll notify some other editors editing related topics. I don't have a time to follow up the page but an admin or a capable editor should definitely do. 176.54.39.53 (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C Thanks a lot. Do not worry for as long as the ArbCom on Kurds and Kurdistan is going on. I have it sort of covered where the issues are and might approach you with some of it, once the ArbCom has come up with a decision.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me @El C: I might add that whoever wants to make an edit to Wikipedia has a responsibility to make sure that the content is properly added per the guidelines. Especially in this case, when we're talking about 12k content. It is not our responsibility as readers and fellow editors to filter whatever may be good out of the heaps of problematic content. Any good sources can be re-added as far as I'm concerned as long as Wikipedia's guidelines are maintained, including WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. The edit was not problematic just because of outdated sources; its also due to atrocious unencyclopediec style. For the record: the article has been a target for drive-by accounts/IP's and sockpuppets for years, and I can ping a dozen admins who can attest to that, including Doug Weller. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."
I would copy edit the unencylopedic style and preserve the sourced content from modern experts.
Thank you for the explanation El C. I have checked the policies you mentioned. Policies regarding onus and burden seem to be about insistence of including the problematic content (in this case certain outdated sources). It is not the case here. It is about removal of large amount of appropriate content (Limbert, McKenzie, Russel, Daryaee, full quote of Bruinessen etc) leaving the page unbalanced. Moreover at least 2 unverifiable and unreliable sources re inserted (probably by a mistake). Sparing a few minutes to filter the content would leave wikipedia articles in a better quality.
Anyway my intent was to raise awareness about the long term edit warring on the page and thank you for your actions. Good night
excuse me, today I am strained, sorry I have no power to provide more diffs, but more of use recognized a troll that is keeping vandalizing articles, post unnecessary templates and warnings and meanwhile playing fool, and tire more editors, including me ([60])...and SPI is already opened, clearly WP:NOTHERE. If you check the recent edits or the discussions at the joke article the user created Szekely moustache and the nomination for deletion discussion, more user demands an action..I am afraid patiently waiting for the SPI evaluation will not be enough...
Blockedindefinitely. Yup, standard ethno-national provocations and fabrications fare. Page deleted (AfD closed as speedy delete). Note that I was confused about your source for that 40,000 figure, so I queried you about that at Talk:Hungarian dialects, (in the early stages of my investigation). Hope I helped make your day better! El_C18:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed, I answered there. Well, I am always sorry deep in my heart for every editor who did not came to our encyclopedia to improve it, rather to steal precious time from editors, as we could spend those times with improving articles. They hella' find me recurrently :(. Thank you, but I think you as well saved many nerves for the pinged fellow editors, have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hi. I noticed that 71.232.135.186 has just restored EdDakhla's rant[62], using the same strange choice of word ("inquiry" instead of "enquiry") that was used previously by T.Khattabi when they reverted your edit[63]. Is this too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence? Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reverting anything that is submitted by an EdDakhla account (whatsoever) on sight and with immediate effect. Report here so that I could complete the rest of the WP:RBI cycle. El_C18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Question: If someone places a 3RR warning (or any warning) in error, what is the appeals process? Thanks. Art SmartChart/Heart18:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no appeal available or needed, Arthur Smart. Error or not, you may remove the warning message unread, if you wish (though, hopefully, you do end up reading it). Nothing more to it. El_C18:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Could you remove the RfD notice from January 6th so it works again? I can't do it because the redirect has been fully protected. Thanks. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recently noticed your message on my Talk page [65].
I have neither engaged in a edit conflict, only what I did was picking up the issue we were facing 8 months ago here in the dispute resolution:
1. There was never a consensus to begin with as it was claimed in the report at least 2 editors (vs 3) in the talk page, user @Mar4d: as well. (excluding previous Talk pages of other users on this matter) did not find this source as reliable: [66]
2. The claim made in the report that user Anupam was not involved is false as you can read here in the talk page: [67], it was mainly me and Anupam discussing with each other.
3. Since we did not have consensus and this discussion is highly politically sensitive + we only needed a resolution/advise on the WP:RS. I engaged a WP:DRN here: [68]
4. I was banned 8 months ago because of my behaviour and 3RR rule violations on this matter. I was never told that I could not engage in dispute resolutions.
5. These numbers were never explained as it was claimed by the user that reported me again and why these numbers have a huge difference 3.2M claimed in the interview by a organisation head and 21,677 by the Indian census and 13,800 by the UNCHR India (non-citizens). I cannot believe that I am getting banned for resolving this issue.....
Can you please check all these markers since I have been now banned for half truths in the report on your talk page. I have not violated any rule here, I handled through a Discussion resolution board advise since this discussion had no consensus to begin with and nothing was agreed.
Please read the Resolution board for more info:[69]
This source that is being used: [70] has been marked as unreliable several times by third parties and the whole discussion is about this. Whether this source is reliable and can be used. Since when do we use Interview Quotes for population counts. We even said in the talk pages to come with ethnographic / official sources to support this 3.2M Pashtuns claim. Result? nothing except this Interview. This source is still discussed about by many editors and was also in the past. Please, Check it for yourself is this source reliable? Is any claim in an interview reliable for population counts. The resolution board was a good idea that follows WP:DR. Please check it up and let me know if I handled it okay since this discussion can go on and on while we only need an answer whether this source claiming 3.2M non-citizen Pashtuns and I only want this solve this issue since that's what wikipedia is for: using reliable sources for adding information + dispute resolution should maturely be cared for. Casperti (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casperti, there's nothing more to discuss. As Aman.kumar.goel has already pointedly stated (back on May 25): The census mentions 21,000 speakers of Pushto and Casperti is trying to equate that to 21,000 Pushtuns. Whatever comprehension problems you're having there, that isn't something to be further entertained on the project. Full stop. El_C22:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: What have I violated? Please tell me, I am seriously wondering what I did wrong. why am I banned for editing the page 1 once, only and only after an advice from the Dispute resolution board. What is the reason of my ban? You have made a mistake, I have never been banned for engaging on this topic of Pashtun numbers please check out my last ban. I was banned for my 3RR rule and "Personal attacks", I have never been banned for this "21,000 Pashtuns" reason. + you are blindly trusting the reporting user. There was never a consensus, please read that talk page again. Casperti (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casperti, the reasons for the ban are stated in AE template that announces it, as are avenues of appeal, which you have the right to pursue — though my sense is that if you were to do so so soon after the sanction was imposed (especially with your record), it is highly unlikely to succeed. Otherwise, I have nothing further to add at this time. El_C23:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:, Is this a personal attack towards me and are you judging me? What history are you talking about? That is the problem in your template there is no specific reason. I have been banned for opening a dispute resolution for 1 source..... a source that justifies a population count by quoting an interview of a famous person. I have been banned for no reason. What kind of reason is this? I have not been disruptive towards the Wiki page nor I have been disruptive in any other "Afghanistan" related pages for the past 3 months. You have banned me for using a dispute resolution. I deserve an explanation since a decent explanation is not given. I have not been disruptive to the cause neither. Could you please show me the diff for the disruption after my last topic ban. Since when is seeking a "dispute resolution" disruptive? You have neither pointed out a reason. El_C you are wrongfully accusing me and banning me. Casperti (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casperti, the diff in question is in the report. Here it is again: diff. That you were unable to parse that only reaffirms what I said about these acute comprehension problems on your part. El_C00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:I know but what is the violation? I deserve to know this. I did already knew which diff you mean, this only confirms you do not read my messages thoroughly, and straight judge/attack me. Compression problems? Imagine you get banned without any explanation/violation/disruption and then an admin says: “why can't you understand your ban”. To be on topic: What did I violate or disrupt? Did I go against a consensus? No, since there was never a consensus. Did I violate WP:RS by deleting the 3.2M source? Clearly no. Did I engage in an edit conflict? No. Did I violate the previous reason for my ban? No. I wanted an answer for the reliability of this source by a non-involving party. This whole dispute was based on 1 thing. Is this 3.2M number given in the interview reliable? Since we did not have a consensus, what is the most logical thing to do? Following steps of solving a dispute: I opened a Dispute resolution There is no rocket science that I have replaced the source by the Indian census which we use for all ethnicities of India (Punjabis, Bengalis etc). It is not my fault that the Dispute resolutions board closed this dispute in 4 hours without Anupam responding. Whether there were 100 user tagged or not the results would have been the same. @Nightenbelle:, could you confirm that indeed this dispute result was closed in 4 hours without the other party responding: [71]. Since, it was a clear case. (No rocket science) And that this source was definitely not meeting WP:RS for census information. Also I tagged the Talk pages for Nightenbelle I am pretty sure the volunteer checked those as well (again they had no consensus). I had replaced the source based on the advise but I am now getting banned for it for no valid reasons. Saying that this edit was disruptive.... while a dispute resolution board is one of the most civil way to take on problems. Anyways, El_C I have yet to see a disruption/violation in that edit I deserve an explanation so I can properly appeal. You have blindly believed the editor reporting on your talk page who accused me with straight up non-facts without any possibilities for me to react to these untruths. Be honest, you have made a mistake and cannot even come up with the violations. 03:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Casperti (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:, This was certainly not an appeal, I wanted to have answers for my appeal. You have not even provided the violation that I violated. I wanted to have an answer to my question. What violation did I violate? What did I violate or disrupt? Did I go against a consensus? No, since there was never a consensus. Did I violate WP:RS by deleting the 3.2M source? Clearly no. Did I engage in an edit conflict? No. Did I violate the previous reason for my ban? No. You are banning me without any valid reasons and then you say "Why can't you understand the ban". I want answers, something that you did not provide. Casperti (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casperti, again, as far as appealing to me here, that has been declined. As far as me explaining the nature of the sanction and the reasons behind it, that I have also attempted to explain to you here multiple times now. That you still fail to acknowledge or respond to what I said, again, isn't actually on me. But it does demonstrates to me (further still) why other participants found engaging with you so challenging. At this point, it does feel like you are misusing the appeals process and are taking advantage of the hospitality of my talk page. El_C15:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: You have not explained anything, that is why I kept asking you. Yet you have not given me the violation or disruption that I have made. I will not write to you no more on this talk page but this is clear. You have not a violation to name since I did not disrupt or violate anything. You are the one who has banned me without me violating any rules and you are expecting me to not seek answers from you. Casperti (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, Casperti, I feel like I have given you answers to the best of my ability on multiple occasions already. But as much as I keep repeating that, you do not relent. El_C16:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what in the world you expect me to say or do here. I am not an admin, I am not going to attempt to overturn an admin decision. Nor am I going to encourage them to do so when all I know of the matter is there was a DRN opened inappropriately asking if a source was reliable. The correct place for that would have been the reliable source noticeboard. IMO- the facebook source is not reliable. Now as to your past or present behavior- I have no opinion and as such I am inclined to agree with the admin, especially considering the way you have interacted with them. So... hope that clears things right up. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your close; I'm glad you saw my point of view on this being vandalism. I was quite shocked when I went to AIV and was told that it was not vandalism, and then told at ANI that I was edit warring. ― Tartan357Talk02:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question earlier left notes on the talk pages of two admins and one other editor ([72], [73], [74]) accusing me of being an agent of the Burmese military. Would you mind leaving those editors messages to explain the situation? It's not that I think they're going to believe that; I just want them to know the dispute has been resolved. ― Tartan357Talk02:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C! I appreciate your closure of the ANI discussion that I replied to. I didn't mean to "sidestep" anything, however. I felt that, upon looking, that the dispute was content-related, and that the basis of the problem was edit warring. I'm obviously no expert on the article subject, but I thought that what I did was the right thing to do. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's always nice to see you, El C! :-) Well, the thought I had was that it was said in the ANI here that the user was from that country - even though we don't really know (unless the user said so?). Taking that into account, this to me isn't vandalism, but someone from that country trying to edit the article to push a point of view - which is different than someone editing that article in bad faith to deliberately add false information. The latter is exempt from 3RR; what Zhong ST was doing is not. By stepping in and saying, "this editor is wrong with this content and this editor is right", aren't we choosing a side when we need to be neutral? This is what I decided when I stepped in and responded to the ANI discussion. Down to the core of it all, this was edit warring. I'd like to hear what your thoughts were when closing the article and what you would've done had you been the first admin to respond. What would you have done? If anything, I want to POINT FINGERS AT YOU AND SAY THAT YOU'RE WRONG! I'm just kidding... I want to hear your thoughts so that, if anything, I can better myself as an administrator and editor. :-) Thanks again, and I highly appreciate you for hearing me out. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, I obviously don't have any experience adminning but I'd like to give you my thoughts on your above comment. If someone makes an edit that they know to be counter-factual, shouldn't that be enough to say that they're deliberately adding incorrect information? It seems like a lot to expect everyday Wikipeidans like myself to judge their motivations on top of their likely knowledge about the facts. ― Tartan357Talk03:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tartan357! What if they believe it is factual? I think that's where our differences in the interpretation of policy and what the right responses and actions at the ANI are... I'm no expert at this article subject, so I couldn't tell you. This is why I responded in the way that I did, and warned you both for edit warring. I was doing what I felt was right. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, if they believe it is factual, then I completely agree that it's not vandalism. I just found that highly implausible. Maybe I'm just numbed from all the similar edits since the coup. I've closed two edit requests at Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi just since the ANI discussion asking to describe her as State Counsellor. ― Tartan357Talk03:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357 - Regardless, the manner is handled and the user apologized on my user talk page, which is good - maybe they'll become a contributor here and stay with us! :-) I appreciate you for bringing the matter to ANI, and I appreciate the discussion. If anything, I've learned some things too! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)03:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, no, it is absolutely exempt by virtue of it being vandalism-like (once explained) and, as I mention, should be initially responded with something like {{uw-error2}} (seriously, click on that link and see what it says). Again, a plain fabrication does not constitute a content dispute. Never have, never will. El_C03:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{uw-error2}} is a staple of mine. I have given users countless of these warnings for adding content which unambiguously contradicted established, well-known facts. El_C03:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More recent IP account of blocked user PlainAndSimpleTailor
Hi El_C, while the reported IP was stale, the user you blocked here has an IP account which they have flitted in and out of using since creating their account. They were warned about it here (and simultaneously here) and confirm they are the same user here. That IP was missed by the reporting editor at ANI. Incidentally, the accusations here, according to the person's own account, most likely refer to the "personal attacks" whose tenor can be sampled from what they mass deleted, labelling them as personal attacks. The direct accusation toward me of hounding refers to this article; its tiny editing history shows who was following whom with little effort (I started editing the article 3 months before they created their account; edit immediately preceding theirs was by me). Cambial foliage❧03:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cambial Yellowing, thanks for the useful information. I agree that the removal you cite (diff) is just matter-of-fact, devoid of any personalization whatsoever, not to mention personal attacks (or even the mildest of incivility). It is an inexplicable removal that she will need to answer for. Your observation about you having edited the article months before she even joined the project, is also duly noted. As for that IP, it is Stale, as well. El_C04:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a second AfD ongoing that has aroused weird controversy, including sockpuppetry at the first AfD to keep, and now (alleged) canvassing to the second to delete. If you or experienced stalkers of your talk page could bring some thoughts here, it would be good. I hope this is not canvassing because I am not telling anybody how to vote on the AfD but if it is canvassing, I apologize. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey El C, User:Seyoumamhara has merged the information in the Humera massacre article with information in the Mai Kadra massacre article without reason. Which could be a simple mistake but then in the War crimes in the Tigray War page, he removed mentions of war crimes committed by Ethiopia and Eritrea against Tigrayans in the introduction and instead said they were committed by TPLF forces against Amhara.
Finally, in the Humera article (the city itself), he changed the city to be apart of the Amhara Region and not the Tigray region. And also changed the mention of the Humera massacre to say that it was committed by TPLF-allied forces against Amhara. Also made unsourced edits like changing the majority ethnic group in the city to be Amhara and not Tigrayan. He changed the text under Monuments section to say "The Amhara population living in the area destroyed a monument named after qeshi gebru she is known for her bravery to kill amharas brutally a former foot soldier of tigray people liberation front TPLF after liberating thier home land after 50 years of tigray colonisation of the area in Nov,2020." The original text was "Statue of anti-patriarchal feminist Mulu Gebreegziabher. It was destroyed by two Neftenya vandals, under the eyes of Ethiopian soldiers, in November 2020."
IP 213.55.85.126 has the same problem but is on a different side of the coin. He undid some of Seyoumamhara's edits but still removed information. Changed the monuments section to "The Amhara barbarian ethnic group has demolished the Tigray heroine monument,qeshi gebru,collaborating with the Eritrean troops in Nov,2020." Calling an ethic group barbaric seems like hate speech. Finally, he removed the entire history section of the article and once again called Amharans barbarians in his edit summary. Wowzers122 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blockedindefinitely. Plus, another AE protection. I get the sense that we've only seen the first glimpses of the true scale of WP:ARBHORN disruption. Let's hope I'm wrong. Finally, I've now warned that IP (wasn't linked at the time in your note, didn't notice) with a {{uw-error2}} — if they continue, feel free to escalate up to and including reporting them to WP:AIV. Regards, El_C18:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I inadvertently undid your removal of your comment in this edit please forgive me - I am using the beta edit conflict resolution tool and it showed zero change on the left side (before my edit) and so I selected my comment to be added - it did not display any other changes so I figured it must've been an edit on another part of the page that was conflicting. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I'm having an issue with a user here at [75] who is attempting to push the name of 'Persia' onto the lede as one of its synonyms, even more or less no sources uses the word 'Persia' to refer to the region (it goes without saying that the term is a synonym for Iran). I've attempted to discuss with the user at it [76], but to no avail, as the user is more interested in me than the topic itself (getting lowkey WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE vibes). I'm thinking about taking this to WP:ANI, but I think that it will be ignored/won't reach a outcome. Thoughts? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Okay, but I really am not accepting new requests at this time (or so I thought). El_C22:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dara of Jasenovac
As can be for example seen here among all other edits here, me edits are removed with accusations of pov pushing and twisting wording when I followed the source. The person even literally deleted and copied what I wrote again. Subtly leaving out the fact that Yoemans said that the anti-Catholic angle he could see. Could you step in to deal with the constant edit waring and accusations? It’s getting to be too much. OyMosby (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP, it just means that the prevailing practice is not to bother blocking accounts that, though have been proven to be otherwise block-worthy, simply had not edited for a while (i.e. may be inactive as far as the individual behind the respective violations). That is what templates like Stale and Stale are used for. So, that IP, for example, I didn't bother blocking it since its last edit was over a week ago. Of course, if it's used again for that purpose (unlikely), it will be instantly blocked, once reported (or re-reported). Best, El_C08:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, IP, you asked when, not why. The answer to that —for blocking, as opposed to CU— is usually a couple of days-ish. But this could vary for, say, a static IPs with a lengthy (similar) contributions history that, for example, shows them editing once or twice a month. In such a case, the usual stale notions would not apply and a block would still be imposed, even if the account hasn't edited for a couple of weeks or whatever (i.e. as their return would not otherwise be unlikely compared to the former, much more common type of IPs I described). El_C08:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I believe so, too. They're just not likely to edit from that same IP again (is the point). But a different individual at some point may. Thanks, you as well. El_C08:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am at work atm and will not have enough time to follow up this case but in case you may want to follow up it, i am dropping the link below:
IP, I am not interested in following up there. If the admin reviewing the unblock request has any questions for me, then I may. Best, El_C14:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and your translations too, which almost read like original poetry, given that I didn't understand the Hebrew lyrics. Thanks for sharing! DanCherek (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, there is a (very naive} cycle of reverts on the Dafina Zeqiri article between some IPs and a registered editor. It is a pity that an editor who has written 31 GAs gives that attention to that. Can you make a short protection or sth similar? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since this was quite simple to parse. But please note, it is singing time here, for now, not admining time! El_C15:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know you are having a good time. I love music too, especially when mixed with some dancing. Especially with a beautiful lady :P Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashleyyoursmile, just as an FYI, being addressed as "Hello admin" wouldn't feel good to me. I'm sure it's not what you meant, but if you were intending it as some sort of respectful address such as "Your honor", to me it comes off more like "Hey, you." Sorry to butt in! —valereee (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed decision posted at the open Kurds and Kurdistan case
What to do with a talk page that has completely devolved into toxicity?
Please see Talk:Palestinian enclaves#This talk page is toxic. This is the same talk page that previously lead to a warning with the holocaust references and baseless allegations of racism. Unfortunately, the general toxicity of this talk page has continued unabated. I'm wondering if there are any steps that could be taken to cool things down there, as it is essentially impossible to go 5 minutes without receiving a hostile and uncivil reply on that page. Drsmoo (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm .... Why was I unsurprised to see the name of Wikiedtor19920 all over the page? "Nishidani's one-sided diatribes are almost certainly not worth reading" - nice. Black Kite (talk)18:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani (shoutout) may have the propensity to go on (and on), but rarely if ever have I found one of their treatise not to be a most worthwhile read. El_C18:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I must apologize. I don't think I have acted in bad faith, but some view it that way. When I see what for me, is extreme repetitiveness, I am drawn to explain at tedious length how I see it. Concision is a virtue, but it takes an inordinate amount of time to be pithy in these discursive contexts. I'll try to be more laconic, in fact, I thought I was exercising restraint in not replying to everyone and everything. I can't see any bad faith there. Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that my putative 'erudition' (which I'm not - I just, if I am to trust a few friends- have a fairly good memory for what I read) looks like flourished pomposity. I hope people can just ignore that part. I need to do it because working here is extremely difficult, and to ease the burden I feel, I like to entertain myself by writing as I think, to compensate for straining to write what wiki orthodoxy commends as best praxis. I really admire admins and many great editors who can cut to the chase without the loose-mouth riffs on personal memory. I admit it is a failing, and I can see it does get up get up some folks' nostrils (oh Gawd, that idiom calls for a gloss on Theocritus on nostrils as a source of pride, its reflex in Shakespeare, and in Hopkins' 'Habit of Perfection'). I'd better stop and think of easing that large pizza I'm eating with a soporific gin (no, sir, not in the rude Australian dialect sense of that word (lubra, black woman, ugh).Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was not specifically referring to Wikieditor when I sent this message, though I agree that his message to Nishidani was pointed and unnecessary. The talk page, as a whole, is extremely tense, and while some discussions are moving forward, they are being done so under a constant barrage of insults. For example, the thread I was linked to was opened by someone shocked by the intensity of the vitriol directed AT wikieditor. Perhaps nothing that is on itself sanctionable, but overall, the temperature remains high. I stick to my belief that if 1rr was applied to talk pages as well, Wikipedia would benefit greatly. But that seems unlikely to happen. Drsmoo (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I don't know if you've met Paul Siebert (shoutout) — another longwinded expositor whose own treatises often contain kernels of truth of great profundity. Like with you, you just have to resist all WP:TLDR impulses! El_C20:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be sleepless tonight over the Cliff Notes' joke. I guess it asks for a gloss on T E Lawrence saying 'outrageous' on the outskirts of Damascus? Well that's not, as far as I checked, in his great memoir Seven Pillars of Wisdom, but by hearsay exclaimed by Peter O'Toole playing that role in David Lean's 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia. And no, I can't say I personally remembered it from that date, though I recall the scene. What happened was, when I happened to use the term comically, my cousin told me (in mid 1983) that this was the adjective used by O'Toole qua Lawrence at that dramatic moment. So it may be indeed my latest addition to the immense archives of apocrypha in circulation. Thanks for making me remember the details of this. Now I'm going to be sleepless until I find a video of the film to check where the truth lies (which truth often does:), alasNishidani (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I was just gonna say how I have several works of his in my library (all in Hebrew; I don't have many novels in English), only to realize that I was thinking of D. H. Lawrence — wrong Lawrence! Absolutely, fond memories of this most golden of Golden films. El_C21:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that it does (at the event, I just copied Black Kite above). Anyway, yes, I was gonna get to it, but things keep happening. Otherwise, on it. El_C21:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bish! Aiming to be known as a Nishidani or a Paul Siebert laconic counterpart (compliment monster growl!), but there's a long road to go yet. El_C21:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We all began as singular zygotes that expand exponentially to 30 trillion cells in adulthood. Console yourself with the reflection that the Big Bang had small beginnings (a minor punctual crepitation, to expand using an euphemism, gave us a field of noise that now vibrates throughout the cosmos to the endless reaches of infinity, a process imitated by the internet's 'social' media. By both cosmo-physical and biological logic, seeing that entropy invariably sets in and reverses the expansions, to be only at the starting line that leads from laconism to the slobbering garrulity we oldtimers evince, augurs well: the world's still your oyster, so Festina lente. it will be the perfect counterpoint to my phonological festering! Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too true, too true. I just have an especially soft cosmo-quantum spot in my heart for Linde. His theory probably changed my outlook on physics and cosmology more so than any other living (or recently-ish deceased) physicist out there. Which is to say: profoundly. El_C14:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C- I'm trying to figure out the best approach to get a new editor on a campaign to slow down and communicate with others. Hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction. I'm assuming that posting on a noticeboard would be premature at this point. The editor has been active for a little more than a day, making similar changes across many articles related to Catholic clergy and buildings: contributions, talk. Thanks in advance for any tips. Erictalk17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I saw this before I posted earlier, and hesitated for a moment, then decided it must be about something else and was not meant to discourage a request like mine... sorry! Erictalk21:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, would you be able to review an edit warring & content issue relating to a possible hoax image that seems to be motivated by Turkish nationalism? One editor inserted the image across multiple Wikipedias and another keeps edit warring to keep the image in the article space here at en-wiki. I've written a short contextual summary and gathered several relevant links on my talk page. Given the topic, nobody wants to touch my reports at AN/EW or sanction the editor involved (the first report was archived without action). If you're unable to do this, do you happen to know any admins with expertise in regional history/nationalism who would be able to assist? Thanks for your help, Jr8825 • Talk22:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at the recent edits at Lorestan Province by user Rizorius?[77] The local Kurdish name of the province is being removed despite a large population of the province being Kurdish. The editor is making a false equivalence comparing it with having the German name at Paris. Conversely, an unverifiable and ridiculous survey that contradicts the info in the 'demographics'-section is being added. --Semsûrî (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awoma
I do not feel inclined to unblock, but I do feel that you should have asked someone else to impose the block, as a best practice. It would have eliminated unneeded Sturm und Drang and would have served as a reality check. She did almost step back with that trope business, but that could be read as attempted salvage. Also, I don't think there is much distinction between being "XYZist" and using an "XYZist trope". Having said that, I believe this user should edit in less emotionally volatile areas and I believe she may not be compatible. Best, --Deepfriedokra(talk)23:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, I realize there are admins who believe this to be the best practice to follow, rigidly so, but myself, in some circumstances, I block and/or remove talk page (or email) access to users, even when the abuse prompting this is directed toward myself as the sanctioning admin. If you or anyone else feel that this is something the Committee should weigh on (as an admin conduct matter or as a theoretical question, whichever, or both), an WP:ARCA about this is always an option. I'll note that I have blocked nearly 8,000 users from the project. Rarely do my blocks come into serious question, and even more (much more) rarely are they overturned. For whatever that's worth. Kind regards, El_C23:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To those who elsewhere question the length of the block due to the user having a clean block log, I contend that one week is not excessive for such an offense, especially seeing how it kept repeating even after a very strongly-worded warning against continuing to do so. I'll also note that, earlier, someone pointed out how Awoma was calling editors "transphobes" a few months ago (Oct), which I found quite disconcerting. I'll quote what they said in full:
There has been a lot of discussion around this and there is now a very wide consensus in support of the section as it currently stands. A handful of transphobes trying to whitewash it aren't going to convince anyone otherwise (diff).
This is highly problematic conduct, I challenge. So, I don't think a week-long block is especially draconian when we also take this into account, in addition to today's events. And who knows if there's more misconduct I'm simply unaware of — maybe there's nothing, maybe there's something. Who knows. Regardless, for such a fraught topic area as WP:ARBGG, I think those two incidents alone, to me, signify conduct well out of step with even the most lax of standards. El_C02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, everyone, I will not be accepting any new requests for the immediate moment. In the meantime, enjoy the music! (Also here) El_C18:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C 08:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Posted the Corona virus outbreak, but upon (admittedly, perhaps somewhat prematurely) doing the same for the Kirk Douglas RD got a what-the-fuck-barbeque— it's a magical place! El_C 11:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Done. Mainspacified. And I didn't even visit the Teahouse! El_C 13:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Bitter-sweet groove (translation unavailable on request!)
Sorry, don't know if I'm up for an insane Balkans run right now. At the risk of reusing the same lame joke twice in matter of minutes, perhaps someone else can step up this time...? Best wishes to all, El_C 01:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C 19:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. El_C 11:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Already done by the previous blocking admins. El_C 18:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, you're making me sound like the grim reaper, but I just want to pet a chipmunk! El_C 11:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Stale, for now. Skore semi'd for 2 weeks. Now, you can draft a range block proposal (in detail), or you can request for additional pages to be protected. Up to you. El_C 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected indefinitely. Oh and as for that IP, it is otherwise 
Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Right, all of the aforementioned are very obviously EdDakhla. El_C 18:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
![[1]](https://thcscience.wiki/term/cannabaceae/cannabis/cannabis-indica/?rdp_we_resource=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FImage%3APeter_Blume_Therock.jpeg){kind=link}
Unprotected. El_C 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Warned, with a discretionary sanctions alert attached. 
Stale are used for. So, that IP, for example, I didn't bother blocking it since its last edit was over a week ago. Of course, if it's used again for that purpose (unlikely), it will be instantly blocked, once reported (or re-reported). Best, El_C 08:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)