I understand that you recently closed the discussion of a page move from Communist Party of China to Chinese Communist Party. I strongly oppose this decision but missed the end of the one-week discussion which ended up almost unanimously agreeing on the move. Most arguments were about how the acronym CCP and Chinese Communist Party are more commonly used in comparison to their official terms. One argument about Google results about genocide is both shocking and funny. Sources which present an anti-Chinese view WOULD DEFINITELY talk about mass-genocide being prevalent in China.
My issue with the term Chinese Communist Party is this. Its use has become very common over the last few years, mainly being spread by American officials and media. I know I may sound like a "wumao" or a "Commie" or a "CCP troll", but that's the thing isn't it. Any view that remotely supports, defends or justifies China or even Chinese culture is met with this retort. If you search up uses of the phrase "Communist Party of China", you can see that it is overwhelmingly replaced by American news sources as "Chinese Communist Party" or "CCP" in recent years. Despite this, usage of both terms is still dominated by "Communist Party of China" as shown in Google Trends USA (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F02189,Chinese%20Communist%20Party). But the term "CCP" which is constantly used by the US Government (especially Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump) started to increase rapidly in Google searches in the last few years. This is propaganda, no doubt about it. The term "Chinese Communist Party" puts the emphasis on "Chinese" and "Communist", which creates fear and anger as well as putting a race label on it. For typical Americans, this is as basically the same as "Russian commies" or "pesky Russians". In other words, propaganda by government officials. Am I a conspiracy theorist? I wouldn't say so. I mean if I were talking about China, I would be called a political analyist. As for use in news sources, it dominates American news sources while it's starting to trickle into other Western news sources. Living in a smaller country known as Australia (aka The Lucky Country or The Best Place on Earth), I've noticed my government broadcaster, the ABC start to use CCP instead of CPC which was previously used for a long time. However, it still remains mostly unbiased despite the term change. This is in contrast to blatant taking of sides by American newspapers including the "reliable" New York Times, "right-wing" FOX and "left-wing sympathesiser" CNN, which all use biased language including CCP.
I have deep concerns about Wikipedia using this term. No other political party that I have researched in Wikipedia uses its unofficial term in its title (GOP, Tory, Libs) which are still used in the so-called HQRS. This is excluding the Nazi Party which has a much longer official name. Do we really want to use a term that was coined by anti-Chinese and frankly, likely racist people of the likes of Mike Pompeo? This is what the American Republican Party (ARP) wants. Using a much shorter name which instils fear into the world's population in order to rally everyone against the country which poses a threat to its superpower status. Am I being a conspiracy theorist again? No. https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/us-secretary-of-state-calls-on-free-world-to-unite-against-china/news-story/f39ceb9eba1668358f2372f22be64460. That's exactly what Pompeo did. Please remember that everything Wikipedia gives to the world goes into a positive feedback loop. If we encourage the use of this term, it'll become more and more commonplace.
After my rant, I hope you start a review of the move. Despite my apparent support for China, I do not support and am not affliated with the Chinese government or the Communist Party. I just believe in treating it like we treat every other nation. The government's tough measures on Chinese people of Uyghur ethnicity is not morally right, but then again nor is the US government's measures on Mexican refugees. All in all, every nation has its issues but we shouldn't dismiss one nation's policies as "their domestic affairs" while scrutinising another nation's to the finest detail. This applies to Wikipedia as much, if not more than reality. This online encyclopedia stores history, politics, society and life in general. It's a time capsule, and it should give and tell the whole story. Not just the Americanised version of it (English-language sources only is the main argument for Americanising Wikipedia).
I'd also say that I think this move discussion was closed too early and after too much over-simplistic argumentation of COMMONNAME. --Soman (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just or briefly explain where I'm comming from - it seems to me if a consensus is formed that a link to the subject of an article is warranted, we'd need a particular policy reason to remove the link. Which happens - local consensus doesn't override policy. But it seemed to me that you were suggesting that you would remove the link irrespective of whether or not there was ultimately consensus for including it. I don't care about it one way or the other, but I just want to be wary of wording. - Bilby (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting that, which is why when quoting the GS in question, I included the bit about consensus (in the parenthesis of the quote), which this proposal clearly lacks. El_C13:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I misunderstood the "I'll nip this in the bud" comment, and the "I am adding this as a prohibition — just so there's no confusion. Any addition of the direct link can be viewed as disruptive and may be reverted on sight, reverts which will be exempt from all restrictions". I understand now that you didn't mean for that to be read that the link couldn't be added with consensus, but I think it was open to misinterpretation. - Bilby (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I tend to be overly cautious in these articles, as there has been a tendency to allow BLP violations and similar to creep in. People have justifably strong feelings, but sometimes those feelings have made it difficult to sepearate what people want to say from what we are allowed to say, so I try to be very narrow regarding how I read policy. :) I certainly don't think that has ever been an issue in regard to you, but it makes it a difficult area to manage in every direction, and can lead to misunderstandings on my part as well as from others. - Bilby (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please have a look at this user's first edit after their partial block. This obviously isn't an isolated: here, they have been reverted for doing the exact same thing to sourced content. M.Bitton (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the intended sidewide block wasn't applied (a perfect rope), the editor ignored the warning and is back doing the same thing[1][2]. They obviously have no intention of complying with the rules. M.Bitton (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, looks like I made a technical mistake by simply re-applying another partial block. Now Fixed with the originally-intended 2-week sitewide block applied. El_C13:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I tank you very deeply. (Note: Recycled humor, so no charge.)
El_C, would you look at this topic removal? [[3]]. Based on the discussion here I think all involved are OK closing it but I think it's a violation of Refector to simply erase it. I've raised the concern with the editor who deleted the discussion but with no success. [[4]] I would rather see this restored in part because I think we should be following the rules and in part because I don't like my comments removed without permission. Thanks Springee (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you suggested to User:Joserchmuser here[5] that continued infractions would result in an indefinite block. He's returned from his block and gone back to removing the same content as before [6] Would you be able to take action to prevent another edit war? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Quick action! Thank you. Appreciate being spared the time and effort of going through the formal procedure again. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if there was an attempt to communicate about this matter outside of edit summaries, on both of your parts, the edit warring could be avoided. For my part, I cannot tell whether their source is reliable, so their edit does appear a bit suspect. El_C13:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, As you might have noticed already, user Konli17 is on a POV crusade. See their long history of edit warring in many articles. They moved several town names in Syria to their Kurdish names (here, and only discussed in Talk pages after being caught and reverted. Please go through the materials they removed in Syrian Kurdistan and tell me if there is anything wrong with the content, context or sources I used. Konli17 simply does not like to know the history of this area and is trying to hide the recent past as it does not suit their narrative.
On the Democratic Union Party (Syria) page, they removed sourced material from American think tanks here, here and here, simply because it shows PYD is Syrian wing of PKK. I have warned this user multiple times but they won't listen. In addition to a recent block, there was a recent complaint about them that was left unclosed. I am planning to report them again. Finally, may I politely request you to restore the material you deleted from the Syrian Kurdistan page. I am willing to discuss the points at the Talk page. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I know you are overwhelmed, but since you recently showed interest in a similar case (Syrian Kurdistan) edit-warring by the same user, please see editor Konli17 latest RV here, despite Talk page (me removing one ref. they objected), and overwhelming evidence from a number of sources, all from 3rd party, neutral western policy centers/think tanks. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? What edit-warring did I do and what WP:ONUS I did not respect? Remember, Konli17 was the person who removed sourced, relevant content, not me. Please visit the Talk page of Syrian Kurdistan to witness that I am fully engaged in the Talk page with all the details and answers necessary, but obviously Konli is only saying they won't be convinced, despite the overwhelming evidence and sources presented. Still, I have refrained from re-adding my initial edit. All Konli is doing is reverting other users' edits (Syrian Kurdistan, Kurdistan, Afrin Region, Jazira Region, Makhmur, Iraq, etc.) and edit-warring against several other users. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes my friend, I read it, and this is why I mentioned in my earlier comment that the information is relevant, and that the dispute is not between 2, rather one (Konli17) against four. Again, I an not the one who started the reverts. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, if you have to go through a few dispute resolution requests so that it becomes clear what's what, then that's what you do. I, for one, am curious to see what's what. Yes, you've been active, but there has been a consistent lack of diffs to accompany your various claims. That's my problem with your approach to this, the lack of documentation. Please update, if needed, but again, try to include documentation of utmost accuracy. El_C23:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've a general question on the ARBPIA and IPAK remedies. I figure you might be the person to ask. Does the 500/30 rule also prohibit article creations in these topic areas which are created in draftspace then submitted for AfC? If yes, how are these cases typically reported; are there appropriate templates to request administrator action (eg deletion), or does one need to make a section at AE / ANI (respectively)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any pressing IPA problems can be reported at those noticeboards. I find the IPA GS to be redundant to the DS. The latter already give admins the discretion to apply WP:500-30. It's just a split log. Oh well. El_C17:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on closer observation, there's an actual prohibition. I was not immediately aware of that. I'm not sure how actively it is being enforced. I don't know how well known the GS actually is among editors to request enforcement from admins (only one GS applied this year). I mean, the page was already on my watchlist, but frankly, I forgot it existed. El_C17:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hmm, specifically with ARBPIA, does that also mean making articles in draftspace and submitting them to AfC is prohibited (for non-EC editors)? So, notwithstanding exemption #2, any admin can delete an article in the AfC queue by a non-EC editor (even if not problematic)? If yes, in practice are non-problematic articles in the topic area by non-EC editors reported for deletion by NPPs (or should they be)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding IPAK, I'm confused on the point of the short-term ECPs in the log, since that part of the authority seems within the scope of the DS, and if non-500/30s aren't meant to edit it anyway I'm not sure why it isn't just indefinite. Though there's an actual prohibition it doesn't seem to actually be enforced like ARBPIA's 500/30 is. Most the entries in the log seem to basically just be normal DS actions. But that's a very different question, I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not preemptively ECP ARBPIA entries anymore — a practice which had seen consensus among admins for a while now. Problematic ones should be reported as an IPA violation. I don't think the GS needs to be invoked for that (IPA problems are IPA problems), but I suppose it could. The DS gives us admins enough latitude, including any prohibitions we see fit to impose. This is why the GS does still feel a bit redundant to me. To that, perhaps the reason there's only been one such protection this year is due to partial blocks now being available, reducing the need for such a severe step as ECP. The fact is that no admins are actively using the GS (this year, at least). Likely, I will continue to ignore it (and will forget about it again soon enough), unless there are specific requests which invoke it. El_C17:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. One more question on alerting out of curiosity, unlike DS it doesn't seem like community sanctions have (codified, at least) a strict alerting requirement. Older sanction pages seem to use the word "can" alert (rather than must) (eg WP:GS/CASTE), an older version of another GS page noted that it isn't a requirement, though I think (as enforced now) it is treat as one. In practice, do all community-authorised GS require the same notification standards as DS, i.e. that there must be an alert before any sanctions are placed? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, just onneee more question (hopefully), WP:AC/DS § Page restrictions says that to sanction for breaching page restrictions an editor both needs to be WP:AWAREand there needs to be an editnotice on the page? But the talk notice says editors can be sanctioned for breaching page restrictions (like 1RR) "without warning" and "on a first offence". What am I missing here? What decision/section allows the 'no warning required' part? Doesn't this motion stop such applications? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more... Regarding 1RR restrictions on the blockchain topic, the community authorised restrictions in May 2018, but the ArbCom motion to strengthen editnotice requirements was passed in Jan 2018, so for avoidance of doubt the amendment probably applies to indefinite WP:ARBPIA-equivalent general sanctions on the topics of the blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed. WP:1RR will also be implemented on these pages? In which case, I'd imagine an editnotice is required on all pages with 1RR DS talk notices, to be able to enforce that restriction? If so, we have 72 usages of the template, but only 16 editnotices. Similarly, with the Syrian Civil War we have 475 usages of 1RR talk notice, but only 81 of the editnotice. With ARBPIA, there are 1800 editnotices, but 2600 talk notices. I'm assuming on the ones that don't have both, 1RR can't be enforced? If so, is this a problem? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a perennial problem — I'm not sure there's a practical solution to it, however, except to attend to each article individually on a need basis. El_C19:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, is a bot for this a bad idea? Where a 1RR talk notice exists, bot adds edit notice. If talk notice removed, blank edit notice and/or tag it for deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my view. The problem is with the templates themselves. Because editors should be able to be informed about DS/GS on the article talk page without there needing to be an escalation to 1RR on the main article. El_C21:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, do you mean not a bad idea in your view, or not a good idea? For the 2nd part, not sure I follow, do you mean the awareness rules shouldn't require an EN? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that there are article talk page DS/GS notices that by default announce the article is under 1RR, when that is not the case, and where 1RR may not be necessary, anyway. El_C21:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I think I get you now. I have some vague ideas for that, but for the ArbCom DS system they'd all require template edits, which I can't do since they're ArbCom's templates. For what it's worth, the revamped GS system ({{Gs/talk notice}}) supports suppression of the 1RR alert using |type=mini (or |brief=yes in wrapper templates), example at {{Blockchain GS talk}}, in doc. But GS makes up a relatively small number of sanctioned pages, compared to DS, so this is probably not that helpful and likely to be forgotten about. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, though a sizble exception is that many non-admin editors use {{ARBPIA}} over the standard recommended {{Ds/talk notice|topic=a-i}}. Which has led to confusion on multiple occasions and likely will continue to. El_C14:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is not a problem with {{American politics AE}} vis-à-vis {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}}, where the application of the the DS talk page notice is left exclusively to admins. El_C14:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just a friendly note that I filed an ARCA to request clarification on the issue here. I didn't list you as a party, as I don't really think you're 'involved', but just dropping a note to let you know. Arcane indeed. And to follow my assumption down the hole leads to some weird contradictions, so some Arb clarity would be nice. Unrelated note, and re. recent events, expressing my thanks for all your comments above & your wider admin work. You're a solid admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: El C, I have moved my comment from yesterday about Newimpartial, and all of the discussion that followed, from the previous section [12] to a new section at the bottom of your page because I wasn't sure if I had done the wrong thing by adding it to the previous section from weeks ago and think maybe it kept you from seeing it. I have not altered it in any way. I hope I haven't done anything wrong in moving this, and apologise if i have. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I have avoided Newimpartial as you told us to and not engaged with them at all on any page. There is currently an RFC about PinkNews as a Reliable Source. As both of us have argued in the past about the reliability of PN, both of us have commented there but I did not respond to any of Newimpartial's numerous comments or refer to them in any way.
Newimpartial, however, not only made a point of replying to mine, but is once again being WP:UNCIVIL and making personal attacks by mocking my literacy (That certain editors lack the literacy skills to understand what a source is saying does not make that source unreliable) [13].
I do not know how much more of this I'm expected to take from this user; if I fight back, I am accused of being a difficult woman and overly emotional, etc. This is beyond exasperating. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And AGAIN. I did not respond to Newimpartial's previous personal insults or their comment at all but instead replied to someone else, so Newimpartial jumped in and replied to THAT with more sarcasm and WP:UNCIVIL[14]. This is just BULLYING at this point - I am not even speaking to them or about them in any way and they keep replying to anything I say to anyone else with rudeness and insults.Lilipo25 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Newimpartial - first of all, how did you find the RSN discussion at this late date, if not by HOUNDING? By the terms of any interaction ban, you should just have left it alone.
Secondly, your literacy in these matters does not need any further commentary on my part, but your interventions here and here were based in complete misreadings of the source you were !voting on at RSN; at least I held until after the second one before making comment. And my final comment was in relation to a three-way conversation where the other interlocutor continued to elaborate using terms I had introduced and Lilipo's response still made reference to my argument. This business of "I'm not talking to you, so you don't get to respond to my counterargument" is not really WP policy AFAICT.
Lilipo, I have never accused you of being "a difficult woman" or used any other gendered term. As far as the literacy skills business is concerned, I have made very similar comments regarding Guy Macon; there is nothing personal - or gendered - about that. If it seemed UNCIVIL to you, I apologize, but that whole RSN discussion has been rather heated, as you could see before your recent intervention. Newimpartial (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EL C, I have refrained from responding to Newimpartial's bullying on the RFC and I will only say here two things:
1. I have NOT been on Newimpartial's page at any time, nor did I HOUND them - I "found" the RFC because I was on the Reliable Sources page to check if another source (Metro UK) had been deemed reliable and saw that a notice and link had been placed on the Pink News entry stating that it was in dispute and "under discussion". I had no way of knowing that Newimpartial was in the RFC when I clicked the link, and there is no reason for me not to comment in it, as i have a history of arguing against the reliability of Pink News as a source. I don't know why this is being treated with such hostility.
2. I hope that just for once, someone will note that Newimpartial has repeatedly made UNCIVIL remarks to me that constitute clear personal attacks (stating that I lack "literacy") when I have in no way engaged with them at all, and is now doing the "sorry if that seemed uncivil to YOU" that is not an actual apology at all. They are trying to taunt me into a fight, and it is extremely hard to have to constantly take this kind of bullying and not be permitted to respond. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, you should not have responded to Lilipo25, anywhere, for any reason. Monopoly of pages or discussions do not usually accompany an WP:IBAN. If you address Lilipo again you risk imminent sanctions. There is unlikely to be another warning about that (should be taken as a final warning). El_C19:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yet Newmpartial is STILL going through my user page! I do not go on their page, I avoid them, and here a few minutes ago they posted a comment from MY user talk page in an ANI I have been participating in [15] in order to use it against another user who left the comment there. I strongly suspect they found the ANI I was in by checking my user contributions in order to follow me there today, but of course, I have no way of proving that isn't just a wild coincidence. But there is no way for Newimpartial to know what comments are on my Talk Page in a discussion in which they were NOT involved unless they are reading through it. Is there some way I can block Newimpartial from my page? This is ridiculous. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My reply to Crossroads is here; I believe it is all in order. As far as the Daz Simpson diff is concerned, I saw that at the time it happened, and did not reference (or cast ASPERSIONS upon) Lolipo in providing it at ANI, where I believe it was relevant. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's Lilipo, not Lolipo! Anyway, I don't see where Newimpartial has interacted with Lilipo, but referencing her talk page is not ideal. Newimpartial, for the last (last) time, can you just not engage in anything Lilipo — broadly construed, please! El_C20:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they know it's Lilipo. Since no matter how many times Newimpartial violates the order to leave me alone, all they ever get is one "final warning" after another, I am giving up ignoring them when they insult and bully and hound me and will respond. There cannot possibly be a rule anywhere on Wikipedia that says one editor is allowed to continually do this crap to another and the other one just has to take it. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. I'm setting a one-way IBAN against Newimpartial. Bare with me as I navigate that incredibly cumbersome template. El_C20:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, the link for the discussion giving rise to the AE action shows up on my talk page as [17], which is a broken link for me. Am I right in assuming it refers to the discussion here? Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And is it your impression that this edit would have violated the IBAN, had it been in place at the time? If so, I would like to hear why, since I don't see how it meets any of the criteria here and it was a highly relevant contribution concerning *another* editor, the one who authored the diff. Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, the ban has been imposed. It is not going to reversed. Avenues of appeal are listed on the template. Effectively, nothing should change except violations about mentioning or interacting with Lilipo in any way are now subject to enforcement action — action that, like the ban, will be logged as a discretionary sanction. El_C20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per the first step in. this process, I am asking you to reconsider your original decision, in light of:
1. That I have apologized unreservedly for, and have not resumed, the original problematic behavior on my part and
2. I will continue to not responded to Lilipo25, anywhere, for any reason, as per your previous recommendation/"final warning". Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, decline. The more I think about it, the more that linking to her talk page comes across as provocation to me, after everything we've gone through. The ban has been set to curtail that from reoccurring. El_C21:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This notice comes to inform you that I have submitted an appeal to my Topic ban in the ARBPIA area, which you can see here. I was asked by the administrator EdJohnston to inform the previous administrators involved in my earlier topic bans when submitting a new appeal, which I take the time to do now. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say, I've appreciated your efforts to cool disputes around here, particularly by temporarily protecting pages so edit wars could cool off. I haven't always agreed with the version that got protected, but discussions on talk pages have generally led to decent consensus versions being worked out in the end, and it's probably helped several users avoid getting blocked for 3RRing each other, and so be able to go on improving other articles. (I waited to make this comment until time had elapsed since the last time I saw you act on a page I was watching, so this wouldn't be taken as a response to a particular page/dispute.) -sche (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, -sche. That's a really nice note. An appreciation from a quality editor such as yourself is always inspiring and reaffirming. Best wishes, El_C02:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't counted how many I wrote of the cat "can't get composer as I want, write composition(s)", really many for Sibelius because the discussion was so frustrating. Last year only one, Antigone oder die Stadt ("We pounded at the doors of the mighty; unheard remained the heart-wrenched agony, our people's mournful fate!"). I do hope that this year's two are the last, but (see above) I really hoped ice was broken in 2015 already ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Featured list to appear 21 August, Vespers for TFA 1 Sep, - flourishing. I just prefer to be driven by free will and inspiration from others than pure defiance, as the ones mentioned. Today, the TFA is by the first of the outcast, DYK? - We wrote Kafka together, his idea, - which - thanks to the google doodle - made it to No 1 TFA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, somewhere above (Impact?) I explained the cabal of the outcast, founded by PumpkinSky (blocked) and Br'er Rabbit (banned), joined by a few others soon including me. PumpkinSky and I wrote Kafka, his idea. He had written today's Scouting article much earlier, as Rlevse, the one who passed Awesome Wikipedian the longest. After the Kafka success, he went for another RfA (linked above) which made him leave again. - Well, better looking forward. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, my first edit day, reminding me of my first article, deleted in minutes, but appearing on DYK not much later (for 6 hours at the time), thanks to great helpers. In the context, I remember Bright Angel, nicely connected to hero, - in this case age 9. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, - that's what DYK is about. I imagine father and son on that hike - of which I only managed the second portion, and was never as exhausted before or after. The father was the bassoonist in the chamber orchestra in the premiere of Britten's War Requiem at the new Coventry Cathedral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Betovi! Seriously, In case that remains an issue I think we need arbitration clarification. At least one of the arbs who wrote the case admitted that removing a longstanding infobox is also a disruption. I have no idea how one voice against some infobox, more than 2 years ago, would constitute a "100% consensus" not to have one now. The one thing we don't need now is another fruitless repetitive discussion. The psalms are in the process of being improved, and all improved ones have an infobox. These are musical compositions, not biographies. Psalm 149 was the first, on 1 January 2018, as a program. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have friends, he's from Israel, she's from Germany. His son is an actor with a page here. No link, or I gave too much private info ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a world history in a life. RE: "It's getting better all the time" — I think someone forgot to tell the pandemic about that.El_C21:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was distracted because a dear family member died (not where I live, and not the virus, but cancer, and yes had to come, but still ...) - I met a nice new user and welcomed them, please watch. I don't know how I'd react to people telling me first thing that they don't trust me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rhythm Is It! - remember, I had the idea to expand that stub on this talk page? - Did that on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user Visnelma is improperly using the minor edit check box. They have made sizable and significant edits to articles like the Fall of Constantinople and have marked them as being minor. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
distruptive IP at the subject, ignoring talk, misleading edit logs, however interesting what he/she means by we will address this issue officially (legal threat?). Btw. I kept the source added, but even pushing identical entries at more subsections (legal stuff...)...please look on it. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Sadko, who you logged in April at AE for misusing a report he launched against Mikola22, now joined a report about Ktrimi991 (after Mikola22 did) and then launched a series of personal accusations about several editors (including Mikola22). He even went so far as to say that Ktrimi991 in RL would instantly get fired for Mobbing. If someone wrote that in my talkpage, I would even go as far as to ask for it to be deleted as a personal attack, but to make such comments in an admin noticeboard of all places requires admin oversight in that discussion because it has been derailing to a WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's obvious that Sadko knew exactly what he was writing and that it is a personal attack against Ktrimi991 because in that same comment he also said that I expect that some of the mentioned editors will report me because of my comment and explain how I am “the bad one”, no problem with that.[19]--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still don't have the time to, singularly, give this rather lengthy report the well-rounded investigation it may deserve. Please make use of AE for all of your Arbitration enforcement needs. The report has already been closed by another admin, so you may wish to bring the matter to their attention. El_C17:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C,
I am not quite sure why you have removed the 2 paragraphs from the Ching Hai article.
I am the editor that inserted 99% of the scholarly citations in this article. Many of them are critical of her. So I don't think I can be accused of advocacy.
I feel the Paragraph describing and quoting her own initiation is complementary to the paragraphs prior to it, discussing and inquiring her own initiation.
The paragraph with the word "gutsy" is a quote from a peer review academic journal, written by an expert in the field.
You simply cannot quote so much. It borders on WP:COPYVIO, even when attributed. And I am concerned in instances where it isn't and there is simply WP:PARAPHRASING — and no, "gutsy" is not up to par unless it is part of a direct quote, which again, is an area which you are vastly exceeding, anyway. Please write your own original prose. Summarize the sources briefly and concisely. Because these are not how Wikipedia submissions —especially about living persons— are supposed to be. El_C13:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive the interruption, I known you're hard at work earning another Barnstar of Infinite Patience, but here is another one to look at [20]. // Timothy :: talk17:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've pinged you to an explanation of the title I've chosen on AN. As one with a developed political conscience, but (presumably) on the other side of the issue - that of a majority group, that is - I'm interested in your thoughts. If you've something to say (as a person, not as an admin), ping me. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
François Robere, I still don't think you bringing up your perennial dispute with VM was appropriate. Otherwise, I'll reiterate that you are entitled to draft a well-documented report about it that stands in its own right. I am not preventing you from doing anything of the sort. El_C19:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I found the whole incident... aggravating, for the reasons explained in my comment to Nosebagbear. That, and Wikipedia's machinations in general, are more interesting to me than VM on his own. That's what I was asking about, but it's okay if you don't want to develop that discussion.
Hi El C, a user you blocked and closed the 3RR complaint against is back to the same old edit-warring game. They just removed the exact same sourced, relevant quotes from the Tell Abyad article they were sanctioned for. As a reminder, we had opened a DRN case about the quotes, but the user paradise did not like the suggestion of volunteer user Nightenbelle, and decided to remove two SOURCED quotes (2-3 lines each) from the Washington Post material and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They even removed the material during the DRN. The material in question describes the political situation of the town after it was captured by YPG militias (one of the belligerents in the Syrian civil war). Both works are VERY relevant; the Washington Post story is a field investigation done by an American journalist sitting across across the border from Tell Abyad. Fabrice Balanche (with the Washington Institute) is an expert in the Syrian civil war and author of Sectarianism of Syria's civil war reference work. Balanche is quoted in so many articles on WP and elsewhere. In the beginning, the user was complaining about just one word (unilateral) in one quote, but after all their arguments were debunked now they are talking about some strange quote guidelines that do not really apply to our disputed quote, but they are using the guidelines a s a pretext to remove the material that goes against their POV. The user has just come back and removed the two quotes they didn't like, really undermining all WP rules (DRN, Talk page, NPOV, etc.). I have engaged extensively in the Talk page and DRN page and provided lots of details why these quotes are true and important to the page. I hope you can look into this. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure if that might be considered a Topic Ban breach if I requested page protection so I’m just letting you know here what’s going on. Rapid reverts. [22] - GizzyCatBella🍁10:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elc, eruthelord has started to remove sourced contents on his own, without discussion. Pls look into it, Devendrakula velalar and devendra kulathan pages are being attacked by the same person. He doesn’t seems to understand and keeps repeating the same thing. Mamallarnarashimavarman (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should use AE to submit a proper report as I presently lack the time to investigate the state of this perennial dispute. El_C18:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was concensus in talk page sitush directed him to remove certain sources and associated statements . He neither removed it nor gave any explanation. EruTheLord (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Partial blocks. On second thought, it's probably best that both users cease edit warring and engage the article talk page to seek resolution. El_C12:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, could you semi-protect my talk page for 72 hours, or some other appropriate action? I'm having some trouble with harassment from an IP. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Although I am not involved in the content dispute, I opened some weeks ago a talk page discussion with an invitation for involved editors to sort out the disputes there. It is sad that while the Balkan area has few editors, a good part of the newbies resort to practices that do not solve a dispute. Hopefully the editor will reflect on the issue, and will be able to sort out their disagreement on the talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you putting an admin lock on the Richard Stallman article, but can you please revert it to Masem's last version per the NPOV discussion here? He took the time to rewrite that section and then daveout reverted it back to his own extremely biased version just before you changed the protection level. Thanks! Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are outstanding BLP concerns, I'm not inclined to edit the protected page. I have not followed the discussion and am otherwise unfamiliar with the dispute, which dissuades me from taking such action at this time. El_C19:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are outstanding BLP concerns. Masem edited the page to resolve them, but then daveout re-added the problematic sections back shortly before you locked the page. @Masem: are you able to explain further or revert back to your version? Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to thank you for protecting the article. My last edit on it attempted to correct a grave flaw: NO reliable source states that Stallman attempted to 1) ‘’rationalize’’ Minsky’s assault allegation; or 2) ‘’Defend’’ Minsky. Claim 1 is present on Lazer-kitty’s version; claim 2 is present on the version before my last edit. Lazer-kitty keeps claiming that the article is biased but doesn’t bother to explain why exactly they think that. Comparing both versions, the only significant difference is that in Lazer-kitty’s version there is a cropped and deceivingly framed quotation:
Stallman defended Minsky by claiming that "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing"
My revision presents the full quotation (which reveals a completely different message):
‘’We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that. […] We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely wilting. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.’’
For some reason, that editor doesn’t want readers reading the whole thing.
Additionally, I want to apologize to Lazer-kitty for being somewhat harsh on our previous discussions. By seeing their talkpage, I realized that they are a beginner trying to understand how wikipedia works and making (many) mistakes on the process (they were just recently blocked). I should be more patient and didactical when dealing with beginners.daveout(talk)20:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there are outstanding BLP issues, perhaps it's best these are taken to BLPN, as I don't know when I'll get a chance to investigate this further. El_C01:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please for the love of god revert to Masem's version. This is not a joke, this is an editor using this supposed encyclopedia for propaganda purposes. You are enabling that. Furthermore, daveout's above comment is egregiously obvious trolling. Please do something. Please take action. None of this is acceptable. Lazer-kitty (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't an explanation, that's just a personal attack. Please don't engage in these again, or you are likely to face sanctions. If you have an argument to make that isn't merely a wrong version argument, you are welcome to make it. But you need to otherwise restrain yourself. The version in which the page was protected was random. I am not really looking to involve myself further in your dispute beyond stopping the edit warring at this time. If there is an emergency (like defamation), any other admin can revert the protected page as they see fit. El_C05:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if that came off like an attack. But here's what happened. I reported this article to the WP:NPOV noticeboard for being incredibly biased toward the subject of the article. An administrator there reviewed the report, agreed with me, and rewrote the section in question to be much better and unbiased. I thought this was the end of it, but then daveout decided to revert the page yet again and reinstate his own biased edits. And immediately after he did that you locked the page in place. That you did this "randomly" is not an excuse; you contributed to making a problem worse, whether or not you realize that. It would be very easy for you to fix this problem by reverting the page to Masem's version. But involving yourself in a dispute, making it worse, and then saying you don't want to be involved - I don't understand that logic. And to be clear, I'm not trying to attack you or accusing you of actively doing anything malicious or in bad faith. I understand that you simply saw an edit war and tried to stop it. But I have explained to you the unintended consequences of your actions and I cannot understand why you will not with one simple click correct those consequences. You don't even have to involve yourself further. Simply revert the page to Masem's version and the involved parties can continue our NPOV discussion.
Maybe I haven't explained well enough the actual problem with the page? This isn't a minor content dispute, or someone thinking a page has too many tables, or something unimportant like that. This is an editor co-opting Wikipedia to take the side of the subject of an article and advance that subject's own argument, in obvious and direct violation of what an unbiased encyclopedia is supposed to be. This is not something where it should be acceptable to sit on our hands and wait for the wiki machinations to arrive at whatever conclusion. We are actively disseminating misinformation. Time is of the essence. I am begging you to please help. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration I have reverted the protected page as requested. I'd rather err on the side of caution in a matter this sensitive. El_C14:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Daveout, your comment isn't that great either. It's convoluted and condescending. I did not learn much from it, either. Certainly, nothing useful in terms of defamation, which would be my principal concern. This is not how dispute resolution is supposed to be. El_C06:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but I’m in need of advice. Ever since I was partially blocked for edit-warring, I’ve decided that would no longer edit that page anymore (even when my block expires) and that I would voluntarily limit myself to only discussing it on talk pages and forums. Previously, you’ve said that I should resolve this dispute at DRN, but now that Lazer-Kitty’s preferred version is in place, they have repeatedly refused to even discuss it (they even attempted topic-ban me at the ANI without presenting any further misconduct on my part).
This doesn’t feel right at all. There is no discussion and no consensus happening, even when I offered LK to correct, as they pleased, any bias in the version that I’ve suggested. Isn’t consensus-building an attempt to accommodate everyone’s concerns? The concerns of at least 3 editors regarding style\wording preferences are being ignored simply bc LK refuses to collaborate.
It has also been suggested that I am not allowed to even discuss the article because I'm temporarily blocked from editing it, and that I should be reported to "Arbitration Enforcement". Are they correct? I was never banned from discussing the article...
I really don't know how to proceed and I feel like all my concerns and opinions are simply being ignored by everyone. — Daveout(talk)16:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would let it go for at least three months. Richard Stallman attracts various kinds of misguided people, mostly in real life (or at least, online off-wiki). People cannot understand the literal meaning of what he writes and they seize on extracts. That situation is unlikely to change and battling it will only generate frustration. Regarding your question, the whole point of a partial block is to stop the editing of a particular page (Richard Stallman) while allowing continued access to all other pages. You are welcome to discuss it on the talk page but doing so would not help anyone: it would only harden views making possible change in the future less likely. Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: Thanks for your answer and advice. And I agree with you. Maybe you could help us out a little (if you have some spare time). We have been disputing a better version for the section of article dealing with the whole Epstein controversy. Two version have been proposed and you can find them side-by-side in my sandbox (it’s a very short reading). Afterwards, you could give your impressions at Stallman’s talk page discussion that is taking place here. Unfortunately, very few people are interested in this, that’s the major problem. :\ — Daveout(talk)01:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ibn Amr was advised that the Syrian Civil war articles were under the 1RR rules in 2014[[24]] and also 2015 [[25]] Today is 2020 and ok, not every admin checkes the edit history of a talk page before coming to a decision. You made your evaluation, and it's ok. But still, the edits Ibn Amr did, were at least for some people about the Syrian Civil War. Ayn Issa would hardly have become the capital of the AANES, without the Syrian Civil War. And even if there is doubt, there should be a revert, according to the rules. Anyway, this is a long way to think and probably more appropriate for one who is really into the matter. But, we would really appreciate if an admin who'd enter with arguments into the dispute.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I tend to approach both DS and GS rather formally in the sense that there has to be an article and article talk page notices to consider the sanctions being in effect. As for arguments, I think my participation in mediating the dispute at Talk:Democratic_Union_Party_(Syria)#Removal_of_sourced_content was quite successful, but this isn't something I can commit to doing for each dispute in the topic area where I opine or intervene in an administrative capacity. El_C01:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who this "he" is in reference to (no diff). I'm surprised, however, that as such a new user you even know about ROLLBACKUSE. Still coming across as suspect, Peacetowikied, I'm sorry to say. El_C11:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that rollback was unfortunate, but it isn't a huge deal since the editor has made their stance known with the following edit summary, which read: "capital of the AANES since 2018." Not saying it's good, but it is otherwise not actionable. El_C05:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Administrator! Hi. I would like to bring to your kind notice that a certain user named Kashmiri, has made edits to page Prayagraj that appears to be affecting the whole neutrality of the article. I do not intend to name any user in particular, I just need to bring to light some particular edits, done consequently one after one, that has changed some of the long standing status of the page. Firstly, the user removed the metropolis status off the page stating that it isn’t really a metropolis, without providing any reference to the edit made, while the Census commission states those cities which are in prominence, centred, administrative headquarters which have a population more than one million, are referred as Metropolis, and the population is already referenced. I have no intention to get involved in any conflicts with any user. I know and understand that he might have done that in good faith, I just would like you to only revert back the metropolis status of the page since the population of the city is exceeding one million, and it is a city of importance, I do not ask you or intend to add anything, I just want neutral data to be restored back. I even provided Government link for the city given on the Government Urban and Environmental Studies website about the stats of the city. Under Chapter 2, City profile, section 2.3.1 it clearly says ” Allahabad city comes under Allahabad metropolitan area along with Cantonment board and urban outgrowths. Population of metropolitan area is 12,16,719. Male constitutes 655,734 and female constitutes 560,985 of the total population.” http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/19UP_Allahabad_sfcp-min.pdf The user Kashmiri hasn’t participated in any talks on talk page, nor has provided any significant reference on why the edit that was long stable was suddenly removed from the page. Alongside, I also provided a media article link back in 2006 when Allahabad was mentioned along with 5 other cities in the states and given metropolitan status. https://m.timesofindia.com/city/lucknow/Six-cities-to-get-metropolitan-status/articleshow/2210886.cms We editors look up to you for everything. Kindly help. Harshv7777 (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow the attempt to discuss this on the article talk page to take its course before seeking further intervention. Good luck. El_C11:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They have doubled down on their 'anti-tankie' personal attacks, now citing your quotation of Lenin, without pinging you (hoping you would not notice). As if a single bleeping quotation amounts to "apologism for Lenin's anti-aristocratic campaigns"... *rolls eyes* CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, you recently removed my edit of the entry for ISO where I attempted to take out redundancies - you stated it was better to summarize than quote, then you proceeded to reinstate both the summary AND the quote. Please read the following:
Name and abbreviations
The name of the organization in French is Organisation internationale de normalisation, and in Russian, Международная организация по стандартизации (Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya po standartizatsii). ISO is not an acronym. The organization adopted ISO as its abbreviated name in reference to the Greek word isos (ίσος, meaning "equal"),[6] as its name in the three official languages would have had different acronyms. During the founding meetings of the new organization, the Greek word explanation was not invoked, so this meaning may have been made public later, making it a backronym.[7]
ISO gives this explanation of the name: "Because 'International Organization for Standardization' would have different acronyms in different languages (IOS in English, OIN in French), our founders decided to give it the short form ISO. ISO is derived from the Greek isos, meaning equal. Whatever the country, whatever the language, the short form of our name is always ISO."[8]
Both the name ISO and the ISO logo are registered trademarks and their use is restricted.[9]
Oops, Dm8233, looks like I made a mistake and conflated the better version (yours) with the inferior one. Sorry about that. Self-reverted. El_C02:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both accounts share the exact same hallmarks of the other three accounts. These two edit the same articles as the three above, adding unsourced content, no explanation - evading an indefinite block given by Materialscientist on the first account (Portugalbest), and a week's block on their second account (MattheusCaua890). Can you please work your magic on them too? —MelbourneStar☆talk14:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, Maleschreiber (talk·contribs) has a nasty habit of using insulting edit summaries such as this one [27] (repeated in the talkpage for good measure [28]). He has a history of such behavior [29]. Would you say these are in explicit violation of WP:SUMMARYNO and contribute to the negative atmosphere in the Balkans? When I confronted him about it, he doubled down and played dumb [30]. What should be done about this? How am I supposed to resolve content disputes with someone who never admits fault? Khirurg (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's not even a hint of content dispute here - I just explained to you how definitions work in classical studies. You claimed that my edit summary: Appian (1st century AD) and Apollodorus are historians who present mythological constructions as many authors of their era do. Their works are not part of the corpus of "Greek mythology" which is a well-defined corpus of material of which Khirurg is probably not aware of in terms of definitions used in classical studies is mocking you and I explained to you that I never mocked you and that in general there's no mocking in highlighting things that someone may not be aware of (the exact phrase I used - nothing about you as a person in general) - when it's done in the context of information sharing and that you should feel free to discuss with me anything you want too if it bothers you. You, on the other hand, came to my talkpage and "promised" that you would report me in AE and that Don't play dumb. You know what you did. And if you do it again, you will be defending it AE instead of here. Promise. (User_talk:Maleschreiber#Don't_mock_users_in_edit_summaries) I then asked an admin @EdJohnston: to give some more insight about how SUMMARYNO works and he replied that This does not seem to be an issue worth taking to AE. (User_talk:EdJohnston#Use_of_summary_interpretation). But now, after that reply Khirurg is choosing to escalate a non-incident and try to create a big issue because of one edit summary that was never insulting or mocking in any manner towards him and that "at a minimum a warning is due" (a warning over what exactly?). Khirurg filed one seriously overblown report against another editor a few days ago which ended with no action and a warning for Khirurg too [31], so maybe he should calm down and not venture into yet another round of accusing other editors - this time over literally no incident or dispute. Editors in the Balkans over the last months have developed a habit of trying to turn anything into an issue over which they then ask for other editors to get blocked, banned or AE warned. This sort of behavior has already been logged in AE by El C about another report and the filing editor was warned to not weaponize AE in order to eliminate opponents of content disputes. I think that it should stop because it turns every situation into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and drains energy away from improving articles if everything is treated as AE material.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's WP:BATTLEGROUND is your incivility. If you find the need to defend yourself "draining", then don't mock others. And stop filibustering every thread. I am interested in what El C has to say, not you. Khirurg (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is definitely a very disruptive comment! I even honestly asked Khirurg in my talkpage to tell me what was he considered to be mocking towards him to which I got the reply "Don't play dumb. You know what you did." I genuinely tried to address whatever might have bothered him in the way he interpreted my comment because I can't see how making a very brief comment about lack of awareness about a very specific detail in classical studies can be seen as insulting and a reason to report someone and ask for sanctions in AE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think he probably objected to being called out by name that way; some people might feel they were being "dissed". BilCat (talk)
Yes, exactly. That's against WP:SUMMARYNO, and he knows it. Edit summaries cannot be modified. He's done it before too, not the first time. Don't be fooled by his feigned innocence and deliberate obtuseness, he knows what he's doing. It's like those guys that say something inflammatory and are then "What? What did I do? Why are you overreacting this way?". Khirurg (talk)
You're making a lot of WP:ASPERSIONs there about what I did Khirurg and you really shouldn't. If you have a problem with being addressed by your username in the edit summary, you could have said so and I wouldn't address you as such again. It seemed self-evident though that I was referring to you and I didn't think at all that it could be an issue.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aspersions are what you make in your edit summaries, where you assume to know what is other users minds. How about you make a commitment to abide by WP:SUMMARYNO and never discuss other editors in edit summaries? That would resolve matters, and it shouldn't be too hard. Khirurg (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be ok with not mentioning you in any edit summary if you said so when I asked you instead of replying "Don't play dumb. You know what you did" and "promising" to report me to AE. That has nothing to do with SUMMARYNO. The problem arises from the fact that after I asked an admin to clarify the situation (in which he could have replied either way) you then went into a series of aspersions which you explained as I was content to let the matter rest, but you came running here to get vindicated. Because it's not enough to let the matter rest, you have to win, don't you?[32]. Now, I don't think that asking admins to clarify policies is a matter of "winning" or "losing" and it shouldn't be perceived in that way. Have a good evening.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is your persistent behavior of attacking other editors in edit summarues. WP:SUMMARYNO says Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don't's" of the Wikipedia Civility policy. Not that hard to agree to abide by it, no? Or is it? Khirurg (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Khirurg, you have shown two edit summaries, and two edit summaries is not "persistent behavior of attacking other editors in edit summarues". Maleschreiber told you that his intention was not mocking. This waste of time and energy can be avoided if Maleschreiber does not use your username in edit summaries again, and you do not make assumptions about his intentions. This is a waste of time. People, move on and focus on improving content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (almost the same as the one I posted on Ed's tp) The process of editing Balkan topics has become virtually pointless and unproductive, as most of the time is spent on talk page conflicts. There is an ogoing effort to accuse other editors of real of unreal issues. It has become a cycle of accusations and opposition, and all of this involves a very large number of editors. I am staying away from editing controversial articles of the Balkans for some time as the area has become so tense and toxic that even responding to another editor might be a total loss of time and energy. I am focused on writing new articles these days and I am preparing some, and I suggest that other editors too do that. An editor is supposed to write and maintain content, not to spend so much time with clarifications, disputes and accusations. It is pointless. And I am repeating myself. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with everything you've said Ktrimi991 - and I've already clarified that if Khirurg is personally bothered by username mention in a summary, regardless of SUMMARYNO, I will not mention him again there. In one admin talkpage, the discussion has been closed [33], so editors should really move on and focus content. El C, in the course of our discussion Khirurg removed a POV tag that has been placed for many months now here. He was removing it back then too, but with your intervention the tag was restored and after a long discussion in which no resolution emerged you again explained how resolution could proceed [34]. Now, why would Khirurg in the midst of this discussion, go to a disputed page and remove a tag which reflects the disputed status of the article? To me it highlights a larger problem, when one editor makes extreme accusations, doesn't get a desired result and then goes to a page in which he has been in dispute (also) with the particular editor he's making accusations against in order to remove a tag which reflects the disputed status of that article as result of several editors not agreeing with each other. I don't want to continue a discussion which was totally overblown, so I'm just highlighting this last, small incident in the list of all the problems that arose in the course of the debate.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some pretty serious WP:ASPERSIONS there. You can't make impossible demands in a talkpage, tag the article, then walk away from the discussion because your impossible demands haven't been met, and then leave the article tagged forever. Doesn't work like that. Your behavior is consistent with someone who wants the article tagged as an end in itself because of WP:JDL issues. In other words, the goal is not to use the tag as means to an end (improving the article), the tag is the end. Khirurg (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:ASPERSION at all - you chose to remove the tag at the exact time that you continued the narrative of the "mocking summary" - which as was established had nothing to do with SUMMARYNO. Now, I've made many proposals to that talkpage and you've replied to none or reverted every edit other editors have tried to include in the article. Disputes don't go stale because they can't progress and tags reflect an article's disputed status - don't remove them again. I left that final message in this talkpage so that the admin who secured that the article didn't operate under WP:OWN status is notified about what you're trying to do.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the participants believe there have been policy violations, please feel free to file a proper report at a forum of your choosing as I don't know if I'll have time to investigate this in the immediate future. El_C13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please take another look at the actions of Peacetowikied. You asked them recently about previous accounts and made other comments on their talk page. This behavior from them frankly looks like trolling. And they tried to add it to the article even after an editor opposed it. They claim that picture is of them, but it was uploaded by Gayinspandex1. But Peacetowikied responded to you asking about previous accounts by only mentioning IPs. So are they hiding their previous account, or are they claiming someone else's picture is theirs and trolling with it as I suspect? It's dishonesty either way. Crossroads-talk-05:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you do not have much time, and I do not want to take some of it with a repeated issue. It was actually me who originally added the POV tag, and at the same time I made a list of my concerns on the talk page. At the time almost no attention was given to the concerns and some proposals for solution I made, but now there finally a proper dicsussion with multiple editors has started. Since the process of solving them one by one has started, should not the tag stay rn? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for the clarification. Hopefully the group of editors involved, including me, will be able to settle the issues quickly, though there are many. An article with a tag in is lead is never a beautiful thing to see. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, not sure where to take this. This new user is constantly changing sourced information, whilst saying more or less the same random stuff over and over, almost like a broken record [36]. It's just generally bizarre comments such as this [37] or this [38]. So yeah, I'm not really optimistic that going to his talk page will help. The two most recent removal of sourced information being [39] and [40]. Furthermore, exactly around the same time two new users appeared and started imitating his types of edits [41][42], a bit suspicious? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El_C, I left a message on Guerillero's talk page here [44], but maybe you can add a word or two here [45] such as "A no-fault interaction ban". It is important to me. - GizzyCatBella🍁23:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella, while I'm not pleased with the result, I don't really have anything to add at this time beyond the following. Indeed, my recommendation for a one-way IBAN was unfortunately not accepted. But all that remains at the discretion of the closer. I certainly will oppose any attempts to use that sanction against you when your appeal is submitted, since this was a bogus report whose closure should have made clear you were not at fault. I think the fact that the closing failed to note this is not to the credit of the AE process. Feel free to quote me on that. El_C14:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Caste relevant pages were vandalized again. Just like IruTheLord, he is either placing deletion tags to the articles or removing content with references. I believe BunnieCarrot and SadaikaThevar are socks of Iru. The articles affected as far as I know: Nadar climber & Nadar (caste). Mayan302 (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, El C. I wanted to kindly ask you to close my appeal at AN before it quietly slips away without a closing resolution and is archived. It would be a pity to see all the effort come to naught.Davidbena (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re. your edit on the above article. The IP address sourced from Indonesia. Use Pakistani English? No intention in appearing ignorant, I assure you, but there was no edit explanation. Seemed like flyby tagging from an IP with no prior or subsequent contributions. No harm done.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what reason there was to even look up the source of the IP, not to mention revert them with an edit summary that noted that. The event happened in Pakistan, so Pakistani English seems perfectly intuitive. And, no, I disagree with you — there was potential harm: it's called WP:BITE. El_C23:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistani English: I'd actually never heard of the term, although I do appreciate your observation. To my mind, it was a genuine error. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, El C. Between the time I got my coffee and returned to my computer, you had closed this discussion, but I would ask you to reopen it, because it does look like a boomerang situation. In the wake of discussion there, the OP posted on the article talk page that they were reinstating most of their edit (without waiting a reasonable period for any actual discussion to occur) and "instructed" the other editors to discuss their edits instead of reverting them (continuing to ignore BRD). Moreover, their reinstated edits still include the unattributed, unambiguous copying of text from Lee Kuan Yew, which they acknowledged at ANI and were supposedly going to address. There's some clear edit warring going on that was obfuscated by all the nonsense that the other user derailed with accusations about HEJ. Grandpallama (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wary of blocking due to the absence of potent enough warnings. I will do so. Continuing to engage the article talk page is recommended — they have two outstanding comments there that were left without a single reply. El_C14:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, their "engagement" came only after their reversions without doing so were pointed out in the ANI discussion, and they posted last evening at ~5:00 ET, and then reinstated their edits this morning at ~7:00 ET. That's not a legitimate waiting period for editors to come discuss already-challenged edits, and it doesn't explain why they are still inserting copied material into their edits; it definitely doesn't support claiming their edits have consensus from the talkpage in their edit summaries. They've been provided with the BRD link multiple times now, and they've shown little interest in it. Grandpallama (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. WP:CWW is enough of a concern for me to revert the changes until that matter is cleared up. I have also instructed the user to observe WP:ONUS by allowing more time for discussion to mature. El_C14:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I genuinely appreciate you taking a second look; people need time to breathe a bit and dig through this. I saw CWW from other articles, too (the proposed language in the lede about sharing a common language and legal system was lifted verbatim from the lede of US-UK relations, for instance). But I'm also seeing what looks like problematic copyvio in general: this edit to the lede Informal relations between the two countries began in the early 19th century when American merchants engaged in the East Asia trade began to visit the port of Singapore. American–Singaporean interaction increased through the late 19th and 20th centuries reads to me as a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the source Informal relations between the United States and Singapore began when U.S. merchants engaged in the China trade began to visit the port on their way to and from China. As Singapore became one of the most important ports in the region, U.S.-Singaporean interaction increased through the 19th and 20th centuries, while the second part of the sentence with the latter being the world's second-busiest port in terms of total shipping tonnage as of 2020. doesn't appear in the source at all. There's something between a content dispute and a policy problem going on. Grandpallama (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need for any apologies. You always listen, always consider, always take into account new information and genuinely hear what people are saying. It is a much appreciated quality in any editor, but especially in an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have to resurrect this, but I think things have gotten decidedly worse. I have pinged you to a relevant SPI filing where, in the course of presenting other evidence, editors have noted some fairly strong tendentious editing from this account to promote Singapore while downplaying other Asian countries. There's been continued and persistent resistance to following WP:BRD or to gain consensus before reinstating challenged edits.[46][47][48]
However, I'm equally concerned about the increased prevalence of clearly deceptive edit summaries in order to insert some of this content, some of which I've reverted, some of which has been reverted by other editors. Removing mention of pseudoscience under the guise of fixing grammar and broken refs[49] and similarly here[50], "slight paraphrasing" in order to make new claims about China and Singapore[51], "slight paraphrasing" again to introduce a completely new claim[52], a pretty shocking insertion of material to the lede with a perplexing WP:UNDUE edit summary (it's undue not to include suicide statistics about a country in the lede, I guess he's arguing?) along with a basic rewrite of text that keeps the meaning the same, but de-emphasizes South Korea and slides in mention of Singapore[53], this tag[54], which might be innocuous if other patterns weren't evident and if he weren't also making edits like this[55]. I don't think this is good-faith editing, and whether or not the SPI decides to weigh in favor of the socking allegation, this account is displaying serious issues. Grandpallama (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're a funny one, Grandpallama. You continuously avoid or would not interact with me on the talk page whenever I asked for your clarifications because we both know you're just reverting for the sake of it. I guess being an 'established' user doesn't necessarily make one adept or competent. How disappointing. Telsho (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mitch. Sorry, I don't think that's a good candidate for protection — there's only one IP involved, where more potent warnings are necessary for enforcement on that front. I will do so. El_C15:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC you created at Talk:Ayurveda #RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence was closed today. I can't say that I agree with the way it was closed, because I was pretty sure there was consensus on the strength of argument through policy that the pseudoscience description belonged in the first paragraph, if not the first sentence. Before I start a deletion review, I thought I'd check whether you felt the same. --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, El C. Hope you're well. At Northern Epirus there's a very specific question which requires outside opinion. Alexikoua claims that based on:
1 Migration and poverty : toward better opportunities for the poor (2010) which has a large section about permanent migration out of Albania and then a section about temporal migration (in p.75 - which he cites) according to which: Although the number of temporary migrants going to nearby Greece has dropped significantly over the past few years, Greece remains by far the main destination of these temporary flows. (the only part about migration decrease in that talkpage - temporary migration that is) (Side comment: The very sad reality is that late capitalism has depopulated much of the post-socialist Balkans)
2 Bouras (2020) (includes #3 Rapti (2014)): At the same time, the lack of motivation coupled with the massive influx of many minority students in Greece during the past decade led to a very small number of young Greek language learners being interested in getting into minority education. However, in recent years, due to the economic crisis in Greece, members of the Greek minority returned to Albania and re-opened two schools in the prefecture of Agioi Saranta in villages that had been closed due to the "mass exit" to Greece (Rapti 2014), the integration of these children being hampered by structural factors linked to the Albanian educational system (Vathi et al. 2016). From #1 #2 (includes #3) Alexikoua puts forward a conclusion according to which After 2010 there is no longer demographic decrease of the Greek community. I don't think that the sources put that forward at all - they say nothing about the Greek community as a whole really and they don't even address the same issue, so it's OR/SYNTH to consider such a conclusion. Alexikoua maintains the opposite. It's draining to witness the recycling of the same arguments, so I really want someone outside of the dispute to answer in clear terms if in the context of the given bibliography and OR/SYNTh that conclusion can be put forward. If you do get them time, to just get involved in this subtopic only - it would start to move the discussion forwards. @Peacemaker67: just so he can see this question if he has the time to reply there based on his experience in Balkan topics.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maleschreiber: Pardon me but the topic isn't portrayed the correct way above. As long as this is quite an old & re-emerging topic it would be better to check talk:Northern Epirus to acquire full understanding.Alexikoua (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography and proper quotes. That is the only correct way to portray an issue IMO. You cited these three sources and I've repeatedly asked you to explain how they validate your claim. If that is not possible to argue for, then you should move on. Instead, you cited these three sources and I've asked 4 times already but there's still no reply other than the repeat of your original argument "after 2010 there is no longer demographic decrease". The sources which you have used don't say that, so you can't repeat that argument.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MSchreiber: You provided a source from 2002 about a 'demographic decrease' and insist that this is an ongoing development. However recent data by Rapti mentions that from 2010 the community in question witnesses an increase of returnees. I can't see any issue with the current form of the article.Alexikoua (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what bibliography puts forward as the full quotes show. Repeating an argument without having bibliography to back it up and insisting that "it's in bibliography", even though the full quotes dismiss any such claim is a form of WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALL.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user concerned is not a proficient speaker of English (from various contexts, I believe them to be German), so I have been helping them with colloquial English and at various points advised how to keep their edits proportionate given that that the idea seems to have very limited electoral or opinion-poll support in Denmark. Personally I know next to nothing about Danish politics, so have kept clear of the details. But some Danish (or Danish-heritage) editors have questioned those details and (in the last 24 hours or so, the equivalent article at dk.wikipedia (a translation of the one on en.wikipedia) has been deleted as "nonsense".
I suspect that I've moved from being part of the solution to being part of the problem, but feel that I shouldn't really just walk away because of having mentored the editor thus far. Your advice would be welcome as in 15 years of editing I've not encountered a situation like this before. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some WP:CIR issues, but your comment that the person expects to make a financial (or romantic!) gain or loss on the result (bold is my emphasis) — that has to be one of the most bizarre things I've ever read on Wikipedia. Please explain! El_C15:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
re CIR, assuming you mean understanding of real world Danish politics, I agree. Aftershocks of the Brexit debate, more heat than light as usual. I will take even more of a backseat. It does seem that the {{uw}}s have had the required calming effect, I was worried that it would do the opposite.
Romantic interest: perhaps I have been watching too much Jane Austen during lockdown :-). It was an attempt to explain the word 'interest' as used in English, since the literal translation from German was just weird. I meant [obviously not on WP!] that an apparently altruistic action might in fact be motivated by dastardly designs on a young lady's [or young gentleman's] honour. :-} (twirls moustache). It was a tongue in cheek throwaway, doesn't stand up to much [any!] critical examination.
Hi El C. I took heed of your advice to gather more consensus with my edits on the Singapore–United States relations article and it seemed to be going well so far on the talk page, or so I thought. I've come into agreements with the other editors such as Grandpallama (eg. Country comparisons, the images of leaders meeting, etc.) and Schazjmd (eg. not including the timeline of leaders and transportation section). I also tried my best as you said to observe WP:CWW and WP:ONUS and so I didn't add in the Lee Kuan Yew stuff as it mostly came from the main Lee Kuan Yew article. Feeling confident, I decided to progressively improve the article again and also made a new page about the U.S. embassy in Singapore as well. Furthermore, I improved the article's paragraphs, linked to articles relating to both countries such as the one I just made as well as the countries' portals, who the current ambassadors were, a bit of copy-editing, adding the sister cities, etc. (You could check out the diffs, I didn't do it in one big edit so apologies if the revision history looked messy) My edits were as constructive as possible. However, Horse Eye Jack decided to yet again revert it all (and more) in one revert with a vague edit summary of "No consensus on talk page", despite on the contrary. During discussions which I had with other editors, HEJ was making edits on other parts of Wikipedia and was not participating on the talk page. When HEJ did appear however, they just decided to revert everything and all progress was reversed, again. It's also difficult to actually discuss improving the article with them when they are making subtle provocative jibes like these that contribute nothing to the discussion. Does HEJ actually want to improve the article as well or to just exasperate me?
I'm at a loss here. What else am I supposed to do? Their post on the talk page that there were "still massive amounts of unsourced text" with no mentions as to what exactly they actually were and that to not add in the quotes of Lee Hsien Loong (which I didn't, and there were two quotes from him, and HEJ didn't even specify which one they were referring to) makes me feel like I'm just wasting my time at this point. I wouldn't want to revert back because an edit war wouldn't look good after last time, but it's making me realise that no matter what additions that I make to the article no matter how constructive, it's just going to be reverted by HEJ, despite other editors not having any issues with my contributions into improving the article. Telsho (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling a bit with AGF here, because it's abundantly clear that the very minor consensus which was achieved on the talkpage in no way justified the much more sweeping edits that were subsequently made. Grandpallama (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed your concerns in regards on the need for additional sourcing on the country comparisons section plus the citation needed tags placed by HEJ. Telsho (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
I have noticed that you previously blocked a disruptive user from this article, unfortunately a disruptive ip has emerged and is making again disruptive edits. I think a protection of the article is needed here. If you could take a look. N.Hoxha (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall blocking anyone there or in what context. On the surface, it looks like a content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page. El_C15:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We previously discussed reducing topic protection for coronavirus disease 2019 from extended to semi protected but the feeling was that not enough time had passed. The higher protection level has now been in place for 6 weeks so I wanted to follow up. Let me know what you think. - Wikmoz (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I want to draw your attention to Illyrians, where I believe a determined attempt to push a very specific POV is taking place. I have initiated a talkpage discussion [57], but based on previous experience, I do not have high hopes. This group of users is very determined, and keeps trying to ram things through by brute force instead of seeking consensus. I am not requesting any specific action at this point, but I feel I should at least notify you of what is going on. Regards, Khirurg (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How come an ANI thread gets to be archived without any admin intervention or comment? I am interested in the (now archived) thread Hounding, which is a rather poorly presented case against User:Grufo who displays many of the same aggravating characteristics as blocked editor User:Ahri6279, including a persistence in editing and inserting WP:OR in Planck units in opposition to the input of other editors, being intensely frustrating to interact with (see a semi-private expression of my frustration), never giving ground but simply reasserting their position and ignoring that of others. There are also significant differences, such as being a highly persistent communicator rather than being barely responsive, but IMO exhibiting the same level of incompetence in cooperation and language use.
I do not have the energy to build a case against this editor, but I would like to understand the lack of administrator involvement on the ANI board. I may soon ask for my own editing privileges to be blocked for an extended period as a forced WP:WIKIBREAK, in large part because of this editor coming on the heels of Ahri6279. —Quondum16:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, Quondum. I suppose with this being a volunteer project, sometimes demand exceeds supply which causes some things to fall through the cracks. El_C16:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, it helps to understand the process. As I said, this was a badly built case, so it makes sense that this would be one of those that did not get dealt with. I will consider my personal options. —Quondum16:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like your advice. There are disputes on a number of talk pages of articles about Syrian settlements (including but not limited to Talk:Al-Malikiyah, Talk:Al-Muabbada, Talk:Al-Jawadiyah) over what titles the articles should have. My understanding from Talk:Kobanî#Requested_move_19_December_2019 is that we're obliged to follow WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. the name the place is best known in English-language sources, no matter its official name or how it's known locally. It'd be great to know if this really is the relevant policy, as it is being opposed pretty much everywhere I propose it. As far as I know, Kobanî is the only Syrian settlement that has been moved on this basis, from its official name of Ayn al-Arab. If you don't know, perhaps you could point me to where I could find out. Konli17 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EI_C and RexxS, I've chosen to make you aware of this because you are the most familiar with my situation. This newly created account[59] (I wonder who it might be?) keeps adding the material related to the Holocaust here.[60] Here is the link to the article Stanisław Michalkiewicz. I really hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid this might be yet another attempt for yet another trick to entrap me into a Topic Ban breach. The subject of the article is not known for the Holocaust; he is a post-war (born in 1947) anti-government activist and political prisoner, and that what he is recognized for.
I terminated my engagement with that article now due to excessive weight on WW2 presently, but I would like you guys to be aware of what happened. Also, if there are any concerns, please let me know so I can adjust accordingly.GizzyCatBella🍁07:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EI_C and RexxS, this is a follow up - here [61], [62], [63] a brand new account throws in all bunch of words about WW2 in Poland and the Holocaust right after I asked this question [64] even though the article itself does not contain such information. (see Chaim Pinchas Lubinsky as of now [65]) Presently, I have no doubts this is a predetermined and deliberate plot. These dirty moves are taken for two reasons, one is attempt to entrap me into braking the topic ban and/or to use it later to declare the topic ban breach during my appeal. I'll ping TonyBallioni also, he is familiar with Icewhiz socks.GizzyCatBella🍁16:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one more example from yesterday to illustrate it better - brand new account [68] arrives to revert me[69] I'll not post more samples because it would take too much space, but as I said, it occurs regularly.GizzyCatBella🍁09:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I am pretty sure it is our indef banned "friend" Ice. Who probably warrants an entry at WP:LTA, as we are now approaching a year since his ban... Anyway, it also seems clear he is playing with GCB trying to get her banned. The only silver lining here is that it might be interesting to see what kind of WP:MINION reveals themselves when they post the inevitable AE ghost-written by him... I don't envy GCB, who has to deal with such shady harassment while waiting to appeal their topic ban, whose purpose now seems to be now primarily encouraging harassment and battlefield mentality. For what it is worth, I recommend removing all topic and interaction bans imposed in this topic area, and giving all non-banned editors there a clean slate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I'm expected to do here. I'm not really an Icewhiz expert nor do I represent the Arbitration Committee with respect to lifting bans and so on... If I am considered to be among those most familiar with the situation, then that in itself is a serious problem. El_C12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was more striving to make you guys aware of what's going on than expecting you to do anything. I can handle that stocking, no problem; what worried me was that the stocking person might deceive the administrative team into believing that I'm attempting to breach the Topic Ban, so I put it in writing. More for the record, I think, and as a way of protecting myself.GizzyCatBella🍁16:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Well, I am already on the record in advocating for the immediate lifting of your topic ban, for whatever that's worth. El_C16:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At Talk:Peć editors with very few edits in English wikipedia began to appear to !vote for the article title to remain as it is. One editor has roughly ~70 edits in 2020 (many of their latest edits are in !vote discussions), another !voted there in their 12th edit. I fully realize that what looks like off-wiki canvassing will never stop in general as wikipedia is a part of this world and cannot insulate itself from it. I think that only massive community democratic participation can stop these events, but how do you get that? In your experience, what is the best wikiproject talkpage or noticeboard which will ensure as much as possible that regardless of the outcome of the discussion, the community will particate at such levels that off-wiki intervention will be neutralized? --Maleschreiber (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To aid the closer, you can add the {{SPA}} tag to new or dormant accounts, as long as you're being even-handed with its application. El_C12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C,
dominator 1071 follows up on the edit history of the indef blocked Ömer Nashi Bilmen, Peacetowikied and peacetowikied2, and tries since weeks to include a Turkish/Kurdish Genocide perpetrated by the Armenians sourced with a book of a former Minister of the Turkish Government he wrote in 1995. He tried to do so in several articles such as Hınis, Muş Erzurum, Province And in Van he is trying to remove the term Armenian Genocide as others like the indef blocked Shubuhat, Peacetowikied, peacetowikied2, and Ömer Nashi Bilmen tried as well Van. He also thought to cite Goebbels at Eastern Anatolia Region , also meant to confront “genocide propagandists“ while defending Ömer Nashi Bilmen against Etienne DoletParadise Chronicle (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, would you consider archiving this talkpage? Right now it has over 300 threads, which take a long time to scroll through to reach any active or relevant threads. I for one try to stay off of talkpages that have more than 200 threads, and my observation is that the optimum number of threads to have remaining on one's talk page is between 35 and 100. Having an accessible talkpage is doubly important for admins, who are expected to maintain accessibility and easy open communication. Archiving can be done in a number of ways: automatically (via a bot set-up), by hand (cut + paste), or with one-click archiving. Anyway, please consider it, if you would. If you need any more information or pointers, feel free to ping me. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please set up some autoarchiving or something! Please please?? I almost asked last week if you could put one of those buttons at the top that lets you go straight to the end, but I kept forgestinating. :) BilCat (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. This user [77] has recently returned to cause more disruption to Wikipedia. He seems to come back on a yearly basis, making rather bizarre forumlike rants whilst at the same time casting accusations right left and center, and also just general pov-pushing (some examples: [78][79][80][81][82]), completely ignoring information/sources that he doesn't agree with. He clearly isn't here to WP:BUILDWP. Recently, his newest target has been this article (both article and talk page). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have a highly persistent problematic editor. Please take a look at this undo with this talk comment, which is just a next step in a long history of pushing the patience of other editors in this article and on its talk page (and elsewhere, judging by the archived ANI thread that I mentioned above). This edit is reinserting original research, clearly so because almost all of it is nonsense (I have not even bothered to check the references this time: this editor has a history of using only tangentially related or unreliable sources as can be seen from the talk discussions but failing to concede, and because reliable sources generally do not support nonsense). There are several problems here: persistence in total violation of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:OWN, failure to understand what a RS is, deafness to reason, failure to edit cooperatively, and accusing editors of "destructive edits" (done to remove extreme WP:OR and WP:RS violations) and "a lack of will to discuss and be constructive" when some curtness starts to show. Tangentially, this editor also clearly has no technical understanding of special relativity judging from specific contradictions of that theory persistently being reinserted despite being disputed, but the main problem is a list of extreme problematic editing behaviours. —Quondum18:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, it seems unusual for you to fail to respond in some way. Anyhow, I am removing everything aside from my user space from my watchlist. Time to stop caring and move on. Adios. —Quondum19:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, Quondum, for having failed to assist you, or to even follow up. I'm especially busy offwiki lately, which limits the extent of my contributions, certainly with more complex cases. I should have told you that you'd be better served by another admin or a noticeboard in the immediate future. So that's on me. Again, really sorry for the late followup and the frustration it brought. It is, indeed, unusual. I look forward to future collaboration with you in the future (in any capacity). You are a quality editor who absolutely is an asset to the project. El_C21:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response (and the ping), though you did not owe me an apology – it tells me that I wasn't being snubbed for a completely inappropriate request. I knew that I was taking a very long chance on something that really belongs at WP:DR or WP:ANI, motivated my lack of the resilience for mounting an argument against a WP:CPP editor (those are the most difficult kind) and your apparently exceptional willingness to act decisively. I expected you to decline if you did not see the issue at a glance. My lack of resilience (primarily due to off-wiki issues) means that I am not presently a fit for the occasionally antagonistic wiki environment. Knowing that people like you and XOR'easter are around is affirming. I also admire your energy on top of your outside challenges. All the best. —Quondum23:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sluzzelin, your encouragement means a lot. I admit to feeling a bit demoralized, since I got the sense from that discussion that there were a few editors who view me as the opposite of that — although there were also some really kind words said, too, so I suppose it's a mixed bag. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To various other recent queries on this page: sorry, this is a bit of a busy week for me, so I'm not sure I'll get to attend to your requests in the immediate future. El_C20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second what Sluzzelin said EI_C, seriously. And I'm not saying that to earn some kind of favoured treatment later, believe me. You are one of the most hard-working and well-balanced administrators I identify. NYB is very good too and so experienced; she (it's her, I think) he, in that particular case, simply assessed the situation differently and felt strongly about it. Please don't feel demoralized by that; you are doing an excellent job overall. 10 out of 10! As I said before, you guys have such challenging tasks to perform here and hats down to you. - GizzyCatBella🍁00:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct (except for NYB, see Ira Brad Matetsky). The situation was a wicked problem with no good solution because from the edit warring angle, the block was exactly the right thing. Yet, the circumstances were such that onlookers who haven't tried to deal with the edit warring felt a different approach was needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... and just to emphasise part of my point. I don't recall anyone criticising your decisions and actions in general (admittedly, I didn't re-read the thread), and even among those who disagreed with this particular block, many pointed out that it was a special case. Take care, and please return. ---Sluzzelintalk19:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this process was problematic for WP in some ways. For one admin to change another's decision essentially only because they would have made another choice is absolutely to be avoided. Such a change is only reasonable when the second admin considers the original action to be unreasonable, which was evidently not the case here; IMO, this should be policy. BHG's appeal to sympathy was in part predicated on the perceived unfairness by contrast, which is actually irrelevant to what was asked for, and was thus also flawed. El C, I salute you, and deplore how this was handled. Take care. —Quondum20:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I don't know the details of this specific situation but I just wanted to echo everyone's thanks for all the work you do. You do quite a lot of the heavy lifting among admins and it is greatly appreciated. You are an admin's admin. LizRead!Talk!20:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might I chime in too, and say that I especially appreciate your willingness to dive into some of the messiest areas of Wikipedia. Your work in keeping this place (relatively) sane is much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk)05:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone, for your kindness and appreciation. It's very uplifting. I dunno, maybe being a bit busy elsewhere resulted in myself failing to articulate myself clearly enough...? About the evolution of the whole thing...? Normally, failing to reason with someone mostly washes over me, but some times it does stick for longer. And, yes, this was one of these times. But I'm ready to move on, though I cannot guarantee peak activity — but that's not due to anything on-wiki. Thanks again! El_C17:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user [83] seems to be on a mass POV edit spree. I've left them a note. This type of editing appears to be where they are heading [84]. Best wishes. // Timothy :: talk10:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All that bullshit before I even had a cup of coffee . I don't know if you noticed, but I put extra spaces around "coffee", for very mysterious reasons that I am unwilling to explain. Take care. Drmies (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - If somebody paid me $100 per day to be an administrator on Wikipedia, I would refuse (no thanks). For $500 per day, I would consider it, and for $1000, I would probably take it with a condition of having free Xanax supplied by the Foundation on request. Hats down to you guys. - GizzyCatBella🍁14:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder what Xanax is like. I just wish that the Foundation would pay for my AC bills and my enormous weed habit. That reminds me--who was the weedsmoking admin again? Drmies (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella, from my recollection it's $5 per block so if you put in the hours the math checks out. Xanax unfortunately isn't provided by WMF. Maybe to arbcom ;). FWIW that AN thread El C, what a shitshow. Glen (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of, I thought Roxy the dogsaid he was going to give a "mobhandling barnstar", which was at least worth a giggle, but I'm disappointed to learn that I had misread and it actually says "mophandling barnstar"–far less exciting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when I was much younger, before it got a bad reputation, I was put on Xanax for stomach problems the doctor believed was caused by anxiety (I was a beginning graduate student). They were like magic pills when I was under a lot of stress, worked like a charm. Never got into a habit of taking them regularly though and was very disappointed when they were put on the "bad drug list" since they worked so well for me in particular situations. That's why we can't have nice things though. I can see why Xanax would be very helpful for particularly intractable admin disputes. LizRead!Talk!05:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Can you please apply an indefinite Move Protection to both my user page and my talk page, at the level of Extended Confirmed users? I didn't count on getting more page move vandalism. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had a feeling that something was up. I was going to wait here until El C got around to it, but I just might head over there. I have a few other admins on my shortlist, but most of them tend to be busy, and AVi has a nasty tendency of backlogging at certain times of the day. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. Btw, I've unwatchlisted the unwatchable cluster-frack at Talk:Kiev. What a mess. I'm still watchlisting Kyiv, so I'll know if the article is moved. :) BilCat (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are other users allowed to refactor or otherwise modify a move discussion started by a different user, such as adding other pages to be moved into the discussion? I've seen some IPs do it a few times, which basically derailed the discussions, but I can't remember where or when, other than this year. It's not urgent, so reply as you can. BilCat (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, the IP range also participated in the Bangalore discussion here. I didn't know that when I initially posted about this here! BilCat (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, there were some growing pains, but I think the unsuspended RM has now been streamlined in the right track... El_C22:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Well, first of all sorry, because I think you may have had several headaches because of the issue already, but it has become so troubling that I'd really wish to seek the opinion of the uninvolved admin in charge of it.
The other day I made a comment in the discussion in which I highlighted some relevant evidence that could be of help to the RM, leaving it clear that it was not a new !vote. It was met with a harsh reply from the IP nominator (which has since been blocked from editing the page for one month), which led to some back-and-forth which saw the IP editing others' comments as well as re-editing their own RM's heading from two months ago. As you and another user, Kahastok, did not somehow react on my comment, the IP called for "help", reaching out to user Mzajac (with whom the IP has been deeply involved as a similarly-minded companion both in the discussion and in their editing of the controversial list at Talk:Kiev/sources), who asked me to "de-bold" my comments and label them differently than "comment" because that could cause confusion (it was not explained how so). I asked them to please indicate to me what WP policy or guideline was my comment in violation of, reiterating that no confusion was possible because it was clear it was not a new !vote and because by that time I had made it clear thrice that it was not. I received no reply from him, but rather an unilateral move from user Levivich (who has been involved both in the discussion in support of "Kyiv" and has come to also participate in the editing of Talk:Kiev/sources).
Is this legit? It was already controversial that their list at Talk:Kiev/sources was being written as an obviously pro-Kyiv propaganda piece—to the point that comments or edits from other users (such as this, this or this) were systematically overriden, removed or moved elsewhere ([91][92][93]), sparking obvious discomfort ([94][95]). But what is now being done by the same group of users in the RM discussion is beyond abusive. Precisely, my comment did revolve on the same Google Trends source that was being systematically adulterated in the list's page, with it immediately coming under the scrutiny of all three users (and only them), who in various forms asked for it to be re-edited, aimed for it to be diminished in importance and, ultimately, moved out of the main discussion without my consent nor any advance warning. Not a single time has a WP policy being given as pretext for the comment to be re-imagined their proposed way (despite I asking explicitly for it), and it's the only such comment in the whole RM where this has been done. The only possible excuse for such an action is the alleged complaint from the IP user, yet the move was done after said user was barred from participating in the discussion precisely because of such behaviour.
I'm considering whether to take further action, but I'd wish for the advice for issue to be resolved politely without any further drama, if you could give it and it's not a big deal. Impru20talk19:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering hatting that discussion (WP:TALKOFFTOPIC), and would've done so if I weren't involved. It's barely related to the RM, pure clutter and can only encourage further tangents and further derailing of an already controversial issue that needs no help in being derailed. So, really, the only possible issue here is that Levivich (and btw, it's good etiquette to notify someone when you report their apparent wrongdoings to an uninvolved admin) may be involved, but their clerking was otherwise appropriate imo. I would let it go, and appreciate that it isn't collapsed instead. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the insufferable clutter that followed my initial comment, but the comment itself, that was inoffensive (the rest was moved together with it, obviously). I received no reply from Levivich. I would have actually appreciated if the discussion, which was entirely unrelated to my comment, had been collapsed instead, yes, considering that it revolved on the uncivil accusations of a blocked person. I was not even asked. I was not even given the slightest warning that they were going to do so, and from the discussion awhole it's not appropiate for any involved user to change or modify the meaning of another user's comment without even caring to notify them. So yes, there is a problem there. Impru20talk20:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not "in-charge" — I'm just the admin who temporarily suspended the discussion when there were concerns expressed that it may be closed under a cloud. Any other uninvolved admin can act as they see fit to enforce compliance with policy. I'm afraid I cannot commit to, singularly, take the lead with this sort of oversight, actively, at this time. I might step in if there is some emergency, but as for looking into some of the more nuanced facets to this dispute, I doubt I'd be able to investigate that in the immediate future. But, as I just mentioned on the article talk page (synchronicity and all), nonthreaded comments in the Survey section should be avoided by those who already !voted prior to the suspension. Just as courtesy to the closer. Those belong in the newly created General discussion section. Thanks and sorry I couldn't be of more help at this time. El_C22:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, you were the closest to an uninvolved sysop that I thought of at the time. As said at the beginning of all, sorry, since this was a really troubling issue.
My issue was never with the fact of having the comment moved or not. The exact same could have been asked by these people in a much more polite way and I could have perfectly agreed with it. It's the near-biased nature of it that posed a problem: it was just applied on my comment, not on others, and done in a way that looked like a semi-coordinated effort from some people to hide some valuable piece of evidence that did not back their arguments. It was all just done unilaterally, amid accusations of gaming the system (without evidence to back them up) and disregarding any etiquette, despite having been asked not to intervene if involved. As you will have already seen, I collapsed the troubling part of the discussion (basically, all of it except for the initial comment) since it provides nothing to the RM. With this and the block on the IP, I hope that the issue is settled. Impru20talk23:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable with that as a resolution. Hopefully, discussion could now go on unimpeded without any further unpleasantness. El_C23:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment at AE (I should not look I should not look I should not look): please don't fall in the same trap as others thinking that is an infobox discussion. It is not. It is a keep collapsed vs. uncollapse discussion, no more. But the heat created certainly is like what we had in 2016 last. We lost two editors already, a third signaled to think about it. Music is better, but I feel guilty of having let friends down by staying away, - look for "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless, as mentioned, I just don't wish to engage that dispute at this time. Which is totally my prerogative. This is a volunteer project, so I leave the matter at the hands of others, for now. El_C20:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add that, not only do I understand, I think this is by far the best approach. If only nobody responded to the debates regarding infoboxes (the existence or omission of which, in disputed cases and in my opinion of what matters to an encyclopedia, ranks very low on the scale of relevance). So, well done once again, this time for choosing your battles and staying away from this one. Everybody should. ---Sluzzelintalk21:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
just saw that Cecil Aronowitz is in OTD. He played with William Waterhouse (mentioned on Jerome's talk where you posted), and taught him the viola a bit. My third article, I believe after the second, Siegfried Palm where I met him. His comments are still on that talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jerome Kohl really was a not only outstanding but a thoroughly respectable, loveable editor. His passing has moved me more than anyone's here. No explanation, except that he was awesome in every respect (and also in a field I'm interested in). What a shock. ---Sluzzelintalk22:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a look at the revision history of this article? Is there any sort of policy or consensus about this type of rapid-fire editing? I ask because I the album reviews template had twelve reviews in it, so I was trying to find the edits where the eleventh and twelfth review were added so I could undo them per WP:ALBUMSTYLE. There were just too many edits though so I ended up just removing two random ones. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?01:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost a year since you applied indefinite extended-confirmed protection to Call of Duty. Since it looks like the autoconfirmed sock problem only happened for a single day before that, do you think it could be dropped back to indef semi now? Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Александр Мотин(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) has twice pushed a primary study reported in the Lancet into Gam-COVID-Vac[96][97] into the Gam-COVID-Vac article. The second insertion being a restoration of material added by ManishSahu53. The primary source has been removed by both Alexbrn and me. The page has a specific restriction: "Editors are prohibited from adding biomedical content without WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in this article." which is repeated in the edit notice. As you gave Александр Мотин a final warning for his behaviour in June, are you willing to take action over this blatant violation of the general sanctions on COVID-19, please? --RexxS (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They delete all relevant information which can be evaluated as positive and leave only negative infromation in the article (for instance, "Protest developed in the international scientific community"; "dangerous", "reckless", and "foolish"; "I feel only shame for our country", etc.). And yeah, I started the article because I'm interested in the Russia-related topics.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is beginning to look like either bad-faith editing or a WP:CIR problem, given the patient explanation I and others have given on the Talk page. I also note in response to the edit-warring warning I gave Александр Мотин they "fired back" with a warning to me, despite my scrupulous avoidance of such warring, which seems WP:POINTy. Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, El C, Александр Мотин is insisting that a primary study be included. Lots of primary studies are peer reviewed in the Lancet, but they are all still primary studies and cannot be used to support biomedical claims per WP:MEDRS (as well as the specific page restriction).
Александр Мотин, your obsession with trying to present Russia's valid work on producing a vaccine as something far beyond what science will support has resulted in your inability to edit these sort of articles in line with Wikipedia standards. I no longer believe you should be editing them. --RexxS (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted)! You deny the fact that a peer-review of the study was published by The Lancet[99]? You think it is a good idea to hide this fact? So some noname whines in the article "it is a shame for my country" and The Lancet's peer-review is less encyclopedic than that whimper of some lawyer in the article? Really? --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no personal attack since I meant that, IMO, your arguments are counterintuitive. I'm not a native speaker and didn't know that in English this word is insulting--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Александр Мотин: They call it a "peer review" (and in an informal sense, it could be so termed), not that it was peer-reviewed. And (to repeat) in any case "Comment" pieces are not WP:MEDRS; we need secondary sources as described in the guideline. The fact you are only now trying to grasp what this piece is despite edit warring over it and insulting fellow editors when they try to explain, is an illustration of the problem here. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are lots of publications in the mainstream media about Lancet's peer review. Bloomberg, etc. There is no relevant reason to conceal this encyclopedic information from the readers. But instead of discussing it, my opponents thought it would be easier to block me--Александр Мотин (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, per WP:MEDRS biomedical claims - including claims about efficacy and or safety - should ideally be sourced to secondary sources such as (systematic) reviews or meta-analyses - not to one primary study published. One study being peer reviewed is great - all that means is that one study was peer reviewed. There may be 5 studies which come to the opposite conclusion but are also peer reviewed. Peer reviewed does not mean something is the "truth", it means that a) there's no glaring holes in the scientific method, and b) there's no glaring evidence that the data was manipulated/fabricated - it does not mean that the study was perfect - hence why we do not cite single studies for claims of efficacy as this user tried to - claiming it's a link to the "safety" of it. The user also falsely claimed in their edit summary it was a secondary source - showing they are either unable to competently evaluate sources per MEDRS or they are deliberately lying to the community in their edit summaries to try and avoid scrutiny. I note this user was already partially blocked from another Russia related article for seemingly being a point of view pusher - and I think that's why the other user brought up your final warning - because while it was per a different article, it was surrounding the same actions occurring here.
It seems quite clear to me and others who've watchlisted the page that this user is only interested in spreading Russian propagandist point of views, and quite unfortunately is attempting to game the policies to try and input information the policies are designed to prevent - for example, by attempting to put in the Lancet study when the policies (and in fact the discretionary sanction on the talk page) are designed to prevent such premature information from being added. I hope you'll consider this further explanation - and the fact that now an administrator (RexxS), an established editor (Alexbrn), and myself are asking you to take action on this user - whether that be a ban or something else. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: The article in question, Gam-COVID-Vac, is just as much Russia-related as was Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and the problems being caused are exactly parallel. The Russian study was published and peer-reviewed in the Lancet, but it still remains a primary study, and we have a prohibition on using them to support biomedical content. Don't bother about following up, I've raised a discussion at Александр Мотин. --RexxS (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, would you consider removing the block you have on me for Pacifica High School (Garden Grove, California)? I promise not to edit or even comment on the page. I did get emotional about the white supremacy issue and then used the term autistic, which I use about myself because I fall on the scale - so the injury was doubly great versus my emotion on white supremacy issues. So far, because of the block, I’ve had a major incident of another editor on an unrelated topic perceiving me in bad faith before Even looking at the issue at hand, also I may not be able to get Library access. I’d ask you to look at my history of editing (some major qualitative contributions and quantity as well), my promise not to interact with the Pacifica page, and please remove the block due its (likely unintended) massive side effects. Thanks Keizers (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a fresh acocunt - seems SPA - is engaged in the listed pages, I just had to warn the user for edit-warring [[102]], ths user does not seem to conform our policies and/or understand it fully yet, and the edit logs are sometimes copy-paste of mines or the content is dubious (also engaged another user). Yet I kindly ask you just watch the events and see if it will be understood at this point only the talk page should be used. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Hi. I'll try, but honestly, you'd probably be better served by bringing this to the attention of another admin or to a noticeboard at this time, since my activity lately is a bit scattershot and the time I'm able to devote to cases is especially limited lately. Regards, El_C04:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but maybe you don't need to be alert anymore, because of the recent events escalated ([103]), ([104]), ([105]) again a misleading edit log and the 5++ reverts in more pages, in the talk the user is faking as well, with misleading statements. Please act this time, of course anything new I'll raise in an other place. Your time is much appreciated, Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I have to inform you, meanwhile you were busy the user amazingly reported me (not a joke) after his latest mass revert campaign to AN3, although I was inactive, (as the usual mirror behavior, making appear not him/her is the cause of the problem), repeated the weird accusations, similarly what you met on his/her talkpage....so there I provided the diff ([107]), which proved recurrently accusing me of lying with a dirty style is unfolded. I am so sorry such issues is taking precious happy editing time, but this user seem to have spot some topics/editors, too suspicious to me, WP:HEAR is confirmed already, but appears WP:NOTHERE. Despite what he/she described, I even accepted part of his/her edit, and not just the explanations in the edit logs are biased and amateurish, but the report itself which did not even shown appropriately the previous version reverted to, having other formal problems. I have also referred to our discussion, however explicitly I did not mention you, just gave a diff after my surprise. Have a nicer day than me.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
KIENGIR, are issues still outstanding? Please feel free to update. That said, my time remains scattershot, so expect delays and approach accordingly. El_C17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your care and time much appreciated, given the situation I kindly asked as well @EdJohnston: to assist as well (he closed the report), I am discussing with him now. I told him I am planning to restore status qou ante per policy, for which you also draw the user's attention (however suggested you admins would maybe better do that), while per EdJohnston's request I tried to properly summarize again the problem's of the subjects edits in the talk pages, so a non-expert or reviewing admin may easily understand the situation (after the outdent). While Edjohnston is not fully convinced of the conduct and recommends some further DR, I see given the edit's lame and direct discrepancies and contradictions this would be too early. I also reinforced the user's attitude towards Hungarians and me (accusing 5 time of lying, despite the diff approved me, continously mirror/copy paste and inverse accusations/wikilawyering etc.) seems suspicious, like some pages or users would be targeted, which had a past. Nevertheless, I'll wait a few days and will both of you update in advance before I'd do anything. Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, per the discussion with @EdJohnston:, I will - likely tomorrow evening - open an RFC in the Hungarian irredentism page (covered by DS), while restore status quo in Hungary in WW II & History of Transylvania articles. We'll see how the editor will respect our policies, recently as near end result BLUDGEONING we met in the respective talk pages and the lack of the earlier mentioned. Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, are you still only active scattershot? Edjonhnston helped for a part for the mediation, but stepped out a few day relying of dispute resolutions, as one more had been open. However see this ([109])-my answer follows, after the user put himself to an impossible contradiction and one talk page (meanwhile continuing the same problematic behavior like everywhere), now he approached an another admin trying to explain out what have been already debunked, but the worse is he is continuig his casting aspersions like "He is trying to lie" (in the diff), especially for what he was blocked for ([110]) (in the unblock requests over ten times accused as well another editors with lying so far, and he was reluctant to acknowledge his mistakes even after blocking). Please do something about this, it's really tyring, we asked him so many times to drop casting aspersions, without success in the end. Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, but since you are the only admin who dealt from the issue from the beginning, your oversight and attention would be useful, as far as possible. So I kindly ask you follow the events and in case intervene, I am really tired about all of this issue :( , you have all the evidence. Best wishes to you as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
KIENGIR, I actually do not have a clear recollection of the dispute in question. And I just don't know if I'll be able to find the time to investigate this further in the immediate future. It's possible that I will, but it isn't something you ought to count on, I'm sorry to say. El_C01:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the most important things you've been informed with diffs, subsequent diffs are present inside, you have the most concise collection all of them, on the other hand I understand it still would need time, but high IQ admins like you may more easily grasp the most important things like others. (i.e. to check the user try to blame in the ANI of puttings words of his mouth, although the opposite is true, he cannot refer to a recent discussion although the subject was another one month ago, i.e., which was a notable issue on front of many admins at AN3 and resulted a shameful end, etc.). Anyway, I got you. However in case you'll have any time, I am grateful, I would be as well happy if this issue would not exist, would be a better world without trolls. Take care!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Members of the Committee and its board of directors include a number of distinguished citizens: former secretaries of state Madeleine K. Albright, Henry A. Kissinger, and Condoleezza Rice and other former Cabinet secretaries; all of the former American ambassadors to China
Obviously merely being a member of such a committee does not make one pro-PRC, but this is an extension of PdC's lack of judgment from the 10 Sep Goldstein diff I linked to above. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lot of time lately, sorry. But I did notice in the log that I ECP'd it back in June, but never actually applied. Now Done.El_C17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked maryphillips1952. It was a good block, one I agree with. I have been communicating with that user via UTRS and you can see the details here. After much prevarication, the user has eventually acknowledged multiple instances of WP:COI and committed to refraining from those going forward. Specifically, they have accepted a topic ban for all those subjects for which they have a conflict of interest. On that basis, I'd like to lift the block and monitor the user's edits for a while. Any objections? I realise you are busy at this time and am watching your talk page for a response. --Yamla (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elc, see Special:Contributions/174.250.212.236. The one about "inbreeding" is the worst, so far anyway. Most of the other edits are removing photos as "fake" or deleting cited content. We get this type of "know-it-all" every so often, and this might well be a repeat offender. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm pressed for time lately. But, at a glance, your ANI report is a bit on the long side. Because of that, I'm sorry to say that I'm not optimistic about you receiving assistance there. Hopefully, I'm wrong though. Good luck! El_C20:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, the issues at User talk:Laska666#September 2020 2 have reached the point where administrator attention is probably needed but aren't urgent enough for ANI. Several warnings about adding unreferenced content and marking substantial edits as "minor" have been acknowledged, with the same behavior continuing afterwards.
It seems that after saying that I would request administrator attention to their non-minor edits & unreferenced additions in a fourth warning, they finally decided to stop marking edits as minor and use RSes. Administrator attention is no longer necessary for the time being. — MarkH21talk16:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'd like your permission to copy your clarification of the June ban being for BLP category pages, and paste it as a tq above the September ban notice, within the discussion, on the user talk. It might remove unnecessary confusions. What do you think? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, El C. It's been a while. Hope you're well. On Battle of Paštrik, there's edit-warring about the same edit that has been put forward over and over again since July - the first time you placed the article under full protection. Could you take look?--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sillysilly44 has been blocked as yet another sock of User:Marquis de la Eirron. I have not easily been able to figure out what caused you to page protect this article in May 2019, but based on the edit requests on the talkpage since then, all or almost all the edit requests have come from socks of this person. I am wondering if you would consider reprotecting? I think we also need to add some sort of talkpage warning that edit requests from newish editors need to be evaluated considering it is such a frequent target of this globally blocked user. Let me know what you think! --Slp1 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EI_C, I usually ignore them but when they start moving pages [115], then it worries me. Of course, the move is preceded by recording some WW2 Poland related material into the article that eliminates me with engagement and produces a potential of sanctions breach if I miss it. [116] You know who this most likely is, right? Please maybe take a look at that account and keep an eye on the article if you get some time. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁07:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's them too [117]; account opened 25 minutes ago, keeps following me. Please note that they added WW2 in Poland material to the unrelated discussion to make it appear that I'm breaking the topic b. - GizzyCatBella🍁11:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought GCB was still topic banned from the areas of Polish history that 500/30 protection applied to. Is there something I'm missing here? (t · c) buidhe21:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Budhie, you don’t have a consensus for this change[121] Why you keep edit warring? How many time you made this revert by now? Should I count? Please stop. - GizzyCatBella🍁22:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this nudnik (Holly2017), who was found to be a sockpuppet (by NinjaPirate guy) along with a whole farm of others, needs their talkpage access revoked; they can't stop pestering for attention: [122]. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, El C. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hey, El C. Hope you're well. I removed a publication of the Greek army which was a source for an issue of Greek state irredentism on Qeparo. I would think that it's a basic rule of NPOV and RS to not use publications of the armed forces of a state as sources of support for the irredentism of that state. @Alexikoua: reverted me and left me a heavily political message about the Greek army and its humanitarian aid to Albania in 1997[123]. Now, @Ktrimi991: has removed the source, but if it's reverted back in the article I'll have to place a POV tag and discuss it on the talkpage. The larger problem is that I highlighted a basic sourcing problem and I didn't get a reply about RS requiremenets on the article's talkpage, but a political one on my personal talkpage.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El_C: I'm afraid that publications of institutions under a state army (of a democratic country) can't be considered "nationalistic propaganda" as MSchreiber claims especially in terms of military history. Especially in terms of Balkan Wars, WWI & WII such publications offer us very detailed descriptions on the military operations. MSchreiber needs to take it to RSN.Alexikoua (talk)
It's not a publication about military history, it's a book about state irredentism and land claims of that state army. It's not an independent source, it's literally the point of view of an involved state. You're asking from the community to use the Greek army as a source in order to present as facts, claims of support for the Greek state and its irredentism. It's the same as using a US Army publication as a source in order to establish that the US campaign enjoyed popular support in Vietnam. Such publications are state propaganda and have no place in the project that is being built on wikipedia. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off course not: Actually it 'is' a volume about military history published by well known authors on that subject. It appears you are not familiar with the subject of military history: publications of that kind; issued by institutions from non-authoritative governments are quite helpful for the understanding of the military operations. For example most of WWII operations widely rely on such sources.Alexikoua (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua, Maleschreiber, sorry for the delay. Anyway, I agree with Alexikoua — a military institution serving as a reliable source about whatever is very much what RSN is designed for. So that's what I would recommend. I would estimate that the details of any particular case would be deciding factor in any resolution, though. Indeed, the military, as a source of information, has both advantages and disadvantages, universally. However, country and era specific variation may be decisive — it really depends on the nature of the dispute. We have to remember, the military is generally an official source. Anything relevant in the historiography may be used to qualify its statements. Hope that makes sense. El_C22:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So they (possible sock puppet of the same) keeps following me[124] repeatedly, again, and again..each time different account of course. It's like a daily occurrence now. Maybe they are in love with me? Today they accused me of the Holocaust denial. [125] I'm thinking about reporting this harassment on some appropriate board. All these new accounts show up quickly after I make an edit [126], so it can't be a coincidence. It is a sign that possibly the same person operates it. I have them all recorded; this began after the Arbcom case. Before, I never experienced such a thing. Would you suggest where I should go with this issue? I'm not sure how to deal with this, and if anything could be done, so I thought I'll ask...(only if you have time to look at it, don’t worry if you don’t, please, I’ll try to ask maybe other experienced administrators too or research myself) Thanks EI_C - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
People suggest starting reporting them to the CU.[127]. I have all occurrences recorded (most of them) in detail so maybe do this, no? I can devote some time to it despite that it's time-consuming.GizzyCatBella🍁10:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella, even if there weren't time constraints, due to the ideological nature of this, this is isn't something I'd wish to attend to single-handedly. So a request to another admin or report on the admin noticeboard are probably your best bet. Good luck and sorry I couldn't be of more help. Best, El_C22:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On April 20, 2019 you have protected the article National Union (Portugal) and a few other related articles from a disruptive IP from Fortaleza in Brasil. Well, that same IP came back again and is insisting on doing the exact same thing in the article António de Oliveira Salazar. The discussion on the talk page is long but clear. The IP insists on tagging the António de Oliveira Salazar as a fascist rulers when all international reliable sourced says he was not a fascist, when several editors, including an historian said he was not, and the text of the articles says he was not. Could you please protect the article António de Oliveira Salazar form unregistered editors. J Pratas (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, everyone above. Really busy right now. It may be as late as Friday until I am able to examine your requests. El_C20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, El C. Wikipedia sometimes seems like it functions as an autonomous plane of existence...but it's not. You're not an admin - you're a person who is an admin and you have personal responsibilities and needs. Thank you for your work, stay safe and be well :) Wikipedia can wait.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, i know that you still busy until friday to examine all requests. But if are examine these requestes on
Friday please move-protected Hunter Biden because there were a indication the any users can conduct a move without consensus for example moving from Hunter Biden to Robert Hunter Biden. The page is not even move protected (only administrators can moved the page). 110.137.170.96 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, IP... I don't really wish to make it a habit to preemptively protect pages, which I have been doing lately. Maybe ask at WP:RFPP for a second opinion. El_C22:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, after Black Lives Matter page is unprotected, vandalism happens again. And now, they (multiple IPs) vandalize the article with adding inflamatory and unsource statement, see multiple links that vandalism occured and then reverted by users ([128], [129], [130]). In addition, there was one IP who changing spelling in the article from American to British/Commonwealth spelling which one IP said "Rework grammar to become more readable" which actually changing spelling to British (see the page which that edit was reverted by autoconfirmed user). Please indefinite semi-protected the article in order to prevent IPs from vandalize it as the article under scope of American politics discretionary sanctions. Thanks. (NOTE: This is a good article which is prone to vandalism by IP users and Jorm already request it at WP:RFPP) 180.241.205.155 (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks El C, i think the protection is enough to prevent vandalism from IP users. If after 6 months multiple IPs vandalize it, i (or another users) will re-report it. 180.241.205.155 (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There's a topic that's not moving forward, and it seems I should have brought it to ANI[131]. Noted previous good advice from a helpful editor basically said don't try to change what you can't change. Is that noted advice applicable here, again? Thoughts? Sorry for the bother, and thanks so much! Pasdecomplot (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Pasdecomplot, I'm not really picking up what any of that is in reference to. But mostly, I just don't really have time to investigate the dispute further at this time. But I will say this: certainly, if you believe policy violations are being overlooked, you are free to submit an ANI report. But due to your past misuse of ANI, you are taking a chance of a WP:BOOMERANG. In fact, I'd estimate that if it isn't cogently and concisely drafted as well as submitted and presented competently, that would be the likely outcome. My position is that Cullen328 and Valereee are well equipped to suggest —and in the case of Cullen, also enforce— any necessary correction. Good luck. El_C07:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the wise thoughts again. I just want to edit as per policy, and follow civility policy, and have other editors follow civility policy as well. I appreciate the wish for good luck! Pasdecomplot (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I've undone your edit at Cyclopes: here. I wasn't sure what exactly you thought was unclear. But I hope my edit summary satisfies your concern. If not, I will happily discuss this further (and provide Nelson's paper if you like). Regards, Paul August☎15:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August, no, I don't get it and see no immediate figure to consult. What, is the single eye like at or immediately above the upper lip (if the nose is above it)? I'm just having a difficult time visualizing it. Puzzling. El_C15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The figure is on p. 161 of the cited paper. Imagine a short proboscis coming out of the middle of the forehead, immediately below which is a single central eye, well above the mouth, which is in the usual position. Paul August☎15:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the nose is just higher up, I see. Still, really bizarre. I do wish there was an image for me to immediately view (just out of curiosity). Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. Regards, El_C15:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, you blocked the above IP in August 2020 for disruptive contributions. They have now re-emerged as 86.8.101.221(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) with the same non-referenced inserts to BBC articles. This person has been warned and blocked multiple times in the past year or so, using different IP addresses, always from the same area of southern England. Can I suggest that the latest IP address is blocked too? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you check if this user is a sockpuppet of this user? I think yes, for example the second user made this edit, and the first user made the same edit a few minutes ago, and also they have the same user name...... I don't know if it is permitted to have two different accounts for a single person, I think not, thanks--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no disruption, I'm not sure why it is worth investigating further. Last edit by second account listed was back in July, anyway, so they could have simply decided to go with a new account because they forgot their password or whatever. Please feel free to update about any recent convergence. El_C16:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are clearly the same person, and the new user removed contents more than once from some talk pages without reason, and now he's trying to recreate the samearticle, which was declined three times (and now for the fourth time), i don't know if there is disruption, but I think that he's not here to build an encyclopedia, but this is only my opinion, thanks for your time (and sorry for my english, in case I made some mistake)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I asked the user for some clarifications, because on closer look, their edits do come across as a bit suspect. El_C18:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is perfectly fine. I take that to indicate that they read those notices. Of course, if there are further potential WP:COI editing absent their corresponding disclosure, they will be subject to immediate sanctions. El_C21:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
today I decorated my talk for the birthday of a dear friend, - look for "mercy" there, - she conducted all the magnificent Magnificat mentioned under the church! - itnn again, one on 12 Oct with 2 supports, Jon Gibson is his name, also an exquisite musician, and look at the record covers he designed! - and, in case of interest, my cutest infobox for an opera (image taken by a much-missed banned friend), copied and updated from the 2013 arbcase (in which one of my friends got almost banned because he uncollapsed an infobox I had created, - too tough for arbs to decipher, - they - or at least one of them but the one to make the majority for the proposed ban - probably thought he had added it ...) that we can now safely forget. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not now, - GA review and a merge request waiting for responses. Go to article - quite a life! - or wait. Musings below the DYK credit, about banned art and banned users. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for closing that god-forsaken discussion at ANI. So glad an admin finally stepped in and put their foot down! Thank you for all your hard work, and in particular this excellent closure. MrAureliusRTalk!22:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey — you're worth it, truly. I know I may have also come across as somewhat harsh with that assessment, but bottom line is that I am rooting for you! El_C01:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't worry about that. I worked for the Foundation. I've endured far worse, and nothing anyone can say is a harsher critic than me.--Jorm (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you could consider taking off 1RR restriction I would be grateful. Since I sometimes edit articles and made revert lifting of this restriction would help me to edit articles more freely. In these 5.6 months I had no sanctions for violating that rule. Otherwise I would not use revert rule in bad faith. Thanks. My restriction [132]Mikola22 (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C This was 100% too soon as dishonest use of Wiki policies in diffs, edit-warring on pretty much every page and hardcore stonewalling by the same editor continues. A bad day for Wiki, in my book. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)10:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "dishonest use of Wiki policies in diffs" really means, but you are welcome to compile the relevant evidence and submit it to a forum of your choosing. I don't know that I'm gonna have time to immediately follow up, I'm afraid. El_C20:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder on The New York Times Best Seller list there has been a long-term vandal. You last protected the article for 1 year (Feb 19 2019 -> Feb 2020). This worked, until now. The vandal has returned. I expect it will continue. The interesting thing is they are doing it from a mobile phone and they make so many edits, it is possible to watch their geolocations move around day to day to different cities in southern NH and MA in the warmer months, or in the Tampa, FL area during the colder months. -- GreenC14:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just left them an inline note and talk page comment in the hopes it makes them think about the consequence of what they are doing. I suggest we let it sit unless they do it again. Worth a try. -- GreenC15:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, let's wait and see. If the disruption continues, please let me know so that I can reprotect again for a long time. El_C18:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to immediately find the discussion about the split on the article talk page. But I don't know if I'm gonna have time to investigate in the near future regardless, I'm sorry to say. El_C20:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/CristiCristii is vandalising the page FCSB. Currently there is no definitive decision that the Honours don't belong to FCSB. There are ongoing processes law suits. So far the law only decided that FCSB does not hold the name of Steaua. I think CristiCristii holds several other users, clones with which he kept editing the page in his style over the past 3-4 years. Must be checked because this is annoying, one user to keep vandalising this page. Every 1 hour after I revert his vandalism, he comes back... And others are also annoyed! Same guy in my opinion and it was all explained to him numerous times.
Sorry, IP, this is not an area with which I am familiar. And I just don't have a lot of time at present to investigate this further, even if that wasn't the case. Maybe try a noticeboard...? Good luck. El_C01:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, we have some editing of IP editor 46.239.18.2 in Vlachs in medieval Bosnia and Herzegovina article. I think it is vandalism. See my edit summary's. So I'm not sure what to do. All new added information's are mixed up, without sources, in the wrong sections, with news portal as sources which do not speak about the Vlachs etc. So if you can look the article, it would be good. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As in an RfC at VPP or just start with the proposal? I don't have much confidence in my ability to influence the community at this point...something like:
Should we move WP:ONUS to WP:CONSENSUS?
Should WP:ONUS link to a new section at WP:CONSENSUS#Achieving consensus#Onus which states: "The onus to achieve consensus for changes to longstanding content is on those seeking the change", while leaving the text of WP:V#Verifiablity does not guarantee inclusion virtually the same? This will clearly define Onus as applying to new additions, removals, and modifications.
When I wrote "proposal" above, I meant as defined by the RfC (because that is what your original question was about). Which is to say: the RfC question is the proposal. Now, whether you start with an RfC right away, or whether you choose to have a preliminary discussion that, say, helps refine the RfC's parameters first, prior to launching it — that is totally up to you. Personally, I don't feel I'm in a position to advise you to do one versus the other at this time... El_C01:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is being completely opposed. Do you think my proposal failed to clarify the interpretation of Onus as simply as possible? If so I could withdraw it and reform it, unless it's just being opposed because people don't agree with the interpretation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From a glance at the responses, I get the sense that my own view of ONUS also applying to removals may not be shared, which is something I am taking note of (and which in hindsight might make sense in so far that ONUS is a component of WP:V). My view remains that if, say, a sourced paragraph has been on a page for a long time, when someone challenges it due to it being, for example, UNDUE, then the burden is on the challenger to gain consensus for the removal of that longstanding content, once that removal has been objected to. So, I still believe that, in that sense, the onus (as opposed to ONUS) is generally on the editor initiating the change to longstanding content — but perhaps ONUS is not the best way to articulate that maxim. The counter-argument to "let's not make it too difficult to remove longstanding material" is "let's not not make it too easy to remove longstanding material." I'm not sure it is in the interest of the project to make it easy to gut a page, then tell those who object to that gutting that the burden is actually on them to counter this change to longstanding content. In those instances, ONUS or not, I would advise disputants to have the status quo ante version displayed during the consensus-building process (again, absent obvious BLP, COI, FRINGE, etc., issues). You see, having an RfC about the removal of, say, a longstanding (presumed legit sourced, etc.) section may read: should said section remain in the article? But that does not seem fair. Because it erodes the implicit consensus that this section enjoyed prior. A no consensus result means that the longstanding section would be removed. Whereas, if that RfC question is (correctly) phrased as should said section be removed from the article? Then, a no consensus result means that this longstanding section is retained. Which to me, makes much more sense. El_C21:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't write much at the moment, but look at Bradv's comment at the RfC and here: [133] and their previous comment in the diff: "the burden is properly on all editors to work together to find compromise in order to improve the encyclopedia." I think that's consistent with what my proposal is attempting to clarify. Folks seem to be saying there's no need for an RfC while at the same time it seems clear there is no consensus on the policy's interpretation.... (I didn't want to ping Bradv yet again). Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, disputants need to actively engage, or they risk forfeiting their position, regardless of anything. Anyway, I think it really boils down to two things. 1. Which version is going to be displayed during the consensus-building process. I say, all things being equal, it should be the longstanding one. And 2. For RfC decision, should the burden of consensus be on those seeking to remove longstanding content? I say yes. El_C21:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reread your previous comment. I agree with that; notice that at WT:Consensus_required#What's_this_page_for? I wrote "lowercase" onus a couple of times to try to differentiate. It's a difficult policy to discuss. I still think we at least need the word "onus" somewhere in WP:CONSENSUS so we're not using WP:V as a basis for the consensus building procedure. Oh well... Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. WP:NOCON gives us a flavour of it, while WP:STATUSQUO is an essay. Not good enough. Indeed, to use my abovementioned example, a dispute about whether something is DUE or UNDUE, can have little to do with the information in question being verifiable. So, to say that "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" is a bit nonsensical when verifiability (or lack thereof) of the disputed content is not even used to justify anything — when the dispute instead involves WP:FALSEBALANCE or is otherwise about fairly or unfairly representing scholarly and mainstream consensus (outside of Wikipedia). El_C02:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be canvassing to ask if you'd comment at the RfC? I feel like it's important to have a well-articulated dissenting view (not necessarily in support of the specific proposal) for the record in case the RfC is referenced in the future. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it will probably be later in the week, because I'm really busy at the moment. Anyway, I always thought WP:PRESERVE to be a cornerstone of editing here. Therefore, I do believe that, in the course of content disputes that are absent obvious policy violations, there should be a sense of deference to longstanding content, regardless of whether one is adding to it, modifying it, or even, yes, removing from it. El_C02:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kolya Butternut, sorry, I thought I could find the time to follow up, but in the end couldn't. But briefly, I don't think it makes sense to designate longstanding text as exempt from WP:EW. That is taking things way too far, and in a way that is antithetical to Wikipedia's ethos. It's just not on the same level as the other exemptions, which are, basically, emergencies. That is why ONUS, which is everywhere, is loose — while CR, which is really rare, is strict. CR is only applied to articles that are in a state of deep crisis and instability. El_C23:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I did not mean that longstanding text is an exemption; I just meant that it provides clarity to say: "if there is a dispute which cannot be solved through editing, keep the longstanding material pending dispute resolution unless there are WP:Edit warring#Exemptions justifying immediate removal. If there is no consensus the material stays." Of course, if there is an uncontrolled edit war editing should freeze; no one should remove or restore disputed content until discussion begins, and at that point editors should agree to restore the status quo version pending new consensus. FYI, the RfC is still open. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, requesting help on this page because a "longtime" editor has poor math skills. Mrschimpf keeps insisting that CBS allots only 2 hours for their Sunday night movies, yet adds a claim that a half hour sitcom is also scheduled if a movie can't fill 2.5 hours. This makes no sense whatsoever, and furthermore, he keeps adding text that is completely unsourced. He refuses to discuss this on the Talk Page. Thank you!136.49.157.251 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, Calthinus(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) filed a report about edit-warring. But in the context of that report, there have been made some egregious personal attacks. Sadko(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) made a personal attack against me and other editors, [134]would like to point out that a number of editors who are joining in order to discriminate and dehumanize the other side by presenting them as some sort of haters (as seen here). What he's referring to as an example is that I mentioned that Khirurg(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) who has been accusing every editor he's disagreeing with that they're a tagteam and he's grouping them based on their ethnicity as he has done before when he claimed [135] Croat-Bosniak-Albanian editors who disagreed with him a few months ago: everyone knows Bosnia and Croatia have a history of hostility with Serbia (and by extension Greece), while Bulgaria does too though to a lesser extent. This is all I mentioned in order to show how wrong this sort of logic is and the reply was that I'm trying to "dehumanize" other editors (!!!) Sadko wasn't even involved in that dispute, but he chose to enter the discussion in the report only in order to make the accusations about "dehumanization". You have logged on Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Eastern_Europe] Sadko, is warned to not weaponize AE in order to eliminate opponents of content disputes. His comment that I'm dehumanizing other editors is extreme and I think that it's an example of the warning he has received on AE. He's using a report about a topic he was never involved in, in order to make a comment totally unrelated to the report against other editors. Meanwhile, the report is being used more and more as a launch pad for attacks against Calthinus whom Khirurg accused that he filed the report because he is [136] "motivated by a desire for revenge". The report will be checked by the admin who decides to process it, but the conduct in that report and the attacks that have been launched do not belong in any encyclopedic environment. What can be done to ensure that this behavior stops? Nobody can accuse anyone of "dehumanization" as if it's something casual that you can just throw out there. Ahmet Q. (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should say sorry to Khirurg, for starters, rather than attempting to spin the blame on other editors who do not agree with your POV. That is exactly what was done with that and 1 or 2 more diffs.
That comment which you like to quote was given to me for my report, and not all admins and involved parties agreed with it. I did not make this report, therefore, what is the point of this long comment, because as you said it, I am not the involved party? I wanted to share my view and to point out what took place, as I did. The main reason is - that sort of dehumanization needs to stop. Nobody is a hater here and you should stop trying to present people as toxic haters. It's not good. I did follow that dispute as an observer and I am observing several lovely Greek-related articles and topics and disputes, and please do not try to discredit my opinon because I did not edit the page in question. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)10:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement This is last attack of editor Sadko on me with claim that "some of my writings can be seen as chauvinistic and racist, not to mention the dominant anti-Serbian sentiment, which is sickening."[137] This has been the case and before, as well as searching of hidden intentions in edits of various editors, examples [138]. If I had a history of these statements I would already got TBAN or SBAN. Editor Sadko was reported but there are no improvements or sanctions. I don't know to whom he addressing with these attacks. I think that his behavior is inappropriate and something needs to be done about it. Mikola22 (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement? Are we on a trial here? Did I make a verbal injury? I did not offend anybody personally nor was I offensive and do not drag me into this sort of disputes when it comes to the use of language.
Bunch of nonsense which you took out of context in attempt to make a character assassination. Post a diff of the same full quote and let's see what's really going on here. Yes, they can be seen in such a way, that is a fact. I can't post links because of privacy policy, but that is, sadly, the state of things. I have invited admins to investigate that, considering that the same editor, who made such forum posts, used fascist as Wikipedia source several months ago. I was not reported here, you made some sort of mistake. Major WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Do not attack other people, attack their arguments, if you can. And once again, presenting other editors as haters of some ethnic groups in a random report (!) with the idea to paint the worse possible image of that editor is tentamen hate speech and dehumanization. That's what I think and that's what I said. It may seem extreme to some people, but I don't see it that way. What is the point of this whole message and pinging me? Please do not disturb me with this sort of comments which are not true, are manipulative and are attempts to get me and other editors who were in dispute with you banned. Thank you, Sadkσ(talk is cheap)16:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You must understand that personal attack is not solution in mutual Wikipedia conversation. And whether you will be sanctioned is up to you. The fact is, you don't stop with attacks. As for the false accusations against me, this only proves what I'm talking about. Mikola22 (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, everyone, it may be a few more days before I have time to follow up and/or respond. I appreciate the patience. El_C04:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Give your opinion and save the article from getting deleted
Sir, I have made a draft Draft:Ashish Chanchlani (YouTuber). It is being quickly deleted without review. But it was not reviewed. Please give your opinion and if you feel it is right, delete the notice of early deletion from the draft or delete it if you feel it is wrong. Thank you 27.63.69.246 (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck is going on @EdJohnston? Would someone please shut down the ADMINABUSE by the ANI's author? And, is it possible to receive an WP:IBAN against that ADMIN in the meantime? Do I request an IBAN at the ANI? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C. If you happen to have a moment, could you check-in at Talk:Kyiv? I recently closed an RfC so I had this on my watchlist again. The conversation could perhaps use the attention of a skilled admin like yourself to help it be productive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you blocked the recreation of an E. Michael Jones article. I'm not an anti-Semite, but I think that we need this article: Jones has risen in prominence and it would be good to have a place where people curious about what this man stands for to find the truth. Certainly I had trouble finding information when I came across his name. I'm too lazy to create this article myself, but if adherents choose to create this article I am eager to jump in to keep the article factual. -- Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I think you have a deeply unhralthy obsession with Matthew Berdyck and need to seek mental health help. I have investigatd your claims of an "aggressive attempt" to promote his name and found that there is one article on the while site that mentions his name, and that what was printed on Wikipedia was exactly what was printed in the artice. Your atatements about Berdyck are false. I find your fixatin on him t be disturing and you should seek out a theraopist for your unresoved paranoia issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welkinstan (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I open a RfC and want to attract as much attention as possible, is it OK if I seek attention with neutral wording on related WikiProject pages? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have other work to do right now, but an article (Parga) dispute in which I was involved is mentioned and some things have to be set straight. When Khirurg says that at Atintanians the "wrong version" was protected and that it "keeps happening" like at Parga what he's describing is that he[144] asked for full protection of that article and it got protected to a version that he disagreed with. That of course was random. And El C here happened to protect the article at another random moment. So, Khirurg is basically saying is that when the "wrong version" gets protected - even when he has filed for protection - it's "highly organized", despite the fact that it's a totally random process. Just a few minutes before El C protected the article another editor had reverted it and if El C went to grab a cup of coffee before checking it, then it probably would be reverted again. So, when El C would protect it, it would be at a version with which Khirurg agreed. Would it then still be a "highly organized" event? Do admins have to protect the "right version" to not get messages that tell them "don't get fooled"? --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that Ktrimi posted here within 'two minutes of Iaof reverting to his preferred version. Coincidence? I think not. This has nothing to do with which version El C protected. It has to do with the behavior of a highly organized group of editors that know how to game the system. If El C had protected to another version ("cup of coffee"), it would still be suspicious that Ktrimi posted two minutes after Iaof reverted. Khirurg (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And five minutes before Ktrimi posted here a revert which agreed with your version happened. And El C could basically ignore everything. And you claimed that "it keeps happening", but it was you who asked for full protection at Parga and in both cases the version with which you disagreed got protected at random. If a process is inherently random and one of the examples was initiated by you, don't put forward claims about "highly organized" events that shouldn't fool admins. Both cases at a flip of a coin could get protected at a very different version. There's a 10-day protection at Atintanians and we all should want to use to it to reach a constructive agreement. Now, I'll get back to my personal work. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't throw around irrelevant stuff to confuse the issue. I am not complaining about which version was protected, whether at Atintanians or Parga. I know how these things work. What I am pointing out is a specific behavior by a group of users. A behavior that seems to greatly agitate you when pointed out, so you filibuster discussions with irrelevant stuff to draw attention away from said behavior. Khirurg (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Khirurg, while unfortunately, I'm not really available to conduct any comprehensive investigation at this time, I do find your comment above to be inappropriate. Inappropriate in so far as "highly organized" intimates a level of coordination, which, while possible, I seriously doubt was the case here. Anyway, it isn't something that is likely to be proven or disproven either way, so in a deeper sense, is basically a redundant assertion. Furthermore, Ktrimi991 didn't even ask for protection. True, maybe they were hoping for it, but that isn't the same thing. I'll further emphasize that the tendency to report an edit war (just) when one's own preferred version is being displayed is a longstanding Wikipedia tradition. It is human nature to do so. It has never been something that, we admins, frown upon. Even if there was an interest to curtail that (which I don't think there is), there's nothing that can really be done about it. So, that's as far as the protection is concerned. But let me also touch on the notion of "gaming the system" that you bring up. Because you seem to be arguing more broadly against one side being able to game the system so as to give it a distinct advantage in an overall succession of disputes. Myself, for the last few years, I've probably been the admin most active in enacting arbitration enforcement (something I believe the log bears out). And my own impression is that when it comes to this class of the most contentious topics on the project, the respective opposing sides often end up being expressed fairly evenly. True, sometimes they're grossly uneven — like with American politics, where liberals greatly dominate conservatives. Or with pseudoscience, where orthodoxy greatly dominates fringe. But in the case of the Balkan topic area, I've never gotten a sense of any gross unevenness there. And, hey, maybe I'm missing something pivotal and there is. That is not outside the realm of possibility. So, if that is still your contention, you are welcome to document this in an AE report. A quorum of uninvolved admins are less likely to miss something which a single admin might. Hope that makes sense. El_C02:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your in-depth response. I appreciate it and will keep it in mind. In any case, I started an RfC at the talkpage [145], just so you know. Kindly keep an eye on it, if you will. Khirurg (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. While my activity is likely to remain spotty for a while (so no promises), I will try to do so. Certainly, there's no harm in reporting problems to me about it here. The worse that could happen is that I won't be around to help... El_C03:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time for an in-depth response El C. The RfC which Khirurg filed was prepared without even waiting for involved editors to respond and its framing is skewed in favor of one narrative. I've asked for him to retract it until a question can be agreed by all editors, but he claims that I don't have to participate if I think that it is an invalid RfC. Isn't any RfC option in the aftermath of a full protection supposed to be the result of at least a basic discussion between editors? This one was essentially decided by two editors who agree with each other within a couple of hours and now I'm told that I "dont have to participate". --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of editors, including from your side, participated in the discussion on the RfC, and I took their statements into consideration. There seemed to be no major objections, so I went ahead with it. You don't have veto power of RfCs. Khirurg (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I phrased Option B exactly as your side wanted it. And typically in the event of no consensus, the article reverts to the stable version. At least that is my understanding. What version is it supposed to revert to? Your preferred one? Khirurg (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I am disappointed at Maleschreiber calling the RfC invalid when it is the one who, without consulting with other editors, rammed into the article his preferred version: [146] (which does not reflect WP:CONSENSUS and ignores what the WP:RS says). His bold action to insert his preferred version to the article without discussing it with the rest of the editors, triggered the edit war right before you stepped in and locked the article. Now the RfC was opened to provide a solution based on the problem Maleschreiber caused (and mind you, his favored version still remains on the now-locked article). And now seeing him coming both here and to the RfC complaining that the RfC isn't valid, speaks volumes. He brute-forced his preferred info to the article, he skipped consensus, he objects to WP:RS and now he calls the RfC invalid (even though the RfC includes his preferred version which he brute-forced to the article as "Option B"). Sorry but this is too much. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)03:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no lede. It was expanded from 12k to 50k and that triggered a dispute about what the lede should be. The dispute didn't start today. It can't be asked that in the case of "no consensus" the article should revert to the lede of the 12k version of the article. It's not about what I want or I don't want. The article should have a lede that reflects what it discusses. The lede of the 12k version which you have been trying to keep afloat for the past week, objectively isn't the WP:STABLE and can't be the WP:LEDE because it isn't a concise overview of the article's topic. whatever you believe that the "concise overview" consists of. You don't have to agree with me in order to accept that as the objective reality.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article has had a lede since it was created. And it did provide a concise overview. The proposed newer versions are just as concise and in fact quite similar. I've filed dozens of RfCs. I don't recall requiring anyone's permission to do so. There is nothing in WP:RFC about a consensus on RfCs. If that were the case, RfCs would be pointless. We can't seem to agree on anything, if we start getting into RfCs about RfCs where does it end? Bottom line is you rammed through a highly POV lede earlier today without any discussion or consensus and now you are demanding veto power over the RfC. It is simply impossible to resolve any dispute with this kind of mentality. Khirurg (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about you agree to have reverted your unilateral changes to the lede which you made without consulting anyone earlier today[147] (at least as far as I can tell on-wiki) as a sign of good faith? Khirurg (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I'm understanding this correctly (if this represents what is actually happening — I haven't checked), this is a strange one. Usually, an RfC has a longstanding version and a contending version, and that's it. I'm not sure I've ever seen an RfC that has two contending versions and a longstanding one which is not in dispute (at least not per se.). Maybe I'm forgetting —I've been an editor since 2004 and an admin since 2005— but nothing like this comes to mind. In the final analysis, Khirurg has probably got it right. I realize a no consensus outcome is likely, which is not ideal if we're ending up with a now-incomplete lead. But what else was he supposed to do? I mean, imagine had he omitted mention of there being a longstanding version not in dispute (again, per se.) so that we have only the two contending versions — which one gets to be displayed in the event of a no consensus outcome? Neither one is longstanding, so how can that be decided? Silver lining — perhaps such a looming impasse will lead toward a greater willingness to compromise.El_C04:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not a given that there won't be consensus. How can one make such a claim? I'm pretty sure there will be some kind of consensus. I've participated in innumerable RfCs, there's usually some kind of resolution. So all this seems much ado about nothing. Khirurg (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At a recent RfC which I filed, Khirurg had every opportunity for many days to make suggestions and changes to the RfC question - which he did Talk:Parga#Draft_troops_RfC_discussion. Now, the RfC question discussion began at 00:43 and the RfC was filed 89 minutes later at 02:12. But according to Khirurg if I didn't participate, that's on me. Where's the consensus building in this procedure? The RfC question itself is heavily skewed towards one of the two narratives because in its references list it includes only one citation and it supports that narrative - it should have no sources which suggest one or the other option. The editors who read the RfC are have to judge OPTION A and OPTION B with only one source presented to them by the RfC - the one source which supports the narrative of what Khirurg has been putting forward, while all other sources have been excluded.
The pre-expansion version was 465 words long, the current version is 4X that. A WP:STABLE should be agreed before the RfC and the two questions should be placed impartially without selective use of bibliography in reftalk. A "no consensus" scenario is the most likely for many reasons. The proposed RfC version only guarantees that if that happens there will be another round of heavy disputes because it was filed without any form of consensus or input and the proposed WP:STABLE doesn't reflect even a minimal version from which we can all work on towards dispute resolution.--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the connection to Parga, which at the time of writing this I did not know what it was — now checked: apparently it's a town (I guessed food). Anyway, Khirurg might have felt it redundant to engage in consultations in the case of Atintanians. But I agree with you that within reason, each respective side should have a certain amount of control over how their preferred version is represented, with respect to sources, and so on. So, I would invite you to apply said modifications as you see fit. For all you know, Khirurg may end up being perfectly content with these. As for a prospective impasse that brings us back around again — all I can say is that, if that happens, all of you better start doing something different. I mean, in my experience, it's rare for there to be a magic bullet for these sort of disputes. There's either hard work that mostly involves incrementally refining dis/agreements, or it's basically a waste of time and energy to bother with. Which I doubt is news to any participant here, but I still felt it was worth saying. El_C07:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the remaining two citations in the language section (whose lack in the RfC is what Maleschreiber is complaining about) were added to the RfC hours ago [148]. So his claims about all other sources have been excluded are totally baseless. In fact if you look at the timestamp of the edit to the RfC, the sources were added long before Maleschreiber's latest comment. Khirurg (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I got your ping, though tbh I am not willing to read all what is written above. I have career, family and relatives I care about and want to give most of my time to. I first said on the article's tp that I hoped we did not have to open a RfC on a clear detail. But after the reverting cycle continued and a new editor, Demetrios, joined, then I decided to proceed with the RfC. I asked you to clarify sth about RfC practices, and you did so together with protecting the page. You and I did nothing wrong. As a matter of fact, when I came to your tp, the article had the other side's version. A page protection does not settle a dispute. As you said when the Religion in Albania dispute was concerned, what is the stable version is decided by the community consenus that can be in the form of a RfC closure. Regarding the accusations above, people tend to keep accusing others of things they themselves do. Khirurg takes things too personally by repeatedly accusing others of making edits "out of spite" and for "revenge". Indeed, he keeps accusing other editors of "tag teaming", though the only one here sanctioned as part of a group of disruptive editors at AE is Khirurg. Now, I have other things to do, and will not respond to any other frivolous accusation by people who throw those accusations while staying behind a computer screen. If anyone has facts, AE is very much willing to welcome them. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El, in an effort of addressing complaints and concerns in the RfC discussion about a missing timestamp on the RfC, I looked for the "unsigned timestamp" string of code but wouldn't find it. I remember it used to be listed somewhere in one of the Wikipedia's guidelines but it has been too long since I last saw it. Therefore I added it manually so that editors can see who made the RfC. Is that procedure [149] correctly done? If there is a better way to do it, I would appreciate if you let me know.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)15:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident, I added the Template:Unsigned but after realizing that you edited the original RfC, I removed it. – Βατο (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, good luck, everyone. Again, I'm not sure I'll be around to be able to immediately help (an absence of a week or more on my part remains a strong possibility at any time), but still, feel free to call on me if any problems arise. While I doubt I can offer much beyond a cursory examination of anything at this time, so long as that works for participants, hopefully, I can still be of help. Happy editing! El_C16:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On 30 July, you placed a one-way IBAN, broadly construed, on Newimpartial and stated that they were not to mention or interact with me again "in any way" [151]. Newimpartial has skated around the edges of the IBAN since, but in the past week has, imo, directly violated it.
They don't think they have, so I'm afraid we need your input.
On 3 December, Newimpartial was pinged by another user, Bilorv, to participate in a discussion Bilorv began about my editing on the Graham Linehan page. I saw on Bilorv's talk page that Newimpartial responded they couldn't bc of a "stealth" IBAN that was placed on them by you, then linked a revision I had made on a different article eight months ago that had been disputed by Bilorv to remind Bilorv about it and called it "far beyond my threshold for drama" [152]
On 7 December, Newimpartial joined the discussion about my editing on the Linehan page anyway, if only to agree with another user [153]
I responded on 7 December that Newimpartial wasn't supposed to be participating in a discussion of my editing, and today Newimpartial responded very clearly to me, but by putting the words "To the room" at the beginning of their response, that they feel their participation is not covered by the IBAN [154]
Sorry to bother you with this again, but it seems to me that since Newimpartial was told by you that the IBAN means they cannot interact or mention me, this is a violation. If I am wrong, I apologize. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lilipo25, I'm afraid my activity is a bit spotty as of late, so you may wish to document any violations you perceive of the aforementioned ban at AE. Now, at a glance (a real cursory glance, which is all I am able to do at this time), I'm not seeing where you have been addressed or mentioned by Newimpartial. They are allowed to engage content disputes, even when these also involve your edits. In fact, you are the one who is interacting with them — which is a big no-no. Now, a lot of admins don't even bother with one-way interaction bans (too much trouble enforcing), but here is my take of these: I view them as being, for all intents and purposes, as basically 2-way bans, but where one of the parties simply does not suffer the blemish of being logged as such. So, that would be the correct way to approach this ban from now on. Good luck and sorry I was unable to offer any immediate help. El_C00:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, El C, I didn't look at your page and realize you weren't as involved as you used to be here until after I typed my request and then thought I'd better not delete because I'd already sent the ping. For the record, though, the mention of me was Newimpartial reminding Bilorv on Bilorv's talk page on 3 Dec of an interaction Bilorv had with me over 8 months ago [155] & occurred well before any interaction involving me on the Linehan page.
Lilipo25, no, not at all. Not a bother. I agree that that "stealth ban" comment was not great. And, needless to say, I take exception to the implication that there was anything amiss with that AE action on my part. As I mentioned to another participant above (about the Balkan DS), for the last few years, I've been the admin most active in arbitration enforcement (which I think the log bears out), and I would challenge that my track record has been good. Now, Newimpartial has several avenues of appeal: they can appeal the ban to a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE. They could appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee. Or they could appeal to the community at AN. So, yeah, talking about the ban outside of these formal setting is generally a bad idea. But some limited venting, especially if it concerns something that I have done, well, I make it a point to have a pretty high tolerance for that. El_C06:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been more than a year now since Malik Shabazz left the project, and his apparent nemesis Icewhiz was blocked for some mysterious off-wiki harassment.
I was reading User talk:Malik Shabazz, and thinking what a shame it was. Malik certainly did lose his cool, but in light of what Icewhiz turned out to be, it is harder to blame Malik.
I just wondered whether, now that so much water has passed under the bridge, whether you might consider posting a something on Malik's talk page to help heal the wounds. Just in case he pops by to see what is happening.
Onceinawhile, while I've always respected Malik's contributions, and admired his poignancy and breadth of knowledge, I'm not sure what I would even say to him at this time. My block of him (for personal attacks after warning) was especially lenient, I felt. As far as the maxim of enforcement escalation for bright-line rule recidivism goes, that block should have been for at least a few weeks. Instead, it was for a mere 72 hours. So, again, what would I say? All of this? Anyway, while I do hope he ends up returning, I'm not that inclined toward posting a "heal the wounds" sort of gesture on his talk page at the present time — in part, because I feel the leniency of my action already constituted such a gesture. In any case, it's not just that I feel that this isn't my cross to bear, but I'd also feel awkward about saying anything on his talk page right now. Hope that makes sense. El_C00:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should note that the personal attack for which I imposed the block was not directed toward Icewhiz, but rather was aimed at the blocking admin who came before me. If there was an Icewhiz impetus to that attack (which I suppose is possible), that is not something that I am able to immediately recollect. El_C01:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, I understand. It was just a passing thought. I do think most fall outs happen when both sides are convinced they were fair. I don’t know what it was that made Malik decide to leave but I did see someone commented on his page that he was de-sysoped but I couldn’t see where/when that happened.
On Icewhiz, the reason I thought there was a connection is Malik’s last ever Wikipedia comment was on a thread entitled Icewhiz. He talks about “his stalker” by which I assume he meant Icewhiz but I may be wrong.
Malik was an outstanding content contributor and a very good administrator, working in areas of underrepresentation and misrepresentation. He was provoked and harassed by malicious parties and made some mistakes in responding. He blew his stack but in hindsight, his reaction appears more understandable. I for one wish that he freely decides to return to this project. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I miss him, too. He put in quite a lot of time as an admin. But when things came crashing down, I think he hit his limit of what he wanted to put up with here after a lot of micro aggressions directed at him over the years and burned his bridges. I'd like it if he came back but I think he really said "Good bye". LizRead!Talk!06:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page only has 1 protection log entry which I know what is is for 'Persistent sockpuppetry'. It has been over 1 year of protection. Do you think unprotection is okay? --93.78.2.139 (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page only has 1 protection log entry which I know what is is for 'Persistent sockpuppetry'. It has been over 1 year of protection. Do you think unprotection is okay? --93.78.2.139 (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm going to test the waters by unprotecting any of the Burger articles (there's probably over 100 of them), I'm not going to do it piecemeal. Though possibly in sizable batches. But I doubt that's something I'd venture to do any time soon. That said, if another admin wishes to take it upon themselves to lift protection from one and all of these, I welcome them to do so (with the expectation that they'd keep a close enough eye). The place to request that is: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_reduction_in_protection_level. El_C09:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay to ask anything. I'm just unlikely to find the time to attend to this matter (in any way) in the foreseeable future, I'm afraid. So, again, if you wish to see this expedited, RfPP would be the venue to forward such requests. El_C10:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A little while ago you blocked User:Snagemit. I have encountered another user, User:Freezingwedge who appears to have the same characteristics as Snagemit (and so could possibly be the same person). These are:
Lack of edit summaries
Very rapid transition from editing one article to the next - these are largely unrelated articles, so one wonders how the editing is based on any sources
Edits appear to simply come out of the editor's head - there is no evidence that any source has been consulted. An example of this is the edit [157]. The edit is to part of an article that has deficiencies - one of which is the reference given the refname "index". This gives an online link to the index of the book in question - there is no way of accessing the book itself online. The content of the article (before and after the edit in the link) is difficult to find in the book (which I have in front of me and have previously read). So I am puzzled as to how an editor can amend text that is supported by a deficient reference without amending the reference. This supports my view that this editor does not use sources, or does not use them in the same way as other more diligent editors.
Some edits are silly changes to the article content that erode the usefulness of the article.
I have reverted the edit shown above and would expect a good faith editor to come back and challenge me on that (hopefully with some references to support their position). I don't feel inclined to tackle Freezingwedge on their talk page, though acknowledge that I probably should.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an afterthought, I am not much of an expert on all the Wikipedia procedures for this sort of thing - I concentrate more on article content than the cut and thrust of editor interaction.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThoughtIdRetired, yes, you probably should. Because a record of pertinent warnings would make it much simpler for an admin to undertake any necessary enforcement action. As opposed to having said admin, themselves, needing to launch their own investigation into the editing in question. Which, regretfully, I doubt is something I can find the time for in the immediate future (my current level of activity is a bit spotty as of late). That said, if you are able to draft a report that is both poignant and succinct (and well-documented), there are noticeboards that can serve as review mechanisms. But, again, generally the expectation is that you'd, at very least, try to touch base with the editor in question. Because, there is a good chance that in failing to even attempt such a gesture, your report may end up being viewed unfavourably. I can't tell to what the extent this may be true, because I'm short on details. Nor do I have a firm recollection of that other editor whom I blocked indefinitely and their possible connection to this. If right now (or at some point in the future) you deem there to be conclusive enough evidence of socking, SPI would be the place to report this. Anyway, so I'll leave all of that at your discretion. Good luck and sorry I was unable to offer any immediate relief. El_C22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I know, right? So impressive. I think if Beethoven were alive (and had his hearing), he'd be the first to say that that composition was made for the electric guitar. At least when performed by someone with such superhuman prowess as Tina S (17 at the time!). I remember reading somewhere that, after performing alongside guitar god and master technicalistJoe Satriani, he said that: "she is beyond genius," and "not of this planet." Not sure if you remember, but in the first corner (still displayed on this talk page for posterity), I noted similar praise being (rightly) bestowed on Dimash. Imagine, then, if Dimash were to attempt a vocal rendition of the 3rd Movement? I submit to you that it can't be done. But, man, am I ever hopeful to be proven wrong there... Because I would love to bear witness to that performance! El_C00:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked, but I wasn't really able to follow much of anything there. I confess to having a rather poor grasp of, well, Christianity (ecumenically and otherwise), in general. But, as a basic rule of thumb, if someone claims their changes are backed by consensus while another disputes that, the best way to disentangle this may be in expressing the dispute in the form of a dispute resolution request (like an RfC) that is properly closed. Such a closure would codify consensus or lack thereof. Until such a request is closed, it is customary for the status quo ante version to be the one that is being displayed. El_C18:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand. I'm seeing mention of it, but what do you mean by "little" or "too little"? We appear to be experiencing some cultural dissonance here... El_C18:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last first: the 250th anniversary of baptism of one of the greatest composers ever might have come with an image and with saying so, rather than letting readers do the math, I think.
I reverted to the pro-ante version, twice. All the rhetoric is about referring to the psalms set to music in the composition with the Hebrew numbering or the Catholic (abbreviated from the official names). The article had the Hebrew (which is the original, and the one our article titles follow, and known to the majority of readers), but explained that Monteverdi knew the other. Featured article, passed reviews. Editor A changed all occurrences to Catholic, I reverted. Editor B reverted to A's version. I reverted once more to pro-ante and asked to talk per WP:BRD. B reverted once more and asked me to talk. I was too tired to do anything. In the morning I found that editor C had restored pro-ante, but A and B had agreed on the talk that they formed a consensus, and had implemented that. I have no time for such things. In the end, after quite some rhetoric ("fake news", "aspersions") B told me something about wasted time, on my talk also. How true ;) - I have no time nor nerves to even look which version we have now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because the Baptism signifies Beethoven's birthdate — gotcha. As for Vespro della Beata Vergine, will do, but I get the sense that the worse if over as far as that dispute is concerned. More importantly, sorry to hear about the tragedy that has befallen your family. Hope you find solace in all that is precious. El_C23:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I removed the latter from my talk, as too private. The bickering seemed just so extra pointless on the background. I may come again, just saying editor B, ok? take courage - my current headline - was what I told myself when it hit me five years ago, and I'm still here. I supported this DYK with a great deal of sympathy, a great woman who chose that line for a title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And thank goodness you are! Through whatever perils we find ourselves, it is this courage which is the true measure of grace. So, keep on keeping on the good fight, always. Now, if I may venture to cheer you up: I'm watching Cracked.com's series on YouTube that features (to quote from the Wikipedia article): "Honest Commercials – Jack Hunter portrays Roger Horton, a businessman who promotes products of his various companies with brutal honesty." It is fun and funny and merciless. Highly recommended. El_C21:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, looked and liked, and I see I could spend a lot of time ... - Best wishes for 2021! - Taking the courage to add to the above bickering situation that someone should perhaps tell editor B that telling others such as my dear friend Olive that they have to "grasp" how Wikipedia works, and more about aspersions, is not the kindest way of interaction, on top of not without irony. - I don't send season's greeting, - just watch my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, too! Anyway, I agree it is neither a respectful nor an intellectually honest way for one to conduct themselves. Honestly, I would have said something, but everyone seems to have left the page after last we spoke. In any case, it clearly falls short of the sort of collaborative editing and discourse expected on the project. *** Of course, here is the obligatory music video. Lately, I find myself liking the Sam Brown rendition of The Great Gig in the Sky even more than the original Clare Torry version (I know, sacrilege!). A few months ago, Pink Floyd released a restored version. Here it is in all of its glory: Link. El_C22:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, El_C. I am writing because the situation seems to develop in a totally unexpected direction, and that is very worrying.
Briefly, I am especially astounded by your description of the problem. You write "Here we have one admin asking for Arbitration enforcement sanctions to be placed on another admin", which is totally incorrect. Here we have one user (Ymblanter) asking for AE sanctions against another user (Michael). Both the later and the former are acting purely in an editorial capacity, so the fact that both of them are admins is totally irrelevant to that case. Normally, the reported user is expected to respond promptly. Correct me if I am wrong, but user's silence for more than few days (provided that they are active on other pages) is considered to be unacceptable, and the action may be taken without waiting for a response from the reported user. In that case, the reported user is remaining silent, but, as the diffs provided by me demonstrated) he continues to edit in exactly the the same style that caused Ymblanter's report. In my opinion, that is a clear disrespect to the AE procedure.
According to WP:ADMINCOND, "administrators should lead by example". What example can we, humble mortals, see here? That "some animals are more equal", so admins may ignore AE? Before that incident, I disagreed with some users who called admins "Wikipedia gods", but now I see that there is some ground for that. Clearly, Mzajac's behaviour demonstrates that he feels that his admin's status protects him, to some degree, from sanctions. Therefore, although he was not misusing administrative tools, we can speak about some misuse of admin's status.
I am asking myself: "what if Ymblanter were not an admin, but just an ordinary user? Does it mean there would be no reaction from "fellow admins" at all?"
I am also wondering if the admin who shows such a disrespect to the AE procedure can be allowed to act as an uninvolved admin in other AE cases. Do you find that correct?
In summary, although I find Mzajac's violations (listed by Ymblanter and me) not too serious to warrant severe sanctions, the subsequent events (actually, the lack thereof) are really worrying, and, in my opinion, they form a separate case that deserves a separate consideration. I respect you, so I decided to share my thoughts with you first. Maybe, we can think together how to minimize the negative impact of that case on Wikipedia as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, thank you for sharing your concerns with me directly. I value your feedback, always. But what you are attributing to me is simply not true. Your interpretation with the manner in which this report was attended to by myself (singlehandedly) thus far, is also not true. Your assumption about there being any special treatment is, as well, patently untrue. Please be aware that my mindset is already hardcoded against any discrimination. To me, falling short of that ethical imperative amounts to a betrayal of the community's trust, and of my own values. It would be just plain corrupt. But Michael getting busy and me granting them another week is not something which I view as being "disrespect[ful] to the AE procedure" (whatever you perceive that procedure to be). I would not treat a non-admin any different. I always try to be laid back (whenever matters are otherwise calm), with anyone and everyone. True, I called attention to there being a weird three admin trifecta. But I only noted that because I found it an odd, curious thing. But that's all that was. A comment in passing which is otherwise of zero significance. It's just that I almost never see an admin face a strong AE complaint. It's so exceedingly rare. In the final analysis, admin or non-admin, whether it ends up taking a couple of weeks versus a couple of days, why does it matter? I mean, if I am to impose a sanction here (which is likely), I don't really envision it being for less than six months (probably closer to a year). Above all other things, I specifically said that I do not feel in any way obliged to defer to a quorum of admins if I were to remain the sole uninvolved admin overseeing this case. That's because I do not intend to allow for this complaint to fall through the cracks, which does happen with some regularity on AE. I'm committed to seeing it through. And I hope that the manner in which I conclude it lives up to your expectations as well as that of the community, overall. But if it doesn't, well, I might be due for some serious soul searching... Thanks again for dropping by. Please do not hesitate to keep sharing any concerns with me, about anything. I'd always prefer being told that there may be a problem than to just have someone think it in silence. El_C00:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, sorry if I misunderstood something. It is quite likely that that is your normal manner to communicate your viewpoint, but that style looks unusually soft for AE. At least, my impression is that admins are, as a rule, much less liberal when they comment on DS violation reports. That is why I attributed that to the fact that Mzajac is an admin.
I still think that three things are totally unusual here, and I found that worrying. First, except you, no other admins voiced their opinion, and the case was archived. As you correctly noted, a situation when an admin faces a strong AE complaint is extremely rare, and, therefore, it is expected to draw attention of the whole admins community. Instead, it seems they demonstrated zero attention to that case.
Second, usually, a very big attention is paid to observing due procedural rules at AE, and the reported user is supposed to respond timely. I can agree that we all are busy in our real life, and, had Mzajac "disappeared from radars" for one week or even ten days contemplating a response, that would be ok. However, he seems to continue editing Wikipedia, and his edits follow the very same scheme that was reported by Ymblanter (Kiev->Kyiv replacement, one of those examples can be found in my comments). That is what I call a clear and direct demonstration of disrespect.
Third, Mzajac does not observe even the schedule proposed by him himself: on 10th of December, he wrote " I will respond today", and there are no posts from him even today. Again, I doubt admins would be equally tolerant to other users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, now it's coming together for me! I overlooked that Dec 11 diff you quote in the report. I don't know why but I was under the misapprehension that Michael was simply inactive throughout all this time. Indeed, I also find that edit to be disrespectful toward the AE procedure. Jeez, no wonder you were scratching your head. Talk about a gushing softness to a "fellow admin." That looks terrible. What can I say? I'm sorry. I'm sorry for faltering. I guess I've been more scattered than I realized (just been really busy lately). Will take note and will try to do better. Anyway, I'll address all of that in the report momentarily (and will link to this discussion). But before I do that I'd like to thank you, Paul. Thank you for speaking out and thank you for bearing with me. Kind regards, El_C01:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Siebert, FWIW, don't assume that because multiple admins didn't comment that none were watching closely or that they wouldn't have commented if they thought it were necessary/helpful. If I'd had a comment I thought would add insight, I'd have made it. —valereee (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my belated thanks. I know it's a real mess and I am sorry if there are wrongdoings on my part. But I told them from the very first days that the new RFC was not an improvement to the previous discussions ([158]&[159]). I remember you described the situations precisely as "vortex" somewhere on the TP and it's like a vortex. Consensus Required restriction was a really helpful step but I think, now RFCs are being misused to bypass that restrictions. Discussion is replaced by awkward ANI, SPI (which you saw recently) and RFCs. I am thinking over your suggestions at AN. Thanks again. --Mhhosseintalk12:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, I've always felt it healthy, and representative of the scholarship, that the two sides in the MEK dispute were matched fairly evenly. But lately, I'm seeing a growing imbalance that, frankly, puzzles me... I'm not sure how the pro-MEK side became dominant over the anti-MEK one recently (since it appears to have happened during my absence), but here we are.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C19:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am seeing the trend. This happens when you can use RFCs to reach your goals. Once it is successful, you may try it more, specially when you're told NUMBER can be taken into account. So this does not surprise me. But, when arguments are weighed properly, this unusual trend will certainly stop. Thank you again. --Mhhosseintalk13:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! If you have the time, I was wondering if you could give me some advice regarding a move request for multiple pages that I've made: [160] I'm proposing to move the majority of the historically Armenian populated towns in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh/the breakaway Republic of Artsakh to their most likely common names (their Armenian-language names in the majority of the cases) per WP:COMMONNAME - with the possibility of corrections afterwards in case the Armenian names are not the common names for some localities.
Right now the article names are mostly based on the official names of the towns/villages, apart from larger ones such as Stepanakert, Martakert and Martuni, Nagorno Karabakh - which have had separate move discussions. The official names are often newer Azerbaijani names decided on by the government of Azerbaijan. When needed I've also argued for using ", Nagorno-Karabakh" as a disambiguation tag - as I believe that it's the most suitable per WP:NPOV with regard to the long-disputed nature of the region - similarly to how towns are named for other disputed/autonomous regions on Wikipedia such as Kosovo, Transnistria and Gagauzia.
I've only included three example names in my request, which I have stated explicitly in the text - and I've linked this list of articles in the text: [161] with an explanation, to display the towns I'm proposing to move.
After going through WP:RMCM, I just wanted to make sure - is this ok to do? Or would you say I need to relist/redo the move request in some way? Listing every village (+100) would be very impractical so I assumed that it would be possible to use a couple of the larger settlements in NK as examples.
AntonSamuel, this is a highly controversial subject matter (subject to WP:ARBAA2), so I would advise caution. Maybe note that the three proposed moves are representative of a sample by listing the request at Centralized discussion... Certainly, if you're able to secure consensus for the moves, you can go on to move other pages, though maybe it would be best to undertake this somewhat gradually in batches. But that's getting ahead of ourseleves. First, make sure you have consensus to move those 3 villages before moving on to (the many) others. Hope this helps. El_C19:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AntonSamuel, I reverted your addition to CENT but wanted to give a more thorough reason than would fit in the edit summary. Move requests have their own advertising process, so editors interested specifically in move requests will see and consider your proposal. For that reason, move requests are usually only listed at CENT if they are large (like renaming #### AD titles to #### CE) or unusually controversial. While controversial, this request isn't unusually so, and while it may provide support for or against a larger move proposal, it's only 3 pages at the moment. So it's better to use the typical RM advertisement process and wait until there's a large request or RfC to list at CENT. — Wug·a·po·des22:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wugapodes, there's large for a given topic area (as it is here for ARBAA2) and then there's truly grand, like calendar naming conventions. My problem is that there is no central place to advertise this key ARBAA2 change so as to account for its coverage of many articles. So, what is there to be done? Giving a single (regularly-advertised) RM the weight of 100 RMs doesn't make much sense. Whereas undertaking 100 separate RMs makes even less sense. So, short of CENT, how is such a multi-RM request to be properly advertised? Certainly, I'm open to suggestions. El_C22:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see what you're saying. In my opinion CENT is for things that need all hands on deck. I think the balance is whether someone with no interest in the specific topic would still want to give input. So RMs that are testing a particular interpretation of policy or which may make major news thus reflecting on the project. Editors without subject-area knowledge can still contribute value to those discussions. But if the discussion centers on some piece of subject knowledge, CENT probably won't attract many people (or worse, people who don't understand the question). I'm totally willing to be wrong, but it seemed like this set of RMs really requires an understanding of the culture of the area and the geopolitics of Armenia and Azerbaijan. I think the better option is to post messages at relevant wikiprojects and maybe a village pump. This way it has wide advertisement to people who know and care about the subject. If wikiproject notifications don't work out I'd be happy to add a notice back to CENT, and feel free to ask for more input at WT:CENT since others may feel differently from me. — Wug·a·po·des04:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before doing anything else, I would actually advise that you attempt to list articles that would be affected by the request. El_C18:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now that you've done that, it looks to me like you would be facing a three-pronged challenge. 1. Making a convincing argument for the naming convention change, overall. 2. Eliminate those exceptions that would need to be evaluated on a more case-by-case basis. 3. Ability to avoid the bad optics of having launched such an effort so soon after the recent war. In any case, good luck! El_C22:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back in June you indefinitely blocked an editor from editing the article COVID-19 pandemic in Greece and its talk page. I declined an unblock request shortly afterwards, and then I likewise declined a request for reconsideration on my talk page. Now, 6 months later, I have received another request for unblock on my talk page, and this time I have accepted it. You explicitly said on the editor's talk page that any administrator could unblock without consulting you, but I am letting you know as a courtesy so that if you wish to you can check what has been said. If you don't wish to do so, please ignore this message. If you wish to see it, it's at User talk:Randam#Your recent request for lifting of your partial block. JBW (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For being there when you're needed, for being a superb admin in general, and for making those tough calls (even when they ended up earning you flak). Your work can't be appreciated enough. Thank you for your hard work! LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, LightandDark2000! That is Admin's Barnstar number 11 (yes, I'm still counting!). Anyway, I greatly appreciate your kindness and encouragement. Season's Greetings! El_C22:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EI_C, I might be obsessed by now with new accounts following me, and I believe this is just a coincidence, and I am overreacting. However, please still take a quick look at this edit, when you get a chance [162]. Please see the nature of the edit as well as the "Tag: Reverted" - tagged the same as my last edit to that article [163]. I just want you guys to know that I have nothing to do with that new account. Sarah, please note that as well, thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁23:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella, the reverted tag is automatically attached to an edit that has been reverted. Yesterday, Sarah reverted you, hence the tag got automatically attached to your edit. Whereas Ealdgyth has reverted Freezingwedge, hence the tag/s there. At a glance, nothing about the edits of Freezingwedge stand out (with respect to the topic area and beyond)... On closer look: some similar problems with their editing have been raised elsewhere. El_C23:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and there's really no need to offer a preemptive defense against socking, especially on the part of someone who never socked before. In any case, the edits appear unrelated. El_C23:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:, thank you very much for your work during the tortured Kiev > Kyiv move discussion. I have read the discussion and your decision at [[164]]. As you know, my name came up in that discussion in a favorable light. The decision was dated: 02:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC). The last couple of days, the following has happened on my Talk Page: [165], [166], [167], and [168]. I'm not saying definitively that they are linked to the ban, but the timing is suspect since I haven't edited any controversial linguistic articles for a long time. Thank you again for your willingness to walk on fire to make Wikipedia a better place. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TaivoLinguist. That's kind of you to say. I actually didn't intend on doing that much with that AE complaint that featured Mzajac. I hoped to fire-and-forget my 2 cents, mostly because I didn't really have the time to deal with it. In the end, I had to make time. Anyway, me taking the helm there pretty much happened organically, which wasn't the greatest for me, but oh well, at least that part of it is done now. I suppose we'll see if (prompted or unprompted) the Committee itself decides to further intervene... Anyway, Mzajac says that they may appeal, but I struggle to conceive how an effective appeal can be launched on their part for, well, the foreseeable future. As for that IP, Blocked – for a period of one month. If they return to harass you with a different IP, let me know. It doesn't look like your talk page is visited that frequently by IPs (last one was August), so if you'd want to have it protected for a long time, we can do that. Regards, El_C22:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for blocking that IP. No, I don't get many anon IPs dropping by, so I don't think I need anything more serious. Take care. Have a Happy Holiday season and stay safe. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you must avoid all Kyiv-related discussions. Yes, it would violate the ban. Yes, avoid editing pages like this one in [your] own user space. That is what broadly construed means. That is why I linked to WP:BROADLY on your talk page. Save for an appeal, it is intended as a blanket prohibition. El_C17:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that you count as an "uninvolved" administrator, since you blocked me previously. So perhaps you should move your comment. And maybe change it after reading my statement. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am sure. As WP:UNINVOLVED reads: an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Hope that clears things up. El_C22:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you protect the following article Polish irredentism, according to the 500/30 ArbCom restriction? It was created by what looks like a sock puppet and now what is clearly a sock puppet anon ip account is edit warring over it. The article itself is a borderline hoax as none of the sources actually support any of the text. Someone (the first IP) just wrote a bunch of original research text and tacked on irrelevant citations to make it look legit. Volunteer Marek 19:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, at further glance, perhaps the Greater Poland article and the Greater Poland alternate name noted in the non-redirect version of Polish irredentism are not actually the same thing (?). Well, regardless, better to err on the side of severity as far as the topic area is concerned, overall. El_C21:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah in this context “Greater Poland” means “Older Poland” (it’s kind of a mistranslation) in contrast to Lesser Poland which means “Newer Poland” (though older here means 10th century and newer means 11th century). The irredentism stuff is just a very minor potential sub set of Polish nationalism. Volunteer Marek 21:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello El C, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi El C, there is a IP [170] whose edits are very similiar to that of the user Pashtunfacts (whom you recently banned). Just like, he removes/alters information whilst using dishonest edit summaries (these are just some examples: [171][172][173][174]). He has already been blocked for disruptive editing once, yet he continues. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wellllll... this close was against procedure, and it wasn't really a good edit. And kind of even more so since you're not an administrator (I assume), and non-admins should be careful about closes, and should basically never close a complicated XfD before it's proper time has run. Particulary with, basically, no good or rule-based reason. The things you said are cogent, and fine for a "vote", but not fine for a summary close in violation of normal Wikipedia procedures. I'm sure you see the difference. (Also you're supposed to note non-admin closes as such).
For instance "Not sure why this request sidesteps the rather wide-ranging news coverage..." (I'm sorry you're not sure, it was explained reasonably well I think. It's fine to admit when you're not sure of something, but it's not a reason for ignoring Wikipedia procedures). As to "I do count [the 2018 AfD] as a real AfD, and I find this claim to the contrary to be otherwise without basis" [N.B.: it has basis] I mean, it's good have opinions about stuff, but not so much to used to summarily close against usual procedure (not even considering that a AfD from two years ago that ran for two days doesn't really prevent this AfD). And so forth.
I'm confident you were just having a bad moment, and it's fine. We all do; God knows I do. I'm not mad or wanting to chastise you or anything. I'm sure you're a good editor and I don't want to leave a sour note. Just wanting to be helpful and explain my revert to prevent any misunderstanding. Carry on, colleague! Herostratus (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Herostratus made a mistake in assuming you're not an administrator but I agree with the gist of his post. Your close appears to be a supervote, not a summary of a discussion (which had barely begun). It's also out of process and too early to invoke the snowball clause, and I'm not seeing any justification for invoking IAR. I would politely request that you reopen the AfD and let it run its course, and post your comments as a vote if you feel so inclined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I have no strong feelings about the article but I feel the close was premature and out of process and your rationale was a supervote. It's nearly midnight and I'm on a phone but I will file a DRV tomorrow when I can get to my laptop if it hasn't been done by then. I think it's unfortunate that you haven't heeded the concerns raised by three people (so far) with your actions and have tried to resolve it informally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?23:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell, key words: "at this point." Anyway, my view is that, procedurally, Herostratus should have taken Ritchie333's close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Larson (political candidate) onto DRV rather than having them create a new deletion discussion. A deletion discussion in which they argued that the 2018 close was decided apparently purely on preliminary headcount at the time, or the closer just liked the article, or something. That sounds like a DRV, not an AfD, matter. Sorry if my admittedly somewhat defused closing summary failed to sharpen this maxim. Certainly, if you still find me to be in error, I encourage you to take whatever steps you see fit to remedy that. Happy to continue discussing this informally, too. But, again, at this point in time, I am not prepared to undo my close. El_C23:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, El C. Yes I know how to check rights; I just assumed that you weren't an administrator. Partly because you don't care to say so on your user page for some reason, but mainly for another reason; but it doesn't matter very much to the question at hand anyway. I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that that shutdown was a bad edit. It's not supposed to matter much on article pages, because it can sorted out sooner or later, per WP:BRD. However, procedural pages are sometimes different; if a procedural page is quashed, that cripples the procedure, and that really can't be easily undone. Nobody is going to vote on the matter now, so that even if there was a plethora of Keep "votes" ready to come thru (not super likely, but you never know), they would be silenced. If the page is restored after say a week or so back-and-forth, the page has lost its immediacy, and doesn't show up in the recent AfD list, and so forth. Another AfD could be opened, but then it's all kind of a mess. And it's not necessary, and not even allowed. (WP:SNOW is a bad page, because -- as here -- it's commonly used to valorize supervotes, and we've all seen cases -- not frequent, but sometimes -- of say eight Delete "votes" followed within a few days by 12 Keep "votes" or whatever. See also WP:PI.) Even in meatspace recently we've seen times when early returns don't necessarily decide the issue after all. Not that headcount is the main thing here -- we have a guideline against what is claimed (reasonably if not necessarily correctly) a policy consideration. If you're relying solely on headcounts, particularly early returns, to close XfDs... maybe that's not excellent.
My two cents is that I don't think it's worth you fighting over. I believe that it's a terrible article, it is not an ornament to the project, and it's probably or at least possibly put here to "get" this guy. So the policyWP:IAR is in play, see Wikipedia:The one question for where I'm coming from. I'm not here to abet or even ignore character assassination, so would you please at least let me have my day in court. I'll probably lose anyway (but you never know!) and anyway, for people who like the article, a proper and complete AfD, if it ends with Keep, will better inoculate the article against further AfDs than a rapid shutdown without proper argument, n'est-ce pas? So let's just let it go, please an thank you, and not get into an edit war because then we're going to spend more time on this and it's just not necessary. The wider review, if you want to press the issue, will have to be at WP:ANI rather than WP:DRV I guess, and what a waste that would be. Herostratus (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Herostratus. Listen, you need to stop expunging my close. I am an admin in good standing, that is not an appropriate action for you to engage in at this time. Anyway, I'm not sure why you think a wider review concerning an AfD close belongs on ANI rather than DRV. You don't really elaborate about that. Oh well. Either works for me. As I make clear above, you should have touched base with Ritchie333 and/or taken their close to DRV, seeing again as you contend that he based it apparently purely on preliminary headcount at the time, or the closer just liked the article, or something. That is something which I think is worth responding to, even if only briefly. El_C01:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: El C is a long-term and highly active admin and your insinuations about why you "assumed" he was not an admin presumably roll off his back, but I do not in the least appreciate your assumption of bad faith about the article: "I believe that it's a terrible article, it is not an ornament to the project, and it's probably or at least possibly put here to 'get' this guy", you said. Please re-read the first AfD, where those who participated judged it to be a neutral article on a challenging topic. Whether you like it or not, we need articles on people who are "notorious" as well as on people who are "famous", and we need editors with the gumption to write them. Yes, as I admitted at the AfD you started (in which you ignored nationwide news coverage by reliable sources such as the Washington Post that you had apparently also removed from the article), it is a challenging article to maintain and I have regretted taking this tiger by the tail and in fact walked away after one particular editor insisted on overbalancing it. I regret that. But I have the self-confidence to respond to your aspersions—if you still think they are not aspersions, then please examine the versions of the article that I wrote, and the sources I cited—the next editor who writes on a notable topic that is unpleasant (or that you consider unpleasant), may not have that self-confidence to stand up for their work. I also suggest you do a little "before" and read up for yourself on Larson, or any future topic where your animus leads you to assume GNG is not met but the motivation must rather have been hostility. That way you might instead help balance any unbalanced articles on notable topics that you examine. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yngvadottir:OK. I hear you. Wow, you are right on that point. That was out of line for me to assume bad faith, and dead wrong. It was just an aside not important to the main points, and I certainly shouldn't have said it. I forgot to apply WP:BLP to you so to speak, and that was hurtful, and I'm really am sorry. I don't know you well but I understand that you're an excellent editor, more accomplished than me probably, and an excellent person to boot, and I sincerely thank you for your many contributions. And the article is well put together, really professional level work. It's not "terrible" in that sense. I just meant it shouldn't exist. I didn't need to have said "terrible" I guess, but the Wikipedia can't be a respecter of persons. It's just business. I've had similar said about my articles. It's not fun though. But I know it's hard work shepherding fraught articles, so again sorry for any shade.
And but we do see this sort of thing. This guy is the sort of person that isn't going to be popular here, and you do get a lot of people using the Wikipedia to score points for their side.
I am a bear on WP:BLP. I have been for 15 years since the B____ P______ situation and I'm not going to stop. Maybe that makes me less kind than I should be. I get that most people don't care that much about BLP, want to define it as narrowly as possible, and get around it when possible, and some even think that their moral obligations in the world are somehow superseded when they sit at a keyboard. I don't agree with that, at all. And I'm allowed to present my case, or should be. Maybe some people will be like "hmmm, fair point" or maybe not. Maybe by one editor at a time we can get people to consider this different perspective. But we can't do that if we're, I don't know, not even allowed to speak can we, and that's my beef with El C.
If I deleted your Washington Post ref it's because I deleted the material it supported. You can see what that is in the history. I mean, maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Maybe he'll be found innocent or maybe not. Maybe the charges will be dropped or maybe he'll plea bargain to a lesser offense. A lot of people get arrested who aren't actually guilty. But then it'd be too late wouldn't it. For one thing, our articles get mirrored, a lot. (I understand that the situation doesn't look too good for him right now, but then neither did O. J. Simpson's, and so "nah, c'mon, he's slam-dunk guilty" can't be a thing we do.)
Yes I understand your points on the merits of the article and maybe you're right, it's the merits of the close that I'm concerned with though. Yes I know that we have lots of articles "Joe Shmoe is an American murderer..." and so forth. And that's fine, usually. I wrote George Feigley myself (he's dead though, and don't read the article, it's just gruesome). This article is different. It just is. That's my opinion, and maybe it's wrong but I've explained it at length and I don't accept that my opinion, while possibly wrong, is unfitting of consideration. Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I dunno, Herostratus... You respond at such length above, but you have yet to spare a word that touches on my principal assertion. Which is that you committed the procedural violation of explicitly disregarding the 2018 AfD, not bothering going through WP:CLOSECHALLENGE steps with its closing admin, or failing that, taking the matter to DRV (not AfD). Nor do you seemingly spare a word about how you, the involved editor who filed the request, continued edit warring to expunge my close, even after you learned that I was acting in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. And uninvolved I remain until it is determined otherwise, with this determination following a set procedure. Now, within the confines of this procedure, you're free to make your case to overturn my close, for which you may well end up succeeding. But what you don't get to do is to circumvent the process by unilaterally over-ruling me. So, I admit to being dissapointed that, even now, all of that remains unacknowledged by yourself. El_C06:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well, it's not clear to me what is the deal with the previous AfD in 2018. Suppose I want to nominate an article for deletion. It was nominated, but kept, a couple of years ago. Instead of starting a new nomination, I'd have to instead get a DRV overturn on the previous AfD ? I've never heard of that. If I'm reading you correctly, if an AfD is closed as Keep, and it's a proper close (and can't be overturned), the article could never be nominated again. But I'm certain that that's not practice. The 2018 close was by SNOW, but how does that change anything? I'm willing to be educated on this, I'm just puzzled.
Yeah I get where you're coming from, but what I'm not getting is why. Just in simple English explain to me "I am sticking with the quick shutdown to the last ditch, because it's just imperative that this AfD be closed now now now or else the Wikipedia will be damaged in the following way: ______________". What goes in the blank? Fill in the blank for me and we can take it from there. Can you?
You should basically never use the essay WP:SNOW. I mean the generic "you", but also you in particular, I'd have to say, if this is an example. One reason is a lot of people don't like it, so why force it on them. I mean, look what happened here. Worth it, you think? I don't consider SNOW closes -- at least like this one -- to be legitimate. But you do. So it's contentious, and something to fight over, alienate people over, and spend project time and energy over, and for what? For nothing. So a discussion can be closed early. Which is meaningless at best. Read WP:PI for more.
WP:SNOW is just not a good tool if you don't know how to use it or don't care. If you know how to use it you didn't demonstrate that today. It's alright, nobody's good with every tool; you're probably a whiz at history merges or whatever; but it's important to know not to use (say) the welding torch if you don't know how it's supposed to be used.
But anyway I mean you win. I can't fight an admin, I like it here. Can't go to ANI, since rolling back closes is against some rule I'm sure (and its a good rule too), and that's your home ground anyway. If there's a DRV, you'd have the whip hand because you need a positive decision to overturn and that's hard, and because you're going to get people who are like "Well, I think the article's OK, so I say uphold the close", and because people just trust you I guess (I'm sure they have good reason, but you made a mistake here, is all). You made a mistake, and you boxed me in so there's no remedy, and as a bonus have one pretty pissed off editor here. That's not good staff development for a volunteer organization. Something to think about in the light of day, maybe. 08:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Look, Herostratus, I'm not sure why you're acting so defeated. You may well end up persevering at DRV, even if you don't participate (HJ Mitchell may file one soon, regardless). Then, if overturned, the AfD will be reopened for the full 7 days (unless it SNOWs even before then), after which it will almost certainly be closed as keep. Even minor damage to Wikipedia in either scenario seem unlikely. Do I still think a successful re-opening would be a needless timesink? I do. But that's not the point. Do I also find that your nomination is basically a policy discussion (granted, with Larson at its nexus) masquerading as a specific deletion discussion? I do, as well. But that isn't the point, either.
No, of course, one is free to renominate an article for deletion a few years after it was kept. It would, indeed, be puzzling if that was prohibited, with one needing to go to DRV as a matter of course. My problem is that it was you who chose to question the 2018 AfD close. It was you who chose to advance that it was invalid. I keep quoting you on this for a reason, because when you maintain that the closing admin's decision was based apparently purely on preliminary headcount at the time, or the closer just liked the article, or something, you are effectively arguing that their closure was invalid. It is a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, that while made in passing, does not see the admin facing the challenge even being pinged to the discussion to defend their action (which, hey, it's certainly possible that they could not care less). But also key is to view all of that in concert with you launching such an AfD in the midst of there being an avalanche of publicity about the subject. I mean, as much as I'd like to suspend my disbelief, it confounds common sense. Is that a WP:SUPERVOTE? Jeez, I hope not. But maybe.
Regardless, I still don't understand what you're trying to accomplish with this nomination. Short of it just being some sort of social experiment. I suppose I just don't see the point. It seems like a frivolous exercise. El_C09:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, At this point your choices are suck it up or file a DRV. I'm still away from a proper computer but I intend to do the latter later today. You're welcome to beat me to it but edit warring over the close wasn't appropriate and nor is continuing to badger El C, who has politely (if disappointingly) declined to reverse their decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?10:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, HJ Mitchell, I don't feel like I was being badgered, certainly not in the course of the discussion here — even if it did get a bit longwinded and even though a "mainly for another reason" awkwardness was introduced. I'm all good on that front, though. Still, to me, this AfD honestly also came across as a borderline-POINTy nomination, in need of being speedied. And I think if the DRV were to succeed in overturning my close, it won't benefit the project any. But, again, it isn't going to hurt it much, either. This nomination, my speedy close of it, the discussion of my closure, the forthcoming DRV — I don't envision any of these in having any sort of a lasting impact (not even remotely). Certainly, not a good reason to get upset over (I hope!). Whatever will be, will be. Regardless of the outcome, I'm sure it'll turn out fine in the end. 2020, right? What a ride! Best wishes all. El_C11:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Updating the thread that I overturned myself by closing the DRV early. As mentioned in my closing summary, while it still feels like a mistake, it looks like in this case, a "feeling" just isn't good enough. Anyway, as also mentioned, I will do my best to take the input offered on-board so as to avoid future missteps. Thanks goes to everyone for the abundance of patience and careful consideration. El_C20:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, I regret to say this but I must. In my opinion, your behavior on this matter is way out of line. This person is notable for multiple self-reinforcing reasons and a comprehensive encyclopedia with over six million articles ought to have an article about him. Your indignant insistence that the article must go, no matter what other editors think, is unseemly. Your dogmatic approach is leading you to assume bad faith. Please rethink your approach. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. You are talking about the merits of the article. I'm talking here about merits of the close. Two different things. See the difference? Good grief, I'm not insisting that the article should go regardless of what other people think, what would make you think that? I'm just insisting the matter should be able to be, you know, discussed. See the difference? If the community wants to keep it, then fine. The system worked. Probably would have been kept, but I've got a decent argument and I've seen bigger turnarounds. But now we'll never know will we. Herostratus (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it appears to be snowing. Good faith no doubt, but these misconceptions have caused one pointless time sink (AFD, DRV, BLPN, and now ANI). Perhaps no speedy keep criteria was met, but early close “criteria” certainly were. A moot point now, but still; our tendencies for hearty discussion never fail to waste time. In other news, happy boxing! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on what the operative definition of the "Middle East" is. "Middle East" is a pretty slippery concept. Is Pakistan part of the Middle East or not? I think many people -- perhaps erroneously -- would consider it as such. And then there's the fact the discussion is about a holiday celebrating the birthday of an Islamic leader in an Islamic country. Generally "and" when used in a topic ban does not indicate the intersection of two subjects -- i.e. Islam but only in the Middle East -- but instead is about the union of the two -- i.e. topic banned from Islam and also topic banned from post-1454 CE Middle East -- but I'm not certain which was meant in this case, and whether the topic ban is "broadly construed, as they very often are. Hence my question to ElC and Guerillero.To be clear, if your comment is a violation, I'm not advocating for any action in response except an explanation/warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, no, it is not a violation. Pakistan is in South Asia, not the Middle East. And the word Islam is not mentioned once on the Jinnah's Birthday article (well, aside from Islamabad, but that hardly counts). Even if the sanction was explicitly a broadly construed sanction, which it is not, there's no way it would apply in this case. Incidentally, I have logged the sanction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary earlier today — 2-weeks after the fact, but better late than later, I suppose. El_C21:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I'll not argue the point, except to quote from our article Middle East: "The broader concept of the "Greater Middle East" (aka the Middle East and North Africa or the MENAP) also includes the Maghreb, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, the Comoros, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and sometimes Transcaucasia and Central Asia into the region. The term "Middle East" has led to some confusion over its changing definitions." As I said, a slippery concept which has shifted historically. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just briefly note that the Pakistan country article is what I would consider the authority as to its continental classification. But beyond that, the modern definition of the Middle East does not even include Afghanistan, not to mention Pakistan — as can also be seen in the map attached to the infobox of the Middle East article. This in contradistinction to the more recent concept of the Greater Middle East, which, loosely defined, stretches all the way from Western Sahara in the west to Kazakhstan in the east as well as from Greece in the north to Somalia in the south, somehow.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for bothering you, but I saw that you're the unblocking/converting administrator of this editor. In his request for unblocking, he claims: "I think I am ready to return to editing. I recognize that I have handled disputes poorly and I will endeavour to avoid conflict like that in future." and I think he's far from that. Today I added a better description of a monument [175] (and fixed two small issues), which was dedicated to two things - in honor of the Bulgarian people and in memory of Jews of Thrace, Macedonia, and Pirot. He blindly reverted the two edits ([176]) claiming something, which is far from the truth, and which can be confermed by the photo of the monument. I did a rewording to the text, so the part he wants is included, according to the monument inscription ([177]) and warned him to not start another edit war ([178]). What I got from him in return is a revert of my warning with summary "hypocrisy" ([179]). I don't think that this behavior is collaborative and constructive. Maybe the administrator that declined his last unblocking request was right when he wrote: "You have very clearly established that you are here to right great wrongs and not to collaboratly build an encyclopedia.". Maybe you can review and reconsider your decision to convert the "indefinite block" to "topic ban". Regards. --StanProg (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I'm right in thinking that StanProg disagrees with the original wording because the phrase "Bulgarian Jews" appears. StanProg has made plain that they believe that all the Jews sent to their deaths by Bulgaria were un-Bulgarian (as according to the Law for Protection of the Nation). Reliable sources, however, take a different stance. GPinkerton (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief is wrong. You could have added ", in the Bulgarian Jewish Forest", and that would have been perfectly fine (I shortened it because I added a way more important text and the image description became too long). Instead, you reverted my 2 edits (one of them with small fixes), revered my comment on your talk page claiming that it's "hypocrisy". That's exactly working toward conflict, which conflicts with your promise to do "endeavour to avoid conflict like that in future". --StanProg (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going reinstate the indef over this dispute, StanProg, and I take a dim view of you holding it over GPinkerton's head, especially in a warning that seems aimed at intimidation. I also have no idea what great wrongs you are alleging that GPinkerton was attempting to right here. In any case, the WP:ONUS was on actually you to establish consensus for your changes. That said, GPinkerton, I can confirm that StanProg's addition includes a correct translation of the Hebrew text inscribed on the left side of that monument. They are not embellishing anything. Anyway, I would ask both of you to take greater care with any article that is covered by discretionary sanctions (EE, in this case). The fact that neither one of you made any usage of the article talk page in the course of this dispute reflects poorly on both of you. El_C23:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have overlooked something important when I wrote the above. GPinkerton, your assertion that StanProg has made plain that they believe that all the Jews sent to their deaths by Bulgaria were un-Bulgarian is rather bizarre to me. What do you even mean by that? And where is the diff or collection of diffs that establish the factual varsity of that assertion? You do realize that without an evidentiary basis, that allegation counts as an aspersion, right? Which is a serious problem. Tread lightly, please. El_C00:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, GPinkerton, you need to figure out how to better navigate troubled waters, or you might as well not even dip your toe in controversial topics. You're not gonna get many more chances — quite the opposite, in fact. To that: how do you go from StanProg discussing the finer points of wartime citizenship laws, to somehow contending that they "believe that all the Jews sent to their deaths by Bulgaria were un-Bulgarian"? Un-Bulgarian — really? I'm sorry, but that poor choice of words is not a good look. El_C01:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I would suggest a scheme of mentoring, where GPinkerton would submit drafts of potential edits, with suggested edit summaries, to an established volunteer who has a good sense of the 'tone' of the community. This would have to be acceptable to GP and previous admins involved in various issue areas that have become apparent. This would be for a limited period of maybe 1-3 months at most. Simon Adler (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, this edit removed mention of "Bulgarian Jews". I reverted this undiscussed change to the long-standing formula, and I am accused of edit-warring and the user complains, neither to me, nor on the talk page. I sorry for this understanding, I wasn't aware it possible to interpret "they were not Bulgarian citizens and Bulgaria had no authority over them, they were German subjects, unlike the Bulgarian Jews who were saved" as meaning something other than "they were not Bulgarian". this edit says much the same thing. Apparently I'm wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... Are you not getting that calling it un-nationality is not the as same as calling it non-nationality, like in the HUAC sense? Hmm. El_C02:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, in the context of the Law for Protection of the Nation, the meaning is the same. According to that legislation, Jews were ineligible for Bulgarian citizenship "for the protection of the nation" and were thereby made stateless in Bulgarian-annexed parts of Greece and Yugoslavia (particularly what is now North Macedonia). The Law was drafted by Alexander Belev, who was sent to Germany to study the Nuremberg Laws. I apologize if that wasn't clear. GPinkerton (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Mentorship is not a sanction GPinkerton, it is a mechanism for improving standing and good faith in the eyes of other volunteers. You have an issue with the tone of some of your comments. Not necessarily the substance of your points. It is a question of tone, which mentorship may assist in helping to address. Misunderstandings, of which a classic example is above, can be damaging. Simon Adler (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It would appear your present usage of edit summaries is the most problematic at this time (and figured in your previous travails) GPinkerton. In this light, how would you now word that edit summary GP? Just a little thought experiment. Would you accept mentoring? Regards Simon Adler (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c):::::::GPinkerton, I apologise that I mistook your sentence "StanProg has made plain that they believe that all the Jews sent to their deaths by Bulgaria were un-Bulgarian (as according to the Law for Protection of the Nation)" as an edit summary. But how would you reword it, as it appears to sound problematic to other readers. Simon Adler (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honetsly, GPinkerton, I simply am not that inclined to get into the content weeds of it all at this time. Myself grasping in detail this dispute you two are having over interpretations of citizenship laws for Jews in wartime Bulgaria just doesn't seem that germane to my role here. Which is to instruct both of you to avail yourself of dispute resolution whenever conflict flares (obvious failure on that front). Also, I don't understand why you say that StanProg's edit removed mention of "Bulgarian Jews"? Because, no it didn't. Again, the image of that monument displays several inscriptions: three in English, one in Hebrew, and one in what I presume is Bulgarian. By all means, both of you should feel free to explore how to best summarize these for the caption (or to argue against doing that, whatever), but the expectation is that you do so without edit warring. El_C03:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I'm sorry I should have worded it better. StanProg's edit removed the description of the exterminated Jews as "Bulgarian Jews" and replaced them with "the Jews of Thrace, Macedonia, and Pirot". I want to avoid the suggestion that only the Jews that survived the Holocaust were Bulgarian, an ideology which has the unique distinction of having been dogma for both the People's Republic of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Separating the subjects of the Holocaust in Bulgaria into "Bulgarian Jews" (survived, though subjected to confiscation, deportation, and forced labour) and "non-Bulgarian citizens" of the Bulgarian-occupied irredenta in Greece and Yugoslavia (exterminated to make way for ethnic Bulgarian settlers) is a key component in the long-standing mythology of the "Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews" and any suggestion of falling into this habit ought to be avoided in Wikivoice. GPinkerton (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, GPinkerton using single quotation marks, i.e 'un-Bulgarian'. It read like you were using the term in your own words, instead of using the quotation marks as in the context of the Law for Protection of the Nation which would have distanced you from ownership of the term un-Bulgarian. I hope that clarifies. Simon Adler (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also was like... General Practitioner — what? Okay, GPinkerton, looks like I misread the Dec 23 revert as related. But the fact is that both of you reverted, resulting in one escalation after another. Not long ago you were indefinitely blocked, and you may well have remained so had it not been for me. So, I have to tell you that I find it disappointing to see you reverting pretty much any contentious page in such a way, even once. Bringing your objection to the article talk page before reverting would have been the prudent thing to do. You do understand that, in an informal sense, you're in a probationary period, right? The shadow of that indef still looms large. Now, you may think and say that you have been vindicated (somehow), but to my knowledge, that isn't something you have been able to prove to anyone. So, I just don't understand why you would be so reckless with an undiscussed revert, in the first place. Yes, even though ONUS is on your side. About the content: briefly, I agree that establishing what's what when it comes to the Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews is an important facet of Holocaust historiography. As always, being undogmatic is key. The best sources should prevail. El_C04:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, indeed. I have mostly rewritten the article (and much expanded it) based on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, vol. 3: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany and the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence. Talk:The_Holocaust_in_Bulgaria#NPOV this bad tempered discussion from that time focusses on papers produced by a certain right-wing "discussion forum" on the forced labour of the Jews in Bulgaria at the National Academy of Sciences, which alleged the whole exercise was an elaborate ploy to shield them from the Nazis (!), followed by the consequent outrage of Bulgaria's and the world's Jewish organizations condemning the revisionism. GPinkerton (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk
Hey, I don't know what happened but somehow I replaced an entire section. You were the only person who replied in the meanwhile, you may want to insert your edit back. I'm sorry that happened! --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting! It shows how perilous the road to identify what is or isn't authentic can be. A sign of the times...? El_C23:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are now at Magnificat in A minor, or: much ado about nothing. Next is that someone will come and say that there's no other Magnificat in A minor. Also, the discussion about German grammar is hilarious ;) - why always the same editor B? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reached the end of my ability to explain, so would be interested if you would understand (that Kleine Magnificat cannot stand by itself, only with an article that established the gender "neutral", - in this case "das kleine Magnificat", - otherwise it's feminine). I probably don't know the proper grammar terms.). Unwatching for today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Me? Sorry, I don't really understand any of it. Not the language, not the topic. None of it. I thought initially that maybe he is following you around, but on closer look, editing this area of interest just seems to be what he always does on the project. I'm happy to help if I can, but I wouldn't know how to do so at this time. El_C17:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not the question, I wanted to know if you understand the problem (that by a faulty translation of a journal title, wrong grammar crept into naming a piece). I may be back tomorrow, - pleasantly busy now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On 13 December, I heard a charming piece of music, and decided: an article about that would be a good start into 2021, Magnificat being one of the key texts for my biography (Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a and several others), and fitting on a Marian feast which 1 January is. All went well, only I had too little time to expand the article properly, due - pleasantly - to company and the holidays. A day later, the article was moved, without discussion, to what had been a red link to the same piece, Meine Seele erhebt den Herren (Hoffmann), and the former title was made a disambiguation of two compositions by the composer which could be named Magnificat. This left all former links - including DYK discussions and archive broken which annoyed me greatly.
I still believe that the title I gave the article, Magnificat (Hoffmann), was good. After discussions which didn't increase happiness, the article was moved again, to the official title used NOW by reliable sources, Magnificat in A minor (Hoffmann), which is fine by me, and if it been moved to there, leaving a redirect to it, all would have been fine even with an undiscussed move.
We now have two problems left:
The redirect Magnificat (Hoffmann) doesn't go to Magnificat in A minor (Hoffmann), but a general disambiguation for the German Magnificat, only to distinguish two compositions by Hoffmann which could be handled by a hatnote, and one isn't even well-known as Magnificat afaik, but commonly referred to as Meine Seele rühmt und preist, BWV 189. Both compositions were believed to be works by Bach.
The redirect Kleine Magnificat is a violation of German grammar, while Kleines Magnificat is correct. It should not be mentioned in the article, imho, because it hurts every reader who knows the language.
Short explanation: German has three articles, lets call them genders: der die das, for m(asculine), f(eminine), and n(eutral), der Mann (the man), die Frau (the woman), das Kind (the child). If we add the adjective "klein" to them, we arrive at "der kleine Mann, die kleine Frau, das kleine Kind". BUT: in a title, we would combine article and adjective, but (!) leaving an indication of the gender by changing the adjective: kleiner Mann, kleine Frau, kleines Kind. Magnificat is n, like Kind, so Kleines Magnificat. Kleine Magnificat makes it f, wrong gender. Whenever there's an article, however, as in the journal article header that editor B cites again and again, "kleine" is of course correct, but not as a title, without. Confusing enough?)
The move could have been discussed, and grammar knowledge by a native speaker could have be accepted, - that's not OR. To read in the current lead that it is known as "incorrect name", and also as "correct name" hurts. It's not known at all, but a hidden gem ;) - a good start into 2021. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever there's an article, however, as in the journal article header that editor B cites again and again, "kleine" is of course correct, but not as a title, without.Of course! I mean, what? Suffice to say that the article on Holomorphic function, for example, made more sense to me than your explanation — so I suppose that in itself is a feat. In any case, congrats on becoming a master confusionist! El_C14:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, better don't try to learn German then ;) - A frequent term in German theatres is Kleines Haus (small hall), vs. Großes Haus (large hall). It's short for "Das kleine Haus". You might want to say "We saw Otello in the Kleinen Haus", or "I like to go to the Kleine Haus", but you should NOT derive from such a sentence that the name was Kleinen Haus or Kleine Haus, - it's still Kleines Haus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bitter-sweet, for sure. Definitely, my honour and privilege to have contributed, even if only slightly. Thanks for thinking of me! El_C21:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have become sectionally unfocused, Gerda (which is totally on me). Anyway, yes, hopefully they have returned to contribute. If it is who I think it is, at least... El_C22:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The old songs "not true" (I said "I don't find it" which is true, and not the same as it's not there) and "rude": I only went by the edit summaries which stated that it was like that in the FA version and thus has to be kept ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I came to remove that complaining comment, as kinder, but now you responded ;) - I didn't want to place this where heartbreak was at stake, although it is. You may remember that this was the article over which Dreadstar retired, and died (and I mourned, and was told in response to my heartbreak that he deserved being desysopped). - Yesterday - I thought you had read the discussion - one of the team accused me of having said something untrue, but it wasn't, and the other said it was "kind of rude" of me to imply what he was thinking, when all I did was going by the edit summaries, which insisted that a good reason for the marriages in the lead was that they were there when the article became FA. I'll stick to my 2 comments per discussion, but can't help finding it strange that the summary of the life of a great actor ends on a list of wives' names and marriage durations, supposed to be a summary of his "private life" (friends? travels? hobbies? no?) and smile when I see this "They married ..." right next to a pic showing him with Joan, but it's the other meant in the "They", - you are forced to read sentence by sentence, - clever! I wonder what to do? Mark the IP(s) by HNY to know better what to avoid next time? ... something with more humour? - ... nothing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I intended to follow up, but looks like I forgot. Just been stretched a bit thin lately with the limited time that I have available. As always, my knowledge of GA/FA rivals that of, say, Locally convex topological vector space — which is to say, slim to known.¯\_(ツ)_/¯El_C11:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You will understand a pic, though? Look. I searched for the marriage of LO to Vivien Leigh, and saw this nice pic of Joan Plowright and next to it "They were married ..." - now should I be accused of not finding it and having said something "untrue", or might these FA writers have repeated the name Leigh - which appears in the article 50 times - in the sentence about the marriage?? - Anyway, to place a pic of the third wife with the text about the second marriage made me smile. (The "untrue" didn't.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that both of you are making conflicting claims about the status and tenure of different revisions, but I'm unable to immediately corroborate much of anything at this point, not even to the point of getting a sense of who is actually on the right side of WP:ONUS. Still, him removing tens of thousands of bytes strikes me as a bit odd, mostly because I'm unable to tell the actual origin of all that material that he removed. I'll drop him a note to slow down. El_C01:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment on talk page there. Yes, I restored an older "stable version" (though I still don't think there is anything special about "stable versions") but then I restored most of the subsequent edits which I could verify. Not all. I kept some stuff out and explained why. Volunteer Marek 02:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, sure...? Still no idea what's going on. My view, though, is that a stable version can be seen as special whenever it provides refuge from an edit war. But, sure, aside from that, there's nothing inherently special about the quality of the given material therein, quality which often varies highly. As always, being undogmatic is key. Anyway, I hope you're both able to find enough common ground and go from there. El_C03:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest. I'm afraid I might not have made myself quite clear - I wasn't not looking for consensus on the action itself, I was just looking for anyone neutral and experience to tell me if they see any red flags in me going ahead to apply discretionary sanctions. The editor and admin numbers who are in the know about this topic area is notoriously small on the English Wikipedia, and there's always some possibility of overlap with people who are active like myself, perhaps not this year but generally speaking over the last 20 or so years. This is a common fallacy, actually - these sanctions wouldn't be called discretionary if we needed other people's approval before we applied them in clear-cut cases. And with all the experience I have under my belt dealing with abuse in this topic area, I think it'd be disingenuous of me to say I don't recognize a clear-cut case when I see it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the rest of my notification backlog and noticed that you closed that discussion, that in the meantime grew into another flamewar. I suppose it's good that you closed it, because it stopped being constructive. I found one comment there that relates to my query:
“
The other examples of Sadko's supposed tendentious behaviour provided by Joy are also giant nothing burgers. For example, the Yugoslav Partisans dispute. The onus is on Joy to explain why Sadko's support for adding the (reliably sourced) ethnic makeup of the Partisan movement to that article's lead section is a blockable or TBAN offence. Joy has previously mused about topic banning or blocking other users simply because they had the audacity to take the opposite view in a deletion discussion. [192] Well guess what. The Balkans are a contentious area. There are going to be vehement disputes and engaging in them without violating wiki policy isn't grounds for a TBAN or permanent block. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
”
On the matter of whether they're 'giant nothing burgers', we will agree to disagree. On the matter of the YP dispute, that incident of misinterpreting WP:V was not an offence in itself (although inability to work with core principles of Wikipedia isn't exactly great either), but it seems to provide context for his later offence of treating other people like shit at Narentines and Talk:Narentines. On the matter of that deletion discussion, oh my goodness, yes, I actually had forgotten that bit of abuse, and that further reinforces my stance that Sadko is WP:NOTHERE. (I am entirely unsurprised how that dumpster fire of an article was not actually resurrected in the last half a year, despite the claims of the proponents that surely it can be salvaged. It is so much easier to write a tendentious pamphlet on that topic than a proper Wikipedia article.)
Hi, Joy. Well, in so far as your 2012 edits to the article rendering you permanently INVOLVED for that page — on the face of it, I would say no. But also taking into account your recent comment on the talk page, that makes me less sure. At the very least, the optics probably would not be great. But if there is clear WP:FRINGE violations... maybe? Again, I'm not sure. Like many contentious disputes I am asked to look into, I don't really have a firm grasp as to what's going on (see the section directly above as an example of that), at least in so far as being able to corroborate conflicting claims. Still, a crucial concern I have is whether the uninvolved admin in question is engaging the given dispute even-handedly. And to be blunt, it does look like you have failed on that front —the deescalation front, that is— at least by omission.
To that: the conversation (such as it is) begins with Miki Filigranski (no pings, I don't want a spillover of that dispute onto here) tersely writing to Sadko about their recent disruptive reverts and pinging them directly with the question: what's the issue besides biased personal viewpoint?. So, off to a bad start. Escalation soon follows, with Sadko responding Try again; learn how to talk to people, I believe that you are 18+ and that you know how to do so. This is no way to start any discussion. Notions of "biased pesonal viewpoints" are just laughable and it shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Fire, check. Gasoline, check. The next (third) comment is yours, but again it does nothing to really deescalate this dumpster fire. And boy does it ever escalate. Miki Filigranski sticks to their personal viewpoint guns, Sadko goes nuclear with an almost-unbelievable your hate speech, which, in my view, is in and of itself, blockable. But also, Miki Filigranski having started out and continued the conversation as aggressively as they did, with their history, that is probably topic ban worthy.
Anyway, myself, I've dealt with this topic area probably more than most (as can be seen in the 2019 and 2020 sections of the log), but not in a while. So much so that Miki Filigranski and Mikola22 sorta got blended into the same person in my head just now.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ To reiterate: an uninvolved admin being firm as well as being even-handed is key. Immediately, more so with respect to the behaviour of participants. Figuring out whether this or that given content is fringe in nature can come after. And this is where correctly utilizing AE resources (with WP:AE being chief among them) may also come into play. So, as to the question of whether an AE report concerning this particular dispute would be worth submitting — my sense is that it would. Because what I am seeing here is highly problematic. It really does look like any semblance of order and civility has pretty much gone out the window. Ending up with sanctions being imposed upon several participants is likely to be the logical conclusion to this entire mess.
To sum up: I advise against you applying any discretionary sanctions unilaterally. Rather, I would strongly suggest that a report be submitted to the AE noticeboard. This way, a quorum of uninvolved admins will be the ones tasked with figuring out what's what. Good luck! El_C18:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's just unacceptable. I guess we differ in the idea of whether this can be de-escalated. How do you de-escalate a situation where an editor who's been with us for 10 years sees an article with 62 references but then proceeds to add a claim in the lead section that they themselves know to be controversial, based on a reference to a work that is literally 1000 years old, and then proceeds to have a revert war over that? What can we now teach this kind of an editor about WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:CIV and WP:ARBMAC that they couldn't have learned over the last decade? If we as admins see this blatant disregard for these policies and tolerate it, and instead focus on trying to somehow rehabilitate egregiously misbehaving editors, doesn't that send a message to all other editors that they are free to recklessly violate policies, as all these rules of this place are not actually enforced? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, de-escalation should begin by ensuring that any personal animosity between participants is kept to a minimum, then going on to deal with any fringe issues by making use of available AE resources. Which no one has done here, so the lack of immediate enforcement isn't really that surprising. There needs to be a summary, there needs to be diff evidence, there needs to be a coherent report. Otherwise, how are admins expected to make sense of any of it? El_C22:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example from yesterday where I attempted to deescalate from having even mild animosity coming to the fore: diff. And, not to boast, but it looks like it worked: diff. El_C22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably clarify that I didn't go into that harsh reaction with a preconception that the user was here for 10 years; I vaguely recognized the name so I assumed at least some tenure, but the exact number I looked up only today. I suppose it's possible to try to intervene in less harsh terms first, but this edit war really rubbed me the wrong way. It started with this edit, where the editor in question wrote an edit summary that sounded immediately irritated, like they were undoing an earlier edit. I thought the recent 5k changes made by the other involved editor, who challenged that, had included that change, and it was a typical case of one-upmanship I've observed elsewhere before, something of a WP:OWN violation. I've come to see this as a clear sign that nothing else than a strict reaction would be fruitful.
But now that I typed this here, I went to verify my interpretation of events again, just in case I got something wrong, and found that that edit was not actually undoing anything recent. Trawling a bit through history, I found that the earlier edit they were reacting to had to have been this one from July, or a number of instances of the same from August 2018 or January 2018 or 2016, ... it probably goes even further back but I got tired of searching. I'm not saying it was Sadko who had prompted those edits, but they certainly latched on to the issue that's been simmering for quite a while. While looking at those, I also observed an amusing 'discussion' at Talk:Narentines/Archive 2#Consensus where a bunch of long-time abusers 'voted' on changing that (to be fair, not all of the people listed there were abusers, but it certainly grates me to see just how many of them are now permanently blocked).
And yet the even weirder thing I noticed is that, between July and now, Sadko had made an unrelated edit elsewhere in the same article, and in turn got into an edit war with some obnoxious Croatian anonymous editor over that. This is all just completely silly, and only reinforces my instinct that there's a very negative pattern of behavior here, where they're apparently not actually looking at this article in a constructive, holistic manner, rather they're just carving out these little battlefields inside it. It's almost like a poster child for WP:BATTLE.
So anyway, a lot of this behavior has been tolerated by admins for years now (myself included!), and yet we're still having to rehash these arguments. That's basically why I've grown less tolerant of these kinds of behaviors. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, El C hope you're well. I fully agree with the procedure which you've described. @Joy: Miki Filigranski has been blocked as a likely sock of User:Crovata based on behavioral evidence, but the issues are what they are and the community has to deal with them on a daily basis. Peacemaker67 faced another similar problem in very clean manner: he filed an AE report and it was discussed in a very organized manner with diffs and arguments. A community discussion is the only way to deal with these problems as it allows input from other admins/editors and it also allows the other editor to defend themselves.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's been tolerated because no one is really able to follow any of it. So, unless one is able to demonstrate unambiguously that an edit or a series of edits are fringe, all that is left for an admin to immediately discern is behaviour, per se. Now, I'm probably on the rare side of admins in that I, myself, have actually imposed AE sanctions on almost every editor involved with the latest. I have sanctioned Sadko, I have sanctioned Miki Filigranski and I have sanctioned Mikola22. And, sure, the burden of evidence for renewing (probably alongside an escalation in) sanctions, ideally should be less than before. Yet, as this case perhaps perfectly illustrates (with me), it doesn't always work that way. Because with me at least, I think part of the problem is that, unless these past sanctions are still somewhat recent, I just tend to not really remember a lot of it. It's doubtful I'm the only admin experiencing this.
In any case, there has to be this aforementioned bare minimum which, again, consists of concise summaries and diff evidence, that therefore would make for an overall coherent report. Otherwise, not much is likely to happen, and so all you're gonna get from "growing less tolerant" of these problems, is in turn, feeling extra-dissapointed when they don't get resolved with ease. But these problems very rarely get resolved with ease, that is the point. If you want the path of least resistance, you need those evidentiary prerequisites submitted to the right forum in a timely manner. No one is denying that it is, at times, a deeply imperfect system, but the reality is that this is its current nature, this is the form it now assumes. One should fight to improve it, sure, but at the same time, it's important to remain grounded in the present reality. To be realistic about reaching resolution, despite and with the awareness of these constraints. El_C01:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's the part I don't get. We tell everyone that admins have discretionary sanctions at their disposal, but then keep talking about making reports and evidentiary prerequisites. That's explicitly NOT how the sanctions are defined! The evidence is already there; compiling it in a form where it's even more blatantly obvious is not actually necessary. Only if there's some ambiguity, should there be a consensus-building effort at AE. I am aware of my own editing way back, and that creates some uncertainty, but if every random lack of information is inherently treated as ambiguity that is critical to the process, we effectively handcuff ourselves. Which effectively makes abusive behavior run rampant, and makes normal editors like Amanuensis say things like "There are going to be vehement disputes" - no, if we enforced rules of decorum, the disputes would not be half as vehement. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be rather nice to simply ask me what is my thinking/perception or anything similar to that, rather than discussing my ban/implementation of some sanctions/ without even attempting to communicate/reach out, while, at the same time, jumping to conclusion based on personal bad experiences from the past. I am a a man of dialogue and I have engaged heavily on the TP whenever there was any sort of dispute. cheers and a Happy New year to you all. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)01:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should count yourself lucky for not being currently blocked for that "hate speech" comment. I would dial down on the grandstanding if I were you. El_C01:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first remark was a bit much and I removed it, I take your point about that. The second one was a response to a recently banned sock who dismissed editors based on their alleged ethnicity, called them propagandists and liars, laughable, posting "bullshit comments", claiming that people are "out of touch from reality", stating that they should find another project to work on etc. [182][183][184][185][186] If calling out hate speech (in attempt) which is coming from an editor who claimed that other people are biased and should be ignored because of their alleged ethnicity is not okay, then I really do not know what to do, ignore it? I do not think that my behaviour is a textbook example, but I do not and can't tolerate discrimination of other people and their opinion based on their ethnic heritage, and that goes for this project, my work or any other aspect of RL or VL. Anyhow, I'll take your advice, I'll dial down and reflect. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)04:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I can't really seem to follow much of it. I realize there are two sides here (as in legit-ish sides in a longstanding regional dispute), but the problem arises when either side claim certain members of the other are bonkers. Here we have admin Joy asking what I think about them imposing discretionary sanctions on Sadko for promoting fringe content. To quote them: do you see any reason for me not to apply discretionary sanctions? To which I basically answered with: no, don't do it. Granted, I know Sadko to be rough around the AE edges (I know), but to have this admin (whom, full disclosure, I just met yesterday for the first time) claim that they are, in fact, NOTHERE because... they say that this tribe is actually Serbian or South Slavic or neither or both? How bizarre. Who can follow any of this? Then to have someone like Miki Filigranski, whom I've known for years, get indeffed for socking today. Too much. El_C05:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, yes, I know Serbs are South Slavic — I said that, in part, for dramatic effect. The point I'm haplessly trying to articulate is that it never really ceases to amaze me how some people get so swept with, say, a dispute over the origin or composition of this or that tribe, that they expect outsiders to, somehow, magically gain the knowledge they have so as to provide an informed opinion. But, no, it doesn't work like that. Not on Wikipedia, not anywhere. Going through RfCs, going through RSN, filing AE reports when needed. Being concise. Compiling an intelligible evidentiary basis. What else is there to do? True, all those things are a grind, but anything less is just tilting at windmills (I write, while tilting at windmills!). El_C06:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this is how this should work. If the other editor who engaged in the edit war was blocked for violating some other policy, using some other procedure, that's wonderful, because it relieved the burden on us to process them on these kinds of behavioral grounds. But at the same time, that doesn't imply we should stop processing bad behavior. The more we let these bizarre little battles continue, the harder to follow the matter will become. Even if you as the admin don't know the details of a feud, you need to feel free to moderate the toxic behavior that comes with it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be blunt, that's not actually what you did. You focused on aggression by one party (Sadko) but seem to have given the aggression by the other party (Miki) a pass. That's why in my first response to you in this thread, I told you that I thought you failed in being even-handed. Anyway, over the last few years, I might be the admin who has been most active on the discretionary sanctions front (as can be seen when glancing at the log) — and I don't think I've ever had to submit an AE report, for anything whatsoever. Myself, I'm usually reasonably confident with the lack of ambiguity when it comes to my use of DS.
To that: far above, you take issue with needing to go to AE at this point, but it strikes me that you fail to realize that it was you, in fact, who has brought about that as being pretty much a prerequisite for further action here. Whatever ambiguity is present in my mind right now so as to prefer doing that, is because you didn't actually act. Instead, you went to ANI and pinged a bunch of admins to a summary which was totally devoid of a even a single diff. An ANI discussion which soon thereafter spiraled into such a trainwreck, I had to summarily close it.
I'm sorry to say, but that doesn't really inspire much confidence. Had you, instead, simply and confidently applied discretionary sanctions (on whomever), then that would be a done deal. Then the sanctioned party or parties could choose to appeal that: to the community at AN/ANI, to a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE, or to the Committee directly at ARCA. And that would be that. But, again, because you didn't do that, that is why we are where we are. You made your case to me here, which didn't make enough sense to me so as to recommend that you act unilaterally — maybe it'd make more sense in the form of a coherent report submitted to a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE, is all I'm saying. Who knows.
In any case, and I told that recently to another editor concerning a different DS topic area, I think you (and others in the dispute) are simply overestimating the volunteer resources that are available on the project. Which is why, absent the confidence to act single-handedly, failure to make optimal use of the (AE, etc.) procedures already in place, is likely to lead to a dead-end, at least in the immediate sense. El_C18:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, I ignored the combative response of this Miki fellow because I observed that they had added a bunch of referenced material in the article, that hadn't been challenged, and only then engaged in a flamewar with someone who had added apparent flamebait in the lead. I'm not sure how you judge editorial contribution, but I default to preferring to listen to folks who try. Heck, for years I listened to Antidiskriminator, because he at least made some sort of a contribution that had a semblance of positive impact... trivial nationalist button pushing is not that.
Yes, I pinged people who I remember having helped in the past, because I was uncertain whether to act or not. I'm not sure why you're implying that this in itself was somehow improper. Are we as admins not ever supposed to confer with one another on matters relevant to our work? I'm pretty sure other editors would be way more concerned about the correctness of our actions if we never discussed our rationales... But at the same time I don't think that the only choices are doing nothing and going to AE. There needs to be sensible middle ground.
I'm not so sure it would be a done deal... I'm pretty sure there would be cries of WP:INVOLVED if I went ahead with no questions asked. I'm not saying they would be legit, but they'd be there, and it might make me seem reckless.
I suppose we have a different definition of the term "optimal" :) Thank you for your time in any event. I'll wait a bit more until I hear from those folks I pinged if there are any second opinions, and if not, try to find some time to go about the more bureaucratic route.
I'm pretty sure that Miki isn't a fellow, but is a woman. Also, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take preferring to listen to folks who try, nor do I know who Antidiskriminator is. But I don't think it really matters, either way. So, regardless, if you think a diff-less ANI post is the best way to engage AE disputes, by all means, try it again — I won't touch it next time. But my prediction is that it is almost certain to end up badly. I already noted that the AE noticeboard is better because it is more orderly; because there's a word limit; and because there's an expectation that evidence be submitted in the form of diffs. Not to be unduly harsh, but I don't think it's to your credit that you keep sidestepping a response to that assertion. Oh well, I tried. El_C22:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just said fellow because "Miki Filigranski" sounds masculine in Croatian (the word would end with the letter a if it was feminine). Antidiskriminator is a person who spent many many years adding badly researched material in support of various nationalist talking points in the ARBMAC topic area, before they were finally indefinitely topic banned. I used to criticize their edits a lot because I saw a pattern of not understanding WP:V, but they didn't just plain edit-war over relative trivialities, so I used to have a sense that they at least tried, that they made an effort. With regard to AE, like I said before, I will indeed proceed to do that if I don't hear back from anyone else. I'm giving people a bit more time simply because it's the holiday season. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I seem to remember her telling me (I think in passing) that she is a woman. Plus, in her appeal (which incidentally, I declined) she talks about how she has "a husband who is a historian, a speaker of Serbo-Croatian language, and children," and so on. In any case, not important. Anyway, good luck in being able to gain some positive traction in the topic area, however that comes about. I am rooting for you. Thanks for following up. Best, El_C17:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, probably...? I really have zero experience with that page. I see that it is on my watchlist, but frankly, I have forgotten it even existed. El_C18:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this IP is re-adding WP:PRIMARY and POV sources in articles which I removed. They are also making extremely inappropriate remarks such as "butthurt albanians" here [187][188] and also on my personal talk page [189]. Can something be done about it? Ahmet Q. (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, and all the best in the new year. I have a problem with two editors which working together and support fringe information in Višeslav of Serbia article. Fringe theory ie information is confirmed on RSN [190], everything is explane on talk page[191] and in edit summary [192]. Since this is the first time I have faced this kind of edit, of some editor (which does not respect decisions of RSN ie that some information is fringe) what can be done in this case? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please if you are going to report me I will do the same to you because you are misusing WP:OR over Serbian related articles and deleting everything you don't like. The problem is that user Mikola22 posted the question on Wikipedia fringe theories but he is now trying to remove another information which is confirmed in early medieval Balkan by Fine and Novakovic, in Fine you can see these informations on pg 159. 202 and 225. Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure in what sense a "decision" has been made at RSN, but in any case, this is not an area with which I am familiar. El_C14:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. "Decision", I meant to say neutral opinion on FTN. I think this is and final opinion because DAI does not state that Serbs coming to Duklja nor does sources say that. Anyway, I didn't ask for your engagement because I guess you don't know what it's about, but I ask for your opinion on what to do as editor if fringe information is promoted. I proved that it is a fringe information. If two editors want to keep this information in the article I don't mind, it is essential that I have worked in good faith to improve the accuracy of the article. If they want fringe information in the article they will have it, I move on. I'm just interested in what to do in such cases. Mikola22 (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but how can it be fringe information if it is in reliable source from one of the most respected historians John Antwerp Fine (book Early medieval Balkan) if you think that some information is fringe you should first seek it in other sources. Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Theonewithreason:"According to the DAI..the other Serb-inhabited lands that were mentioned include Duklja." Cite this source and page where it says that or some other source(According to the DAI...) and page which say that. Therefore this information does not exist and it is fringe information. It is important that I as the editor, pointed out that fringe information exist and goodbye, I'm going edit other articles. Mikola22 (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EL_C It seems there is a miscommunication here, I am pointing one thing and the User other, anyway sorry for disturbing your talk page even though you are quite familiar with Balkan editors as I can see. I was not aware of of problems you had this past days.Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, again, I have no opinion due to having pretty much zero familiarity with the subject. And I'd appreciate if the content dispute was to not spill over onto my talk page — I doubt it would help much discussing it here, anyway. El_C16:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theonewithreason: No, you didn't know about the "Balkan editors" problem and every day you are behind me and the editor Sadko. Therefore information about Serb which settled Duklja acording to DAI do not exist and the proof is your answer in which you did not exposed quote. This is called on Wikipedia's original research and fringe information. El_C if you can direct me to someone who would know the answer to my question I would be grateful if you don't know I understand. Cherrs and this is my last answer in this thread. Mikola22 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, Mikola22 by strange coincidence I have some knowledge in this area and have responded there. Copies of the De administrando imperio and the commentary live on my desk. I can confirm that most of the points raised by Mikola (and by the now-blocked editor on the talk page) are substantially correct. GPinkerton (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I really don't know what to do with this editor that (see previous ANI report that you closed). They are back again trying to impose the Moroccan claim to Western Sahara by introducing a map that clearly violates the NPOV policy. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw it. I unblocked conditional on the user's promise to cease from engaging the topic area (along with any other disruption whatsoever). While I believe a global lock is pretty much an inevitability, I'd rather stay out of anything cross-wiki, if possible. El_C17:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the akkawi page is locked and that it contains information that may be interpreted as controversial. Multiple contributors have commented on the talk page about possible bias or incorrect information. Can we observe the page and try to better word the statements mentioned on that page? Reinhearted (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No apology needed, Val. I didn't feel like our discussion got personal at any point. It seemed entirely dispassionate, and remaining friendly even when we didn't see eye to eye. Many thanks for your kind words. Please know that I hold you in utmost regard. All the best, El_C23:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GPinkerton has once again for the fourth? time now violated her topic ban by opening an arb case about the Middle East: [193]
She never received one single block for her previews violations. It is time for a lengthy block and her topic ban from the Middle East should be greatly extended. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at this user --> Emblemmor? They keep removing sourced information about Kurds on various articles and then have the audacity to call me the vandal? Thanks --Semsûrî (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're been violating wikipedia rules it's vandalism. Stop adding Kurdish in Lorestan province. this province has no Kurdish speaker, it's Luri and Laki.
Emblemmor (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi El C, thanks for your earlier comment. It has certainly been an unbelievable day in US politics. I started today with a few enjoyable edits here, and figured the political world was going to get much simpler from now. Sadly not. I still cannot believe someone died in the Capitol.
Anyway, you asked what happened to change the dynamic. I clearly struck a nerve when I created this particular article, and it resulted in two external attacks: here and here which I would rather not link directly anywhere else. I think this raised the temperature greatly, and it is not something I have experienced before. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Onceinawhile. No doubt, what a day! To see a protester at the steps of the US Capitol Complex wearing camouflage which made him seem almost indistinguishable to the FBI SWAT he was facing, except they had long guns drawn and aimed at him — truly unbelievable.
To the AE matter at hand: I suppose I'm just a bit surprised you got off-balanced by virtue of not expecting a strong backlash to using an Apartheid nomenclature for an ARBPIA article title. I mean, to me, that would be a given... El_C04:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expected some to dislike it, but the term is so normative in IP scholarship and media, and has been used so widely in Israel, that I had figured that after discussion it would be accepted as the common name. I envisaged a conversation where some would say “I don’t like it” and the rest would focus on policy. That proved not to happen; perhaps 95% of sources were brought by one side of the discussion, and the vast majority of opposing editors simply would not engage on the policy discussion. Whilst this behavior is clearly not unprecedented in ARBPIA, the scale of reaction was something I had not experienced, not even close. Nothing like it. Having multiple off-wiki groups whip up sentiment against me and my choice of name is disturbing, as it is clearly intended to be, and undoubtedly influenced the nature of the discussion on all sides. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Onceinawhile, but that's just not coming together for me. The only way I can really conceive of you to have realistically expected a mere "dislike" for the title, would be that you generally lack an appreciation for the mainstream Israeli position on the matter, which pretty much views any Apartheid nomenclature usage directed at the Israeli State as highly pejorative. Which is exactly what the בנטוסטן article, for example, says in its final section titled "Post-Apartheid", and I quote from my own rough translation (2nd paragraph, bold is my emphasis): Bantustan has become a pejorative term for an artificial ethnic territory whose independence is superficial or is devoid of territorial contiguity. One of the most common modern usages is in connection to the territories of the Palestinian Authority, where it is frequently used (alongside the term Apartheid) in pro-Palestinian rhetoric, by pointing out a number of similarities: separation, absence of territorial contiguity, independence and partial autonomy, and so on. So, considering that passage as a representative example of the mainstream Israeli position, I'm not at all surprised at the vehemence you've encountered (onwiki, at least, I can't really speak to anything that happens offwiki). To reiterate, I suppose my surprise is that it caught you by surprise, because this aversion to the Apartheid nomenclature is such a fundamental part of the current Israeli zeitgeist. Perhaps, then, you're simply much (much) more familiar with the Palestinian view than you are with the Israeli one. Which, indeed, would explain a lot about all of this. El_C10:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly I read that same paragraph, with google-translate, before I started the article. But the paragraph is unsourced, and was introduced 15 years ago[194] without any explanation, so I could not put any stock behind it. Even so, I don't think editors are expected to judge usage in Hebrew, as this is English wikipedia. I judge the mainstream Israeli position through what I read in Ha'aretz, but perhaps my conception of mainstream is overly optimistic.
It is such a normative term for this situation nowadays, in the world's highest quality publications, particularly since the unveiling of the Trump peace plan (the first time details of the proposals has ever been published). Perhaps then the key point is that this topic has never been discussed before on Wikipedia talk pages to my knowledge; it is exceedingly rare in the IP area to find a highly charged topic which has not already been debated to death at some point. I cannot think of the last time. Normally we are just building on pre-trodden ground. Perhaps that is also the reason for the off-wiki excitement about the same, which I could not possibly have anticipated as I have never seen anything like it before. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't normative in Israel, Onceinawhile, nor was it ever. The Apartheid nomenclature has been an anathema in the Israeli mainstream for decades. And, sure, you're not expected to look for sources in Hebrew — but it took me like 10 seconds to find this English-language Ynet op-ed piece just now, authored by Noah Klieger, which is titled "Do you even know what apartheid means?" Now that is representative of the Israeli mainstream. If anything, the Hebrew Wikipedia is far more moderate than any other Israeli mainstream source I can immediately think of. And which Haaretz just plainly isn't. "Overly optimistic"? I'd say wildly optimistic. No, Haaretz isn't at all representative of Israel's mainstream, as can be seen by its very low circulation — which is what now, like 3 percent? And even that's about half of what it was the decade before. If you're operating under the assumption that the Israeli mainstream is reflected by that publication, you're in for a rude awakening. Which maybe you were. Perhaps that's emblematic of a larger Israeli-Palestinian divide... El_C14:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify one point, which we had at the debates, since I am enjoying the quality of this discussion. You are accidentally making fallacy of division in your comment above. You are right that the word apartheid in anathema in the Israeli mainstream, and it is anathema in the global mainstream. Israel just is not an apartheid country, irrespective of what some propagandists might say. The fallacy of division is the mistaken argument that "something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts". Yes bantustans were part of apartheid, just as my car has four wheels. You might tell me I have a cheap and unattractive car, but that doesn't mean that its wheels are cheap and unattractive, even if they are a fundamental part of the car. So we cannot imply people's view about the word bantustan from their views about the word apartheid.
On a wider note, the situation in the West Bank is very different from that in Israel, and most Israelis who have been born in the post-67 world simply don't understand it. The publications which you describe as representative of the Israeli mainstream never educate their readers on the conditions of the Palestinians. So the subject of this Wikipedia article is not really in scope of those publications. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe we can't imply it as a pure epistemological construct, but in the more concrete historical context of Israel and the apartheid analogy, I still would emphasize that it should come as no surprise that, as such a key component of apartheid policy, it's generally met with hostility from the Israeli mainstream. And, sure, there's no denying that there's great dissonance between Israelis and Palestinians — it's not for naught that I ended my last comment by alluding to the "Israeli-Palestinian divide." El_C17:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Out of interest, do you think that I should not have created the article given the risk that it would be met with hostility from the Israeli mainstream? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, on the contrary, I commend you for having authored an article about this important topic, irrespective of the dispute over the title itself and notwithstanding all the friction that followed. El_C18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
mention me on reply; thanks!)
Done. El_C 15:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Yes, that is one determined LTA — I support any measure to further DENY. El_C 15:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed with the originally-intended 2-week sitewide block applied. El_C 13:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. El_C 20:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
El_C 16:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Done. El_C 02:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 13:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
El_C 21:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect User:User:Hijiri88/Old sandbox. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 7#User:User:Hijiri88/Old sandbox until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Warned. El_C 19:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Already done. El_C 14:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Review of El C's block of Koavf". Thank you. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Already protected by administrator Ad Orientem. El_C 03:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Today they accused me of the Holocaust denial. [125] I'm thinking about reporting this harassment on some appropriate board. All these new accounts show up quickly after I make an edit [126], so it can't be a coincidence. It is a sign that possibly the same person operates it. I have them all recorded; this began after the Arbcom case. Before, I never experienced such a thing. Would you suggest where I should go with this issue? I'm not sure how to deal with this, and if anything could be done, so I thought I'll ask...(only if you have time to look at it, don’t worry if you don’t, please, I’ll try to ask maybe other experienced administrators too or research myself) Thanks EI_C - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
People suggest starting reporting them to the CU.[127]. I have all occurrences recorded (most of them) in detail so maybe do this, no? I can devote some time to it despite that it's time-consuming.GizzyCatBella🍁 10:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
(Pa-pa-pa-pa paranoia!) El_C 21:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
El_C 04:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.svg){kind=link}
