SharabSalam (talk | contribs) →Why do you need the adminship?: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
→Why do you need the adminship?: this approach is unwelcome |
||
Line 928: | Line 928: | ||
==Notice of noticeboard discussion== |
==Notice of noticeboard discussion== |
||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice--> [[User:SharabSalam|SharʿabSalam▼]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 00:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC) |
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice--> [[User:SharabSalam|SharʿabSalam▼]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 00:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Why do you need the adminship? == |
|||
* I haven't seen you making any constructive edits at least since I have been here in Wikipedia. You only reverts, something that bots are able to do, the one time I saw you making an edit was disappointing, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=918482498&diffmode=source], the problem is that it was obviously recent in that article, second, it says "In October" the Houthis did something bluh bluh. However, the time you made the edit was 28 September and after I reverted you, you went and added it to another article with the same mistake. I honestly wonder how can an editor who has so little contributions in the main space get promoted to become an admin and claim to fix disputes between editors. If I were you I wouldn't ask for adminship or withdraw my adminship.--[[User:SharabSalam|SharʿabSalam▼]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 02:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:05, 26 January 2020
If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – Che.
Archived Discussions
Archive 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 11 12 13 14
For you
El C, contrary to your edit summary- I noticed you were gone, and missed seeing you on recent changes. You are one of my favourite editors. This is for you. Regards, dvdrw 04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yay! Many chipthanks for the kind words. Greatly appreciated. Best, El_C 06:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I noticed and missed you! (Official circular here). Novickas (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Thought of you while uploading this picture [1]... for all of your work. Novickas (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks! El_C 11:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sort of in a hole and am having difficulties submerging. Speaking of holes/that chippie, I got to do some visiting in its burro recently...
- You look really good in your purple hat! Bishonen | talk 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC).
- Free hat! Today, while cheekadeepetting, this lady who saw us from a far, came over and said: "Can I tell you something...? You're an angel of God."(!) To which I of course replied: "All hail Atheismo!" [nah, I said: "thank you, maddam, that's very kind of you" — what else could I say?] I took an especially neat cheekadeepetting photograph today: it remained visible between my thumb and index as it flew away, giving the illusion it was bee-sized! What an unexpected, and sweet, effect! El_C 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Capitano, where do you get a large enough sweater for a person with that hand? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC).
- And then there's Skunky! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Oooo. Purdy!
Combine obvious love of animals with photography results in photographic win! — Coren (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Great to learn that peoples (plural!) like! Chickadee says hi! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
- Hello. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thx, everyone! Happy 2009! El_C 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy Groundhog Day
Happy day! Jehochman Talk 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Chippies
El C, I've been meaning to ask for ages. What is the link between revolutionary socialism and chimpunks? Did I miss that bit in Animal Farm? Is it something to do with resting the means of damn making from beavers? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- No link; but are you referring to Groundhog? (see left) There is a Groundhog-Chippie connection, which I was trying to further cultivate (see right). El_C 11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"Love is in the air ....dooooo .....dooo.dooo ......doooo ......dooo.doooo ." --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm envious. You get to pet ALL the fuzzeh creatures! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Book?
Let me know when it is out, and you will up your sales by one. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 09:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Four Facets of existence: 1. Matter 2. Energy 3. Space 4. Time
2. Four Dimensions: 1. 1D 2. 2D 3. 3D 4. 4D (temporal)
3. Four Fundamental interactions: 1. Strong 2. EM 3. Weak 4. Gravity
4. Four States of matter: 1. Solid 2. Liquid 3. Gas 4. Plasma
El_C 07:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Rev-dels
Just for information at the moment: are you able to do revision deletions? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Affirmative. El_C 20:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. There are a couple of admins I usually contact when I see something that needs to deleted, but unfortunately they let real life interfere with their admin duties. You are online a lot at the same times I am, so it's good to have another person to contact if needed. I generally only ask personally if it's both serious and urgent. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, by all means. If I'm around, please don't hesitate. El_C 02:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Romania
I can live with your highly arbitrary closing summary of the RfC on the Talk page, so I do not want to persuade you to change it. However, you closed other on-going debates as well. Could you open the other debates? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, the thanks I get! El_C 05:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
And all I got was a ^^^
- Talk:And Then There Were None#RfC: And Then There Were None and racial language
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Request for comments on the 'political position' parameter of the political party infobox
- Talk:Romania#RfC
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: HispanTV
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Is RfX a vote, or a consensus discussion? (RfC)
- Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968#Merger of Fair Housing Act and Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 into this article
- Talk:WikiLeaks#RFC: Murder Of Seth Rich content dispute
- Talk:Athens News#Request for comment
- Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC: LavScam
- Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC: Change "white supremacist" to "white nationalist"
El_C 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
- Thanks! Same to you. Best wishes, El_C 09:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
New message from DBigXray
Message added 15:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
HI El C! ~ can you protect this page for a couple of days ~ seems the IP keeps changing computers to get their non~ NPOV across ~ here is the history ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Cheers
Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well El C. MarnetteD|Talk 21:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Merry Christmas. Hope you have a great 2020, as well. All the best, El_C 21:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not a Christmas fan, but I'd like to jump on Marnette's cozy bandwagon and point out that I'm glad you've returned. You were one of the first administrators I had contact with and, then and now, I think you are a great asset to this project admin- and otherwise. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- You know ~ when I was in the Navy ~ stationed in Diego Garcia, we had different names for Santa's reindeer(s) ~ Diwali for Donner, Holi for Holly and plain old Ed (he was cool) ~ Happy Holidays everybody ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Sluzzelin. I greatly appreciate your exceptionally kind words — they mean a lot. Happy holidays to you and yours. El_C 23:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Flying with magic is... nice. Happy holidays, Mitch, to you and your family. Best wishes for the new year, El_C 23:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not a Christmas fan, but I'd like to jump on Marnette's cozy bandwagon and point out that I'm glad you've returned. You were one of the first administrators I had contact with and, then and now, I think you are a great asset to this project admin- and otherwise. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
1RR on
hi El_c, Thanks for taking care of Rslogo. Would it be acceptable if I revert this poorly sourced speculation. I have already reverted this once. Under normal circumstances I would have reverted it again in a heartbeat, but then this is on 1RR now. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Users that ignore 1RR cannot ride roughshod of everyone else. I have blocked that user and you are exempt from 1RR to revert any of their disruptive additions, including but not limited to the aforementioned speculation-entered-as-fact one. El_C 18:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarification. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Quick question on Christianity
Thanks for the admin lock, by the way. Am I correct that, once the other involved editors and I have hashed out the issue, we should post an unlock request here to unlock? Or is there another, more appropriate, location? Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- No worries. Yeah, here is fine. El_C 19:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps time for a little break
Hello, I very much appreciate all your work. We know it takes lots of time, and now is a busy time for everyone in any case. Being an admin is a pretty thankless task. Still, perhaps it would be better to take a little break if you don't have the time, rather than to make repeated wrong calls. You have now twice completely failed to even understand a discussion that you've closed. Both times you closed it with arguments that had nothing to do with the actual discussion and made it painfully clear you had not bothered to read through the discussion before closing. Again, I know you're a good admin and I do appreciate all the work you do. If you're stressed, take some days off rather than rushing through threads and making bad calls. All the best! Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not stressed. The discussion would be better facilitated on the article talk page. I read the discussion and closed it as I saw fit. Sorry you disagree, but your efforts would be better served by pointing out what I might have overlooked rather than personal advise or assumptions of bad faith regarding my reading comprehension, both of which are unwelcome. El_C 23:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
IP editors on a Kurdish template discussion
Hello. I'm not sure where to go to with this since it's more acute than to start an investigation, but as per usual, there's some kind of Meatpuppetry/canvassing with a Kurdish-related article that is up for discussion.[2] This is sadly common, but this time they could tilt the result which could be devastating and affect 800+ articles. Two of the three non-IP editors who voted 'delete' have been disruptive on Kurdish articles before and the IP's are mostly recent editors who came straight to the discussion. Please, take a look. --Semsurî (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. I speedily kept the template. But it serves as one of the best records as to the sheer scope of the disruption in Kurdish-related articles. At some point, it may be worthwhile to bring back my idea of General Sanctions in that area — an idea which did not so much meet opposition as it did a lack of interest (in fairness, I brought it up in a somewhat half hazard way, so that result in partially on me). El_C 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Io Saturnalia!
Io, Saturnalia! | ||
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 16:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Ealdgyth! Much appreciated. My best wishes for a happy holiday and a great 2020 to you, as well. El_C 16:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
IP 141.76.121.211
Hi El C, while looking into some disruption created by Bengalurumaga, I noticed your block at 141.76.121.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It looked to me like this was logged-out editing by this user, and based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bengalurumaga/Archive, which I subsequently lucked upon, he's been doing this for about a year. Might I please encourage you to lengthen that block, or would you have an issue if I stretched it out? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- I was just about to indef Bengalurumaga, but you beat me to it. By all means, extend as you see fit. El_C 19:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks mate. I've re-opened an SPI. I'm going to poke around a bit more because it's possible there are other accounts out there. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks again for being sharp. El_C 19:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's what I do! And now that I'm bragging for being sharp, I made a mistake: Bengalurumaga is the older of the sock accounts and has been active for quite some time forcing a narrative into Christian articles and breaking rules to do so. Seems ironic, especially around the "goodwill toward men" holiday... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I'm following along. Still, a sock drawer within a sock drawer, as it were. El_C 02:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's what I do! And now that I'm bragging for being sharp, I made a mistake: Bengalurumaga is the older of the sock accounts and has been active for quite some time forcing a narrative into Christian articles and breaking rules to do so. Seems ironic, especially around the "goodwill toward men" holiday... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks again for being sharp. El_C 19:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks mate. I've re-opened an SPI. I'm going to poke around a bit more because it's possible there are other accounts out there. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
Season's Greetings | ||
May your Holidays and the Year that follows shine as much as this coin still does beneath the tarnish of bygone weather and long use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Fowler&fowler. May your holiday season and your 2020, also, glitter and glisten brightly. Shine on! El_C 23:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry merry !
~~~ is wishing you a Merry Christmas!
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. |
---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Wikaviani. Merry Christmas to you, as well, and here's wishing you a happy 2020. All the best, El_C 02:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Block evasion ?
This IP ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. LTA. El_C 02:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. Already blocked by Kinu. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
CAA protest
hi, I am reporting this to you since you are watching this page and enforcing AC DS here.
The disruptive edits by Worthfulrebel is getting out of hand, Despite the discussion please see these reverts. [4] [5] [6] [7]
My request for self revert has been strongly rejected
Excessive amount of filibustering has been done one the article talk page and WP:AN3 see this thread. I proposed this but the thread was closed by then. The page watchers don't really have time to indulge in all these WP:TE and personal attacks. I request the admins to do something to bring things under control --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 13:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- There's an especial irony for reporting 1RR while at the same time as having violating it yourself! El_C 14:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- El_C Thanks for the action. Are you referring to the reverts above or to the ANEW ? --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I am referring to you reverting the user here and here. I would have issued a 24-hour block to you, as well, but since you did not yet receive an IPA DS alert, you luckily got off with a technicality. Incidentally, that's the absurdity of the alert being an absolute requirement — that a user, such as yourself, who is thoroughly familiar with ACDS (and the 1RR status of the page) can get a pass, while a relatively new user who less familiar with these (but who, indeed, refused to self-revert), suffers the full brunt of the sanctions. Anyway, please try to be more careful in the future. El_C 19:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- El_C I am sincerely grateful to you for bestowing the kindness of a template instead of a block. Perhaps the planetary alignments and the stars made it possible. I am still unable to grasp the technicality that how these individual reverts that are related to 2 different things count towards a WP:1RR violation ? Are you trying to say that someone can keep adding whatever nonsense they like and I cannot revert it even once since the article is on WP:1RR. I am asking as I obviously would like to avoid getting blocked in future, and I am sincerely contemplating if I should unwatch and entirely abandon editing such 1RR articles altogether, they seem to be too much of a headache to maintain due to 1RR.--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- @DBigXray: I am bound to these rules much like you are, but I am also happy the stars aligned. To answer your question: just like 3RR has to do with any three reverts —they don't have to be about the same thing— 1RR is the same, but with one revert only. Technically, you've already violated 1RR on that article several times over already, but I am choosing to ignore removal of wholly unreferenced content and the like (like grossly unbalanced pov material that's virtually indistinguishable from vandalism), and instead focusing on actual editing disputes. If you're not undoing an edit, though, you're fine. Technically, I think you've probably already violated not just 1RR but even 3RR, but if no one notices or reports such violations, they go unenforced. 1RR just seems to have more of a scrutiny (and certainly is easier to count). Anyway, you can always limit yourself to adding new material (including {{cn}} templates), which is unlikely to ever constitute a revert. You can also modify the existing material, so long as you're not reversing or repeating previous edits. The essay at RV is decent in explaining what is or isn't a revert.
- El_C I am sincerely grateful to you for bestowing the kindness of a template instead of a block. Perhaps the planetary alignments and the stars made it possible. I am still unable to grasp the technicality that how these individual reverts that are related to 2 different things count towards a WP:1RR violation ? Are you trying to say that someone can keep adding whatever nonsense they like and I cannot revert it even once since the article is on WP:1RR. I am asking as I obviously would like to avoid getting blocked in future, and I am sincerely contemplating if I should unwatch and entirely abandon editing such 1RR articles altogether, they seem to be too much of a headache to maintain due to 1RR.--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I am referring to you reverting the user here and here. I would have issued a 24-hour block to you, as well, but since you did not yet receive an IPA DS alert, you luckily got off with a technicality. Incidentally, that's the absurdity of the alert being an absolute requirement — that a user, such as yourself, who is thoroughly familiar with ACDS (and the 1RR status of the page) can get a pass, while a relatively new user who less familiar with these (but who, indeed, refused to self-revert), suffers the full brunt of the sanctions. Anyway, please try to be more careful in the future. El_C 19:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- El_C Thanks for the action. Are you referring to the reverts above or to the ANEW ? --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless, I hope you choose to stick with the article, as you seem to be a well-needed force and voice for sanity there. Although I can't show favouritism, I hope you can appreciate that I am doing what I can. You just need to be extra-careful. But even if you slip, you can always seek clarifications and self-revert. In case you can't self-revert but want to, that too, is something an admin is likely to take into account (especially if they are yours truly). But with 1RR, the limit to an editing dispute between two editors is intended to be two reverts (one each), instead of six (three each), which greatly curtails the scope of edit wars (and disruption in the edit history), especially among multiple participants. Anyway, we can always revisit the necessity of 1RR for the page in, say, a couple of days (remind me). Sorry for the length of this. Hope it makes sense. El_C 21:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- The page was put under 1RR due to the edit warring where the same above editor was involved. IMHO a 3RR warning and a block would have been better instead of 1RR. 1RR comes at a cost. The cost is time of the volunteers who will then have to discuss each and every potential revert, even if they are unworthy (biased, poorly sourced, propaganda, political bickering, etc, etc) due to 1RR. 1RR makes the discussion mandatory (tedious). When the folks who want a neutral article are outnumbered by POV pushers ( ready to filibuster) undesirable content lingers on the page and the balance of the article gets shifted towards POV, (a bigger cost of 1RR). I regularly start talk page threads for discussing content worthy of a discussion, but with 1RR it is hard to keep up. I have now added a banner on my talk page offering self revert. Indeed I do appreciate the tough work you are doing in adminning that page. Your detailed reply has really helped to allay some concerns on the block, indeed I will be extra careful, but it is still easy to trip 1RR.
- Thanks a lot for the appreciation of the work I have done on this page. I would have loved working on this article but not at the cost of getting my sparkling clean block log stained. Accordingly I am unwatching and abandoning this page with no intentions to edit there any more as long as it is on 1RR. I am sure there may be valid reasons to put this article on 1RR, but until it is there, I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. It is a tough decision for me to make, but considering the pros and cons , I am choosing it with a heavy heart. I will return to the page only after 1RR has been lifted from there. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 11:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Clean block logs are overrated! But I do understand your reservations. I will update you if and/or when 1RR is lifted from the article. El_C 15:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless, I hope you choose to stick with the article, as you seem to be a well-needed force and voice for sanity there. Although I can't show favouritism, I hope you can appreciate that I am doing what I can. You just need to be extra-careful. But even if you slip, you can always seek clarifications and self-revert. In case you can't self-revert but want to, that too, is something an admin is likely to take into account (especially if they are yours truly). But with 1RR, the limit to an editing dispute between two editors is intended to be two reverts (one each), instead of six (three each), which greatly curtails the scope of edit wars (and disruption in the edit history), especially among multiple participants. Anyway, we can always revisit the necessity of 1RR for the page in, say, a couple of days (remind me). Sorry for the length of this. Hope it makes sense. El_C 21:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Merry!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020! | |
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 2020. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
- Thanks, Trekker. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, as well! All the best, El_C 15:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
A photo in the external links
Hi, there is a link to a photo in Khalida Jarrar's article in the external links. I want to remove that photo but I really hate that area in Wikipedia(Palestine-Israel area) because it has many rules and I dont want to get banned because of WP:bluh bluh that I am not aware of. Is it okay to remove it? Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 07:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
- Thanks, Fylindfotberserk. Merry Christmas to you, as well! El_C 15:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- You are most welcome sir. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
thanks for "thanks"
Hi El C. thanks so much for "thanking" me for my restoration of that text in Syrian Civil War. I really appreciate it! however, I also need some support on the talk page, for retaining that text. could you please comment there? I really appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. Sure, I'll have a look. El_C 03:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Re-re-revert!
That is a revert of the previous self-revert. Well beyond the 1RR limit with Pali Upadhyay? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Pali Upadhyay blocked for violating 1RR. El_C 14:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also, if problematic editing by the user continue after the block, an article ban seems like an increasingly likely option. El_C 14:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. I will go ahead and cleanup his recent edits to the lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
???
Hi, I've always found you a reasonable sort, but I thought this was mean and petty: "I'm beginning to question your level of competence here. Why do you continue to comment in this section (four times already!)?" What's that bit of mindless nastiness about? I had a bit of trouble understanding the layout and process, I'm not perfect, but I'm perfectly competent. That was just nasty, not what I'd usually expect from you. Bacondrum (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- After the fifth time, what do you expect me to do? Wait for the sixth time? Sorry, but there is a limit to the number of times where others are forced to clean up after you when you repeatedly make the same mistake. El_C 18:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I see you may have quit over my comment (?!) — that's rather astonishing! Anyway, there is a statement at the top of the section that reads: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I was surprised and increasingly disappointed that you failed to adhere to that, despite multiple pleas from me: please stop commenting in this section again, please do not place comments in this section please stop commenting in this section, jeez! still commenting in this section — wow. Anyway, I hope my words regarding your competence in that forum will, ultimately, have a more fleeting effect than it appears. That certainly was the intention, in any case. Regards, El_C 18:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Never saw those comments, I don't know what you are on about. Don't give yourself too much credit, just sick of acerbic bullshit from halfbacked nerds and right-wing loons in general. I've got better things to do. Have fun wasting your life here, El Ché. lol. Bacondrum (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- I can't help that you don't pay attention. Acerbic, indeed. If I thought it was a waste, I would not be doing it. El_C 23:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
- Thanks, DBigXray. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, as well! El_C 18:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
question re draft
hi. what do you think of this? Draft:Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(September–December_2019). --Sm8900 (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- At a cursory glance (only), I think it's decent, though the final paragraph is a bit less than contemporaneous, so you may wish to devote some attention to it. El_C 18:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
- Thanks, Donner60. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, as well! El_C 12:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
NPOVN thread
Hey there,
I posted this thread to NPOVN a couple weeks ago but it hasn't really gone anywhere. I see your name come up a few times in some of the old discussions, e.g. as RfC closer. As someone who I think would give an impartial view of this, if you have a minute, would you mind sharing your perspective there? If you worry that it will suck you back into something messy, I understand if you'd rather skip it. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hey. If I closed an RfC about it, I do not recollect it having happened — but I don't think I did. To the best of my recollection, I had some interaction with participants in an administrative capacity only (attempting to curtail the edit warring). I'm sorry to say but I don't really have much of a perspective (which is to say, strong views) about this. If there was an RfC that was properly closed (not sure about that), its conclusion ought to be adhered to. If there hasn't been one, it may be prudent for someone to draft it. By all means, please feel free to keep me updated. Regards, El_C 15:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Geography
Hi El_C,
Good call on the Alliance for Brazil protection, but your rationale was – puzzling: "Arab–Israeli conflict related page"? Favonian (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Argh, drop-down menu typo! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Corrected. El_C 17:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Prussia - keep your eye on....
User Alrightletmetellya. I believe they gamed the system to be auto-confirmed so they can edit the article. S0091 (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 23:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
CAA protest version
hi El_C can you be kind enough to email me the version of the CAA protest article from ( 27 December 2019 DiplomatTesterMan ) [curprev 11:47, 27 December 2019 DiplomatTesterMan talk contribs 247,117 bytes -22 reducing number of headers,] (time stamps may differ due to the time zones so please check the edit summary. ) That version is not visible to me. I understand that there were CV concerns. My intention is to rescue the sources and c/e and re-add some of the content. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
[P.S] If you just unhide this particular revision from history, for a few hours, that should be enough and better IMHO. Once I am done, I will drop you a note so that you can hide it back.
- DBigXray Actually when I was going through the text in the morning, I think the old edits of mine seemed to be ok even though they were cut. I thought it would have been removed but most of what I remembered seemed ok. Like i added the word protests to the first line in the morning today, that edit is not visible, but the word protests is still there in the first line. DTM (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- yes, Once I have the emailed version. I will be able to figure out what content has been removed. It is impossible right now. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 16:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- yes, Once I have the emailed version. I will be able to figure out what content has been removed. It is impossible right now. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- hi ElC I saw your mail. It seems I was not clear above. I was asking the entire article of that revision number in the email. Or instead of the email, if you could just temporarily unhide this one revision. Then I could recover the removed refs. It would be too tedious to google search every ref again. hence I asked. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, unhidden. But please be swift. El_C 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- thanks. u can hide it nowHappy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Copy that. El_C 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- thanks. u can hide it nowHappy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Process advice
Hello. Regarding this discussion, do I have it right that AE is the correct avenue if the problem continues? I don't want to spend hours putting together an AE complaint only to be told it's an improper complaint. Note that the issue is a persistent pattern of behavior on article talk pages, and it is not particularly disruptive to the articles themselves. Thanks for any guidance. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it is the correct venue. El_C 16:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding secfor
The kid is now putting secfor as special forces and air infantry Mrkoww (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- What kid? Are you sure you're talking to the right person? Please feel free to submit links. El_C 19:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Copyright Violation
The discretionary sanction applied on me for copyright violation seems unwarranted. Most of my edits are extracts from articles on ubiquitous lines such as "Protests happened (here) and (here) and by (them)", which is in the same format as used throughout the wikipedia article regardlessly. Lines which are repeated by various articles from different sources. The lines also constitute only a small portion of an entire reference. I am not aware of any laws which copyrights particular sentences. Even in such cases, most of my edits have certain words and phrase orders modified, replaced or the entire sentence reordered while conveying the same meaning. Furthermore, I'd also add that I had never been informed by any user or administrator that I may be potentially infringing on any copyrights, to the contrary, people have disputed me on edits which don't quote exact phrases from references. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- That is not accurate. You have made several copyrights violations, as listed here. That, coupled with your earlier violations of the discretionary sanctions which I have placed the article under, is something which I deemed to be too taxing for the article and its stability. That is why you have been topic banned accordingly. Again, if you wish to appeal, the AE page contain instructions on how to do so. But beyond all that, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:COPYVIO, which is a problem. El_C 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Pali Upadhyay, I have personally verified the page history even the ones that are currently hidden after requesting the same from ElC. I came to the same conclusion as El C that you have violated WP:COPYVIO. Please spend some time and read that page completely. also read WP:CLOP to understand the problem we have here. Once you have read both the pages, I would request you to come back here and explain your understanding once again about what you did wrong. You are right when you said You added content like, "Protests happened (here) and (here) and by (them)", but you are expected to WP:COPYEDIT it and write it in your own words. You were not allowed to copy as it is. that is COPYVIO by definition. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- @DBigXray:I am unable to view the specific edits mentioned so I can't really comment on that but I have my reservations against any of those edits violating copyright laws though I'd admit that most of them would fall under the ambit of WP:CLOP and WP:COPYPASTE, and can be classified as WP:COPYVIO as it seems according to the standards set by wikipedia. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Pali Upadhyay You can check this diff as an example that is still visible. --Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @DBigXray:I am unable to view the specific edits mentioned so I can't really comment on that but I have my reservations against any of those edits violating copyright laws though I'd admit that most of them would fall under the ambit of WP:CLOP and WP:COPYPASTE, and can be classified as WP:COPYVIO as it seems according to the standards set by wikipedia. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Ways to appeal
hi El_C. I am not very familiar with how AC DS bans are enforced or appealed, so please clarify this for me as well. I see that this ban was put by you as an uninvolved admin and not by AC. Does he still need to appeal at AE or an appeal to you may be acceptable. I also feel that though this is unacceptable, he has been sanctioned without previous warning. Normally editors are warned and blocked if they repeat. So this appears harsh. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- The user in question lodges an appeal at AE, that is how they appeal — what is there to clarify? The awareness criteria (warning) were satisfied — I applied these myself. No further warning is necessary. At any rate, they are free to appeal. As the uninvolved admin enforcing the discretionary sanctions, I evaluated that this user is too disruptive when it comes to the topic at hand (one involving ongoing updates from news sources). Their comment above only further reaffirms that decision, I challenge. El_C 20:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, technically, I could lift the ban at any time. But their comment above certainly dissuades me from doing so at this time. That is why I insist that their appeal be to a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE. El_C 20:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarification El_C. Indeed the awareness criteria is satisfied with the DS notice. DS alert, meant the user should go figure every rule before editing. What I intended to convey above was he did not get a specific warning or notice for COPYVIO. We should assume good faith that they may have done this unknowingly, hence I said that this appeared harsh. IMHO if they show an understanding and willingness to comply the appeal should be considered. Obviously there is no sign so far to lift this. This request has to come from Pali. @Pali Kindly do as we suggested above, and respond on this talk page first. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am not obliged to provide the user with a separate warning regarding copyvio when assessing it as part of the disruption to an article subject to DS. El_C 20:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, and that is why DS is a bitch, and I hate it.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am not obliged to provide the user with a separate warning regarding copyvio when assessing it as part of the disruption to an article subject to DS. El_C 20:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarification El_C. Indeed the awareness criteria is satisfied with the DS notice. DS alert, meant the user should go figure every rule before editing. What I intended to convey above was he did not get a specific warning or notice for COPYVIO. We should assume good faith that they may have done this unknowingly, hence I said that this appeared harsh. IMHO if they show an understanding and willingness to comply the appeal should be considered. Obviously there is no sign so far to lift this. This request has to come from Pali. @Pali Kindly do as we suggested above, and respond on this talk page first. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
difficult to submit such a simple statement
My theory-- eats goats. lives under a bridge.-- Deepfriedokra 21:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For profound patience in trying to communicate with user who had trouble understanding.-- Deepfriedokra 21:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Deepfriedokra! I greatly appreciate your kind words and recognition. It really means a lot, coming from you. El_C 21:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
File:Happy New Year 2020 Images HD Download (5).jpg | ~ Happy Holidays ~ |
~ thanks for your help in our time of need El C! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC) |
- Yay, I helped! El_C 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
United States Air Force Security Forces
Good morning El C! can you please page protect ~ [8], [9], [10] IP's ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- I helped, again! El_C 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
ANEW
Unfortunately the ping here likely failed, so dropping you a note about my comment. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Copy that. El_C 11:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have replied to him multiple times and all he did was starting a new discussion and then repeating the same cheery-picking SYNTH editing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Andy Ngo BRD change
El C, what does this change mean? [11]? Springee (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- It means the article is subject to 1RR only at this time. El_C 17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- So is that more or less restrictive than what it was? So right now I understand that each editor can make only 1 revert per day. So if A makes a change, B can undo it (1RR), then C could restore it (1RR for C). But as was C would have to start a BRD and get consensus first? Springee (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Question
When someone calls another respectful editor, liar, multiple times in every reply, then admit he made a mistake without apologizing. would you allow him to get away with it?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I do not see the need for sanctions at this time. Perhaps another admin would feel different. Whatever the consensus is among a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE will settle that question, in any case. El_C 22:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, as mentioned at AE, in light of Huldra's latest diffs, I'm rethinking that now. El_C 23:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank You
Hi. I just wanted to thank you for semi-protecting Fake Off; the blocked StealthForce has been disruptive editing certain pages since he was blocked three years ago. He's been at it again and again through dynamic IP addresses since. Johnnysama (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Happy to help. Please feel free to keep me updated if there are any recurring issues once the protection lapses. El_C 03:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
Happy New Year, El C! You are receiving this barnstar because, according to this Wikipedia database query, you were the #2 most thanked Wikipedian of 2019, with 2088 entries in Special:Log/thanks during 2019. Congratulations, and, well, thank you for your contributions! Cheers to 2020. Mz7 (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
- Wow, thanks, Mz7. I was not aware of that. I'll try not to let go to my head! Thanks again and Happy New Year to you, too. El_C 14:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year, El C!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
- Thanks, Fylindfotberserk. Happy New Year to you, as well! El_C 14:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Check this editor
Hi, Can you check this editor Telluride. He says consensus is not necessary and keeps editwarring.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, You are editwarring. I have edited based on exact words from clear sources and you keep reverting that. You also have violated WP:3RR. Telluride (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SharabSalam: are you aware of the essay Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", because that is something that I, personally, subscribe to. And it seems that you are both edit warring... El_C 15:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have discussed this with him.. he came back today and started a new discussion and ignored the previous discussion. I already know I have edit warred and I don't want any trouble. I am just going to ignore this article. No experienced editor is there. This editor is clearly POV-pushing and I am almost alone there. I will just go to other areas thats if I survived the block.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
3RR has not been violated.But I will be placing the article under IRANPOL. I think you should both back away from the article itself as far this dispute is concerned, so that other editors could weigh in. Continuing to discuss the dispute on the article talk page is recommended. El_C 15:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)- I didn't look closely enough, it's quite possible you both violated 3RR. But, since the dispute is no longer ongoing, I guess you both get a free pass. Also, I decided to hide the IRANPOL for now, possibly indefinitely. El_C 22:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have discussed this with him.. he came back today and started a new discussion and ignored the previous discussion. I already know I have edit warred and I don't want any trouble. I am just going to ignore this article. No experienced editor is there. This editor is clearly POV-pushing and I am almost alone there. I will just go to other areas thats if I survived the block.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Template Editor
Hi El C, Hope all's good and hope you have a fantastic New Year,
Could you possibly remove my Template Editor right please as I believe I've only ever used it once in the entire year of having it,
My aim was to fix linterrors in templates but cocking something up sort of made me avoid template fixing altogether,
Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Hey, Davey2010. All's good, thanks for asking. Hope you're doing well, too. Best wishes for a great new year! El_C 21:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles
Koreangauteng (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, this is not really an area with which I am familiar. El_C 23:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Please help with an editor
Dear El C, - There is a problem with an editor on the Radical centrism page that I hope you can help with. I see that you unblocked him in October 2019.
On 23 December 2019, Davide King made over 80 (yes, 80) edits in one entry with the sole explanation, on the View History page, of "ce and be bold." As you can see, some of these edits were minor (or irrelevant), but many were not and should have been individually described and justified for fellow editors in View History. Some examples:
- At least a dozen captions were rewritten.
- Several headings were rewritten.
- The structure of the "Books on specific topics" subsection was changed.
Just as disturbing, some of the minor changes are incorrect. For example, periods were dropped from the ends of some captions consisting of full sentences.
Three days ago (December 31) Davide King added two individual edits. However, both were inappropriate. In the first, he altered the list of bolded terms in the very first sentence such that the term "Radical centrism" is now also called by three terms beginning with "the." That is grammatically incorrect. Synonyms for "radical centrism" do not begin with "the." WP editor Jon C. formulated that sentence correctly in 2018. In his second individual edit, Davide King changed an observation by Canadian writer Stuart Trew from one about radical centrists' beliefs to one that appears to represent Trew's own belief. Moreover, on the View History page Davide King misrepresented his edit, describing it only as "add missing dot."
I must report that on 18 February 2018, an anonymous (IP) user made a remarkably similar bulk edit to the one made on 23 December 2019 by Davide King. On 20 February 2018, I not only reverted it but warned that I would inform WP administration if he attempted to lump another massive series of edits together again. Of course, I have no way of knowing for sure that the IP user was Davide King, but as you can see, the similarities in the bulk edits are striking.
I hope that you, as the administrator who unblocked Davide King, will address this situation ASAP. I will look for your response, if any, below. Thanks so much! - Babel41 (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Babel41. In the future, you should attach diffs instead of dates. Anyway, captions are not supposed to have periods, so that correction seems fine; also on that part of that IP in 2018[12] — so I'm afraid I don't see a clear connection there. And a slash in the prose tends to hinder flow and readability, I find, so supplanting it (correctly or not), also seems to make sense. As for "add missing dot"[13] — that is indeed peculiar, as no dot (missing or otherwise) was added. I'll ask Davide about that, and will remind them to aim at simpler individual edits, but I don't think it's grounds for disciplinary action at this time. Regards, El_C 10:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks El C. And just to be clear, I was no t calling for disciplinary action! I did think that, being an administrator, and having already dealt with Davide King, you would be far better able than I to convince him or her that bulk edits should not include substantive edits like rewrites of captions and headings, and rearrangements of subsections; and that his descriptions on the View History page should be accurate and specific.
- Perhaps Davide King could be convinced to redo his bulk edit on the Radical centrism article so that fellow editors could know what substantive edits he has done and why he did them. Radical centrism is a mature article that has been refined by over 300 editors over many years and may now be the most useful brief intro to the subject in English; changes on it need and deserve to be carefully assessed. - Babel41 (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Why is Oldperson, the only one who is edit warring, being rewarded for their edit warring by having their preferred (and frankly nonsensical) version being locked down for two weeks? Yes, I already know about The Wrong Version. Oldperson has already been taken to ANI. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I protected the page on the version which I encountered. I am not familiar with the dispute otherwise. El_C 01:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- You were not previously aware of this editor's history, but I think you are going to need to keep an eye on him/her. Because a slap on the wrist only enforces the entitlement that led this person to behave as he/she did towards other editors. You are only one of many editors that has made this person aware of WP:NPA, etc. -- and all of it ignored, over and over again. These are multiple incidents that have transpired and accumulated since at least September 2019.
I don't know why an exception is being made regarding this editor and why an ANI about his/her behavior would be closed without more input from other editors that have dealt with him/her. Is it because of the contents of his/her profile page? Because I'm not young and I, too, have battled cancer. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- You were not previously aware of this editor's history, but I think you are going to need to keep an eye on him/her. Because a slap on the wrist only enforces the entitlement that led this person to behave as he/she did towards other editors. You are only one of many editors that has made this person aware of WP:NPA, etc. -- and all of it ignored, over and over again. These are multiple incidents that have transpired and accumulated since at least September 2019.
- As mentioned, the ANI request will not be closed until they commit to pivotal improvement. El_C 03:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I just read your new comment in the ANI. Wise decision in this case. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- As mentioned, the ANI request will not be closed until they commit to pivotal improvement. El_C 03:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement log
Hi. I've seen you adding some entries to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2019 - I'm not familiar with the log, but shouldn't you be using the 2020 page? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it just occurred to me, too. Literally seconds ago. That is some happenstance! El_C 05:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- All Done. Thanks goes to Bradv for doing in seconds what would have taken me ten minutes! El_C 05:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hey no problem. I was already working on it - it only seemed like seconds because we edit-conflicted. ;) – bradv🍁 05:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cool — that's a lot of happenstance going around! El_C 05:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Each year's log is supposed to be seeded with the entries that were used in the previous year. When it came up on my watchlist I noticed that hadn't been done yet. My next step was going to be to swing by here and wish you a Happy New Year. – bradv🍁 05:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Happy New Year to you, too, Brad! Here's hoping it's a great one. El_C 05:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Each year's log is supposed to be seeded with the entries that were used in the previous year. When it came up on my watchlist I noticed that hadn't been done yet. My next step was going to be to swing by here and wish you a Happy New Year. – bradv🍁 05:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cool — that's a lot of happenstance going around! El_C 05:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hey no problem. I was already working on it - it only seemed like seconds because we edit-conflicted. ;) – bradv🍁 05:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- All Done. Thanks goes to Bradv for doing in seconds what would have taken me ten minutes! El_C 05:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
IPs on the MEK page
We are still getting drive-by reverts without consensus by IPs on People's Mujahedin of Iran. Can we restore the page protection that only allows registered users to edit this page please? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 17:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Back at it
The editor User:Edit5001 who you blocked a couple of days ago has immediately jumped back in to multiple edit wars. (I could take to a noticeboard if you prefer, let me know.) --JBL (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Making single edits while also talking on talk pages isn't edit warring. Edit5001 (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Joel B. Lewis: actually, I would prefer it if you were to take it to AE (where I already closed one report, cautioning the user) or to AN/I, as I don't know if I'll have time to properly investigate this in the near future. Regards, El_C 13:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Oldperson
Hi El C. Since you seem to be on relatively good terms with Oldperson, you might be the best person to gently advise him that being indefinitely blocked doesn't have to mean being blocked forever, but it might just turn out that way and he may lose his user talk page access if he continues to try and continue content disputes by pinging others to his user talk page. My interactions to date with him have been limited and I bear him no ill will, but he is the one that was blocked and he is likely going to experience further sanction if he continues to use his user talk as he's doing. The other editors interacting with him should know better and just move on now that things have been somewhat resolved and avoid any possibility of even unintentionally baiting Oldperson into posting something out of frustration that's only going to make his situation worse. His best chance right now is probably WP:OFFER; he should take some time to reflect on his situation and decide whether he really wants to get unblocked. If that's what he wants, he can probably come back in a few months and probably find administrators more sympathetic and willing to give him another chance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I agree that it veers too close to editing by proxy. That said, I'd rather someone else were to attend to that at this time. Regards, El_C 13:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Is he/she contacting editors off-wiki to add their two-cents: 08:55, 7 January 2020? Oldperson said what he/she had to say in their talk page. I think the ANI needs to be closed. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC) ; edited 05:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Why would you cast that aspersion, Pyxis Solitary? That user almost certainly have my user talk page on their watchlist, as they have edited it multiple times. Anyway, I'm sure it will be closed or archived soon enough. I don't see there being a rush to do so, in any case. El_C 02:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Aspersions: "critical or unpleasant remarks or judgements" (Oxford). Considering the genesis, my question is reasonable because the input is from an editor who has not been, from what I can tell, involved in editing the topics that led to the ANI. I don't have user pages on my watchlist. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's not reasonable. And, yes, it is an aspersion. Please refrain from that in the future. El_C 03:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Aspersions: "critical or unpleasant remarks or judgements" (Oxford). Considering the genesis, my question is reasonable because the input is from an editor who has not been, from what I can tell, involved in editing the topics that led to the ANI. I don't have user pages on my watchlist. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
And now the ANI has been opened to allegations and personal attacks. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- What exactly in Nil Einne lengthy (per usual!) comment do you consider to be a personal attack? A short excerpt will at least help me understand. Also, why not bring it up with them directly? Maybe you misread — maybe they miswrote, or some combination therein. El_C 07:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Remember that this was posted in an ANI. These are not comments in a user's talk page. I have no idea who Nil Einne is. I can't remember any occurrence, prior to this ANI, where I've interacted with him/her. I don't recall what, if any, article I've edited that he/she has also been involved in.
–I've seen enough of what you've said and done here on wikipedia by myself to decide that I extremely strongly disagree with your views, in fact I find them offensive.
" You can say this to any editor (and Admin) on Wikipedia. Are unsubstantiated claims against another editor permitted in Wikipedia?
– "And it was in fact precisely because I've read what you posted that I came to this conclusion.
" What I posted in the ANI were the diffs created by Oldperson, attacking and accusing other editors, violating Wikipedia policies, and being advised and warned by various editors. Nil Einne's unwillingness to back his allegations about me is fundamentally deceptive.
– "I find your views offensive.
" If a condemnation against me is going to be created for the record ... show the readers of the comment what is considered "offensive". Go to any transgender-related topic, search my name in its history, and let's see what content I added to the article and said in its talk page. (In fact, since TERF was the catalyst for the ANI: see my record in it.)
– "Oldperson seems to be displaying a 'persecution complex' so I felt it helpful to emphasise to them, you're in the serious wrong here.
" Wrong about what? That an editor has made personal attacks and accusations against another editor? With diffs to prove it? Lest we forget, the ANI was opened because of Oldperson's personal attack against Crossroads.
English is my third language and I don't use it to make personal attacks against editors and then say "oops, that's not what I meant". I respond to personal attacks -- and I have been on the receiving end of them from a handful of editors. Since when can an editor make defamatory statements against another editor and get away with it? Slanderous statements are personal attacks. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)- Sorry, I'm not seeing it. A user is entitled to state that they find your views offensive. Also, please do not make use of legalese on Wikipedia, with words such as defamatory or slanderous (incidentally, with respect to the latter, it would be libel, if anything, rather) — the use of those terms skirts our no legal threats policy too closely, so please refrain from that in the future. Anyway, you are free to make a subsection in the ANI thread for other admins to examine these excerpts which you claim constitute an attack, but frankly, I highly doubt it will amount to much. El_C 16:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Remember that this was posted in an ANI. These are not comments in a user's talk page. I have no idea who Nil Einne is. I can't remember any occurrence, prior to this ANI, where I've interacted with him/her. I don't recall what, if any, article I've edited that he/she has also been involved in.
New message from DBigXray
Message added 13:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
this article is related to CAA Protests, DBigXrayᗙ 13:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 13:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
El C ~
Hi El C! ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
205.152.72.107
May I please have immediate intervention with user: 205.152.72.107 . CLCStudent (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 17:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Please delete
Kindly delete File:Qasem Soleimani with Zolfaghar Order-ITN.jpg as a copy of File:Qasem Soleimani with Zolfaghar Order.jpg. It has served the purpose you intended it for. I will, in the future, avoid the issue I partly caused requiring this files creation.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 14:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Jamez42 ANI close
El C, I am on an iphone and at a medical appointment ... I did not have the opportunity to go back and rectify/strike comments discussed with User:Oska, after they pointed out they had only two edits to the article and were responding to an RFC. How can I rectify this post-close ? If I had been able, I would have clarified this right under my first mention of Oska in the diffs. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: you may edit the archived request with an addendum attached that explains what you did. Good luck with your appointment. Best wishes, El_C 15:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks El C ... hard to do from an iPhone, I will do that when home. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
El C, I am finally home from a very long day, and will head over to add the addendum to the ANI wrt User:Oska shortly. If you are still logged in and around, please watch my edits to be sure I handle it correctly, if you don't mind?
Separately, when I awkwardly tried to discuss some kind of 1RR needed on those articles, I was not aware of Wikipedia:Consensus required (not an admin, don't typically have to encounter such). I wish I had known of this possibility sooner, as I would have/could have taken the time to outline a plan that made sense around that supplement, instead of my clumsy suggestion about 1RR. There are probably others who could have benefited from the same sanction, but hopefully all will move forward more collaboratively now.
Now that I have seen the "consensus required" page, I am hoping that someone who understands it better than I do (you :) will edit the page to lend more clarity. Although one can figure out that Jamez42 is Editor 1 in both the "addition" and "removal" examples, at no place on the page does it actually say that! Somewhere the page needs to say something like, "If editor 1 is under the 'consensus required' sanction, then ... " to distinguish between editor 1 and editor 2 in the examples. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: this sanction is applied rarely. Until today, only to articles, which thereby compel all editors to observe it. I applied the sanction to an editor for the first time today (and expanded the explanatory supplement accordingly — have a glance at how it looked like before today), because I felt a simple 1RR restriction would not have been enough. A potential seven reverts per week per article still seemed like too much in light of the concerns expressed. So I limited the 1RR even further with consensus required. Under this restriction, Jamez42 is still allowed to revert (once) so long as the edit they're reverting isn't itself already a revert. And in instances when their own edit is reverted, they are not allowed to revert at all, until they have gained consensus for their changes on the article talk page. Anyway, it was either that, or a topic ban outright. Again, because I did not think 1RR would have been enough of a measure against edit warring. But I also did not want Jamez42 shut out of the South and Latin American topic area, where they obviously have much to contribute. It is an awkward Judgment of Solomon (for an awkward sanction), if you will. But I'm still hoping that it'll work out, for all concerned — Jamez42, especially. Best, El_C 23:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- ah ha! No wonder I had never encountered this before. Thanks for the explanation, EL C ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
That sanction is going to be awfully close to a TBAN in practice, or at least a TBAN-from-main-space. This is an Israel-Palestine situation where the Venn diagram of the two sides's world views is a pair of circles. There's a ton of Chavista IPs (and editors) in the Latin American topic area who are going to revert him on sight. Definitely seems like a harsh decision given most of the "edit warring" was 2 on 1 situations where neither side had a strong consensus. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- While I'm not terribly familiar with the editing ecosystem in that topic area, I get the sense that both sides have comparable representation. No, it is not a TBAN in practice from the mainspace. For example, there is no limit to the bold edits that they may submit. And no, I don't think the sanction is particularly harsh given that multiple editors were calling for a topic ban outright and that there was behaviour that constituted borderline canvassing on the part of Jamez42 while the request was still ongoing — which was factored in my evaluation. That said, I will take a dim view of editors taking advantage of Jamez42's restriction with unexplained or poorly-explained reverts. Yes, consensus is required of Jamez42 — but communication is required on the part of his opponents, too. El_C 01:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I hope that it is alright to continue asking over here, seeing that apparently it is centralized. First of I wanted to thank you for your further responses, since they have been quite explanatory. I want to apologize on my note to the Wikiproject if it was close to canvassing. I had the fear that it could be the case, and for that reason I clarified in my response that I did for more transparency. It was upsetting for me that it was the first time that such a restriction was asked against me.
I wanted to ask further on bold edits, and since you have cited examples as explanations I was thinking about using some for clarification. I want to be careful because a bold edit related to a previous reverted edit can be considered a revert in itself or a partial revert. For instance:
- Original edit: The sky is blue. The tree is green. (edit in italics)
- The sky is blue. The plant is colored lime.
- The sky is blue. The berries are red.
- The sky is blue. There are plenty of fish in the sea.
I can suppose that an edit with a different phrasing but the same meaning would be considered a partial revert, and thus a violation of the restriction (number 1). However, I fear that a different edit with a different meaning, but about the same issue (in this case, color), could also be considered as a partial revert and thus a violation (number 2). Assuming this, I see that the only allowed bold edit would be edit number three, which is completely unrelated to the rest, would not be a violation. Regards, and thanks in advance again. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- El C, this is a good question, that gets more to the heart of the dynamic I was explaining on the ANI. [14] Zellfire added cherry=picked POV text. Jamez42 partially neutralized it. Oska reverted back to the original (worse) version, instead of the partially neutralized Jamez42 version. From what point do you start counting reverts? And this kind of problem occurs in every Venezuelan topic, because... many editors on the topic are often unaware of the more complete story based on a preponderance of sources. That is, Oska was most likely completely unaware that Jamez42's interim edit should be saved. Per RaiderAspect's concern about how many aligned with each "side", the problem is worse regarding the number of editors who do know the full body of sources versus the number who don't. That is, the deck is now stacked against WP:WEIGHT WP:DUE editing on Venezuelan topics, and towards FRINGE editing. As I pointed out, the entire presentation of US involvement in the Latin American article is now skewed towards conspiracy theory fringe views. Had I been aware of this sort of possibility for a restriction, I would have argued that it should be applied to more persons, or alternately, to some articles where this issue is a particular problem. Spending one's time explaining to every topic newcomer why their pet theories are FRINGE (because after 20 years, Venezuela came into more prominence in the news) is exhausting. So back on topic, Jamez42 will make a good edit, it will evolve through several steps, eventually get reverted ... and then he is able to do no further repair of the NPOV text that will result ? I am guessing that all that can be done here is that, perhaps, I need to rewatch these articles, and when I see this happening, re-open an ANI to try to get the entire dynamic addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, those are partial reverts. What you are both asking about is covered quite well in the WP:RV essay. Anyway, if a topic area is contentious enough, bringing it into General sanctions is an option. We did it successfully with post-1978 Iranian politics recently, for example. This way, an admin can apply sanctions to editors or articles (sanctions that may even include sourcing requirements) without needing further community consensus for each and every one of these steps. But in order to gain community consensus for applying GS, one needs to cogently demonstrate that the topic area would benefit from and that there is a need for this. The other option is to avoid the jury and go straight to the bench. But I get the sense that having a new discretionary sanction enacted by the Arbitration Committee would be more difficult than getting a General sanction approved by the community (just my read). Does this answer both of your questions? El_C 16:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- For me, no; I'm not an admin, and a good deal of what you typed there went straight over my head. Here's what I will do: if I ever happen to see the same behaviors in the future, I will most likely come here and ask you whether I should open a new ANI, or go elsewhere. I hope my editing does not ever become so unpleasant that I have to follow all the intricacies of how to deal with these kinds of situations. For now, I am happier not watchlisting Venezuelan topics because constantly dealing with FRINGE is exhausting, and constantly cleaning up messes gave me an inflated edit count that makes me look responsible for the messes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly, if you have any questions or concerns about anything (whatsoever), please do not hesitate! El_C 19:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Reverting#What is a reversion? is a good read and I think it's clarifying in this case, thank you! When I doubt, I will look for asking here when considering a edit if I'm not sure if it is a revert (or to any appropriate space you consider).
- I think my last question for now would be if Tornheim's notifications to other users, on their talk pages, ([15][16][17][18][19][20]), is considered canvassing or borderline canvassing to say the least. I hate to mention other editors' behaviors since mine is the one being examined, but I'm concerned that they were once warned against it (
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#David Tornheim canvassing RFC with misrepresentation of its question) and other editors also commented about it in the thread. Best regards! --Jamez42 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)- Your link to the ANI archive does not work. In fairness, those users were mentioned, so letting them know about that request isn't outside convention, but seeing as they were all also pinged, the user talk page notification do seem like a bit much. El_C 17:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- My bad, this one should work: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#David Tornheim canvassing RFC with misrepresentation of its question. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, El C, those editors were mentioned so could be notified, but that is another way of backdoor canvassing. Equally, Jamez42 could have mentioned other editors and pinged them. This new pingie-thingie certainly allows for backdoor canvassing: all you have to do is selectively mentioned certain editors, and not others. Example: I was not involved in this tussle, but was following it because of the next thread (right under this one) at ANI (Kudpung). I could have quite easily pinged in every other Venezuelan editors when giving examples of how the overall dynamic works. IMO, it isn't complete parity to hold Jamez42 to a canvassing standard that Thorheim as not held to-- not by malice, but one can easily present a case that pings in only certain editors, resulting in a one-sided ANI. Evidence of behaviors from BOTH sides was never presented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- The OP outlined examples that involved those users, so linking to those users which triggers a ping is not unusual. But I recognize your point. Not to mention the double redundancy as seen in the additional user talk page notifications, does, as mentioned, comes across as a bit much, and is not to the OP's credit. But it does seem that only two of these users ended up participating in the ANI request. Anyway, Jamez42 did argue their case (at length) on several occasions in that aforementioned request — which I am not that inclined to relitigate at this time, honestly, but you are more than free to file a new request about anyone (or per the above, anything) you see fit. El_C 18:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- I hope I'm not being overly optimistic (inner Pollyanna escaping again) at this point to believe that won't be necessary, and that shining a light on the problems has been sufficient. Let's hope to see all collaborating better going forward! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, here's hoping. My hunch, though, is that this is a contentious topic area (which could benefit from General or Discretionary sanctions), and that some additional intervention will be warranted. In any case, good luck! El_C 19:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- I hope I'm not being overly optimistic (inner Pollyanna escaping again) at this point to believe that won't be necessary, and that shining a light on the problems has been sufficient. Let's hope to see all collaborating better going forward! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- The OP outlined examples that involved those users, so linking to those users which triggers a ping is not unusual. But I recognize your point. Not to mention the double redundancy as seen in the additional user talk page notifications, does, as mentioned, comes across as a bit much, and is not to the OP's credit. But it does seem that only two of these users ended up participating in the ANI request. Anyway, Jamez42 did argue their case (at length) on several occasions in that aforementioned request — which I am not that inclined to relitigate at this time, honestly, but you are more than free to file a new request about anyone (or per the above, anything) you see fit. El_C 18:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, El C, those editors were mentioned so could be notified, but that is another way of backdoor canvassing. Equally, Jamez42 could have mentioned other editors and pinged them. This new pingie-thingie certainly allows for backdoor canvassing: all you have to do is selectively mentioned certain editors, and not others. Example: I was not involved in this tussle, but was following it because of the next thread (right under this one) at ANI (Kudpung). I could have quite easily pinged in every other Venezuelan editors when giving examples of how the overall dynamic works. IMO, it isn't complete parity to hold Jamez42 to a canvassing standard that Thorheim as not held to-- not by malice, but one can easily present a case that pings in only certain editors, resulting in a one-sided ANI. Evidence of behaviors from BOTH sides was never presented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- My bad, this one should work: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#David Tornheim canvassing RFC with misrepresentation of its question. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Your link to the ANI archive does not work. In fairness, those users were mentioned, so letting them know about that request isn't outside convention, but seeing as they were all also pinged, the user talk page notification do seem like a bit much. El_C 17:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- For me, no; I'm not an admin, and a good deal of what you typed there went straight over my head. Here's what I will do: if I ever happen to see the same behaviors in the future, I will most likely come here and ask you whether I should open a new ANI, or go elsewhere. I hope my editing does not ever become so unpleasant that I have to follow all the intricacies of how to deal with these kinds of situations. For now, I am happier not watchlisting Venezuelan topics because constantly dealing with FRINGE is exhausting, and constantly cleaning up messes gave me an inflated edit count that makes me look responsible for the messes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, those are partial reverts. What you are both asking about is covered quite well in the WP:RV essay. Anyway, if a topic area is contentious enough, bringing it into General sanctions is an option. We did it successfully with post-1978 Iranian politics recently, for example. This way, an admin can apply sanctions to editors or articles (sanctions that may even include sourcing requirements) without needing further community consensus for each and every one of these steps. But in order to gain community consensus for applying GS, one needs to cogently demonstrate that the topic area would benefit from and that there is a need for this. The other option is to avoid the jury and go straight to the bench. But I get the sense that having a new discretionary sanction enacted by the Arbitration Committee would be more difficult than getting a General sanction approved by the community (just my read). Does this answer both of your questions? El_C 16:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Question In the close, you said "restriction on all edits by Jamez42 in the topic area." What is the topic area? Latin American politics? Venezuelan politics? Maduro and Guaido? broadly construed? I think it would be helpful to clarify. If you have explained elsewhere and I missed, it sorry. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it was mentioned elsewhere. The topic area is South and Latin America, broadly construed. El_C 15:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank You
Thank you for protecting those pages. Guy was hopping IPs, AFAIK, no ISP changes IPs that quickly so thanks for tracking down all of the pages. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not at all, LakesideMiners. Happy to help. El_C 18:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
216.79.77.132 ...
Is not only making the edits tht you warned them about, but also appears to be very interested in promoting Cadence Bank, along with 208.62.116.80. It might be worth keeping an eye on that. Graham87 03:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Copy that. Thanks for taking care of it. El_C 03:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Bill Keenan revdel request
Hi El C, will you please revdel this edit [21]. S0091 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:Syrian Civil War infobox
Hello El C. First, I am glad the edit warring at the "2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria" article managed to resolve itself without your intervention. However, another problem has arisen at the Template:Syrian Civil War infobox. An IP editor that started editing only in the last few days is summing up Syrian military fatalities with those of Hezbollah and IRGC-led forces and presenting them all under one flag (that of Syria). The editor has been advised that years ago a consensus was reached through discussions to differentiate Syrian government forces from those of their foreign allies (Hezbollah and IRGC). In particular, there were numerous debates during the years regarding the IRGC-led forces that they especially deserve to be differentiated from Syrian forces. The editor has also been advised that his lumping the forces of three different countries under one flag is missleading on their part. He has also been advised that for changes such as these to be made a new consensus would be needed (as per Wiki policy). The IP editor has ignored these warnings and considers the previously established consensus to be out-dated and made a few bad faith comments. The Syrian Civil War infobox in particular has been only radically changed in the past after discussions between editors due to the sensitive nature of the subject and so to find new ways to deflate the over-bloated infobox (his edits bloat it even more). I think it would be good to protect the infobox (against non-established editors) until the issue can be resolved (if the IP editor is even willing to discuss the issue at the talk page, which he has refused at the moment). Thanks in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @EkoGraf: the IP has only reverted once, so I think protection would be premature at this time. Why not try to facilitate a discussion about this, keeping in mind that consensus can change (though I sort of doubt it has for this matter — but you are obliged to figure that out, once challenged). Regards, El_C 23:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the swift reply El C. The challenge to the consensus was actually the least of the things I found problematic. I am all for a discussion to try and find a compromise solution. What I found most problematic was that the editor was combining fatality figures from three different countries and putting them under one flag, which is highly missleading, contrary to the cited source and when warned about it the editor ignored the warning. EkoGraf (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @EkoGraf: I agree that this is a potential problem — indeed, the material needs to fairly represent to sources that it attributes. And, per WP:ONUS, the status quo ante should be in place while the matter is being discussed, anyway. But, again, the IP has only reverted once, so I don't think there's much left to do at this time. El_C 00:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- We will see if the IP continues to edit war without seeking a discussion at the talk page (which is my impression from his edit summary). Thanks for everything El C! PS Happy New Year! :) EkoGraf (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! Same to you, EkoGraf. Please don't hesitate to follow up if things go awry. Best, El_C 00:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- We will see if the IP continues to edit war without seeking a discussion at the talk page (which is my impression from his edit summary). Thanks for everything El C! PS Happy New Year! :) EkoGraf (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @EkoGraf: I agree that this is a potential problem — indeed, the material needs to fairly represent to sources that it attributes. And, per WP:ONUS, the status quo ante should be in place while the matter is being discussed, anyway. But, again, the IP has only reverted once, so I don't think there's much left to do at this time. El_C 00:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the swift reply El C. The challenge to the consensus was actually the least of the things I found problematic. I am all for a discussion to try and find a compromise solution. What I found most problematic was that the editor was combining fatality figures from three different countries and putting them under one flag, which is highly missleading, contrary to the cited source and when warned about it the editor ignored the warning. EkoGraf (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
User talk:Deepfriedokra
It was a -- failure to communicate.-- Deepfriedokra 06:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Heh, indeed. El_C 06:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Pending reviews comment
I understand the motivation for the 'pending reviews' mechanism. So this is just a comment, that if the pending reviews don't get either reverted or approved reasonably quickly in a hotly edited article, disentangling the edits could get quite messy. I approved a bunch of 8 on 2019–20 Iranian protests just now, including the restoration of infobox images which you felt were too many and of low resolution (I have no opinion either way), since otherwise the backlog would have got even more difficult to disentangle. En.Wikipedia has resisted the pending reviews mechanism that's installed by default on some of the other language Wikipedias - I guess here we get a practical chance to see the advantages and disadvantages in practice. Boud (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think I should remove the pending changes, for now, now that the article is seeing an uptake in traffic? El_C 17:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
fix position "2nd of 18" and sentence "plays in liga 1." not comma, also pay attention to other grammar parts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.175.246 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Edit requests go on the article talk page. El_C 17:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Questions about restrictions
Hi. I guess this is my first question regarding the recently placed restrictions. I've recently found the Alejandro Peña Esclusa article, a Venezuelan politician, which at first sight I believe it has important neutrality and BLP issues, reason why I already have tagged it as such. I would like to do some copyediting and removal of WP:UNDUE information. The article is substantially different from the Spanish Wikipedia (es:Alejandro Peña Esclusa) and the talk page has not been actively been used since 2011, but it seems this has been a hotly contested issue. Would this count as a revert of an edit without consensus, violating 0RR, or a bold edit? Many thanks in advance --Jamez42 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- It would be a bold edit. Happy editing. El_C 01:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Just in case, I wanted to show that there recently was an edit in the 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election article which had additions that I partially disagreed with and after which I started a section in the talk page and pinged the editor to discuss. Seeing that another editor also agreed with me, I removed the contested wording. I can self-revert if this is not appropriate. Best wishes! --Jamez42 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- As long the edit you removed doesn't itself constitute a revert (which at a glance, it does not appear to be), you're fine. El_C 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
My edits are correct
See the article of Carnatic region. It does not include Tulunad region. Why did you revert my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.250.104 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Your changes resulted in errors being introduced to the prose. Also, the passage you contest has a citation. El_C 06:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for letting me know. El_C 08:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Kolkata port
I've moved it back to the original name, Port of Kolkata. The discussion can go from there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was unaware of that being the original title. Anyway, sounds good. El_C 11:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- CambridgeBayWeather, I really dont have strong feelings here, but looking at Template:Major_ports_in_India all the titles end in Port. Why is this an exception ? --DBigXrayᗙ 15:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- DBigXray. I don't know. It was at PoK first so that's where I sent it. I know it seems a bit stupid and pedantic to make users go through a move request over PoK or Kp but it does enable others to point to a consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at the history of the article and redirects, it appears to me that it was started at PoK, while KP should have been the title following WP:COMMONNAME used in the refs and Homogeneity. Pedantic, indeed. Starting an RM thread right now will likely lead to new users flooding the page with suggestions with the new official name. So I am not sure what to do now, May be moving to PoK should not have been done. I will probably start an RM in a few months when we have clarity on Common name being used in the refs. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- DBigXray. I don't know. It was at PoK first so that's where I sent it. I know it seems a bit stupid and pedantic to make users go through a move request over PoK or Kp but it does enable others to point to a consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- CambridgeBayWeather, I really dont have strong feelings here, but looking at Template:Major_ports_in_India all the titles end in Port. Why is this an exception ? --DBigXrayᗙ 15:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting the the T. G. Mohandas
Can review the latest edits of the Article. Authordom (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would rather not get involved in the content dispute. Please discuss the dispute on the article talk page to attempt to reach resolution. If need be, use dispute resolution and accompanying requests to bring outside input. Good luck. El_C 11:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
A question
Hi El C, this is not about you but just a general question. Can an admin be de-sysopped for violating WP:INVOLVED ? --DBigXrayᗙ 15:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- If the Arbitration Committee feels like the violation was egregious enough — sure. El_C 15:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Request for silverlock
Hello El C. Could you please semi-protect my user talk page for some time? There are some brand new accounts making odd edits and various ips vandalizing the page. I am a bit busy nowadays and do not want to get notifications for the stuff like this. It'd be great if you semi-protect the page for some time. Puduḫepa 16:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts
I apologize for my rude comments about the other users; my frustration at the accusation - severe as it was - doesn't excuse my comments. I appreciate in the extreme your spent time to help guide Esuka back. While I initially would have been happy with them being indef'd, a good night's sleep has afforded me the insight that the way you and Ed handled it was both appropriate and wise. If we just keep indef blocking people who screw up, the project would be largely empty of contributors. I have to be willing to give other users - even those I consider rude or net losses to the wiki - the chance to improve themselves. After all, I was afforded that opportunity, right?
Anyway, i wanted to say thank you for taking the time to sort the matter out. It is appreciated. And for the record, I do hope Esuka returns to the project once he's gained some perpective. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Jack. And I appreciate your introspection. Hopefully, there will be more of that going around. Best, El_C 17:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You falsely accused and blocked my account indefinitely after 3 edits!
You falsey accused me of block evasion and permanently blocked my account after I made only 3 edits. I happen to be a woman and newer Wikipedia editor. Not only am I female #METOO, I am an actress in Hollywood. I’m certain anybody would know me from my starring role on Baywatch. I was trying to help some children, a 12 and 14 year old niece and nephew, contribute and make a positive addition to Wikipedia.
You blocked me without first issuing a warning, or even so much as a talk discussion. Unwarranted blocking may be construed as harassment of a new female editor, and these children.
Please immediately reverse the block, or this matter will escalate above you for admin review, and a request to sanction and/or block your account for abusing a new editor without benefit of prior warning or talk.66.153.184.245 (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Missuslulu
- (talk page stalker) User:Missuslulu was blocked for WP:socking, and correctly, it appears to me. If you are Missuslulu then you are not allowed to edit using any account or IP. You can request an unblock on your named account, but I doubt it will be successful, since your only interest seems to be to add mentions of non-notable relatives. Meters (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comments by users who evade their blocks will not be considered. El_C 01:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi I did not understand this edit, Template:Infobox television clearly states that The first air date of the show's last episode on its original network. Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and {End date} if the show is ended. and there is no source that proves that series ended on 14 January 2019. Warm Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. Sorry, I made a mistake. Thanks for your patience. Best, El_C 13:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Your close of the requested move for 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike
Hi there! Thank you for your review of this move discussion. I appreciate the time you took to evaluate the discussion, but I have some concerns regarding your close of the discussion. My primary concern is that the close did not properly weigh the merit of the arguments and Wikipedia policy regarding title changes. Secondly, if there is no clear consensus regarding the proposed move, it seems relatively clear to me that there is consensus that the current title is not the right one. In this case, the closer should pick the best title of the options presented. Further, the result of "not moved" is unclear. There are generally three possible outcomes: "Consensus to not move", "No Consensus", or "Moved". Finally, I find the summary about the lengthy discussion inadequate. A closing should clearly summarize the various viewpoints and their merit in light of Wikipedia policy to justify the decision of the closer.
I kindly ask that you reevaluate your closing of this discussion in light of these concerns or reopen the discussion and request that another editor close the article with these concerns in mind. Thank you. Qono (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- That is not correct. When there is no consensus, the title remains as-is. Maybe I should have written an in-depth summary —that is a point I'm willing to concede— but it did seem fairly obvious that the discussion failed to conclude in any decisive direction (aside from indecision), in which case, again, nothing happens. I realize you wanted your side to prevail (to see a change), but sometimes there isn't enough momentum to achieve that, which results in an impasse. Which results in no change. As for your primary concerns that I "did not properly weigh the merit of the arguments and Wikipedia policy regarding title changes" — that is simply false. I always weigh the arguments in relation to Wikipedia policy in every discussion closure I undertake. Sometimes these involve a summary of the viewpoints (whose length varies), sometimes it is simply a summary of the result. Granted, there was significant dissatisfaction with the current title, but there was no consensus for a different one. There was also significant opposition to changing the title at all (making it about Qasem Soleimani), because a plurality of individuals perished. In short, I don't know what I could have done differently in terms of summarizing the result itself, which was not moving the title due to no consensus. Simply put, neither of the major arguments about the title (killing, assassination, no change) prevailed, in the end, which defaulted, not to a supervote by the closer for a new title, but rather, to whatever the current title is. El_C 19:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't want to reargue the move request, but I do not think that the local arguments of a handful of editors about the focus on Soleimani outweigh the prevailing Wikipedia policy of WP:COMMONNAME, which represents the consensus of the entire Wikipedia community. It would be helpful to have an explanation of why you are weighing those local arguments so heavily when the clear focus of most all reliable sources is on Soleimani and the general consensus of the discussion was that such a focus was appropriate, even if the specific language "Death of, killing of, assassination of" was contested. Please provide a more in-depth summary of the discussion so that it is more transparent how you came to your conclusion, and, if you reiterate your position, please do so using the language suggested in the closing procedures "No Consensus", not "Not moved", which sounds like there is consensus to not rename the page. Qono (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- You can take the above explanation as an in-depth summary. Otherwise, I don't understand what you want. There was no consensus as to what the COMMONNAME is, because this is a recent event. There was no consensus to move the page, which is made clear when I wrote: "There is no consensus in favour of moving the title." Sorry for being terse, but I'm not sure I can explain that any more clearly. El_C 20:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Please
Please consider watchlisting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Will do. But discussion seems to be going fine, post-edit war. El_C 20:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Of course, I had to jinx it! El_C 05:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
note re item
Hi. I have just sent you an email. you are welcome to contact me any time to discuss. I appreciate your help. also, thanks for all your valuable help and insight earlier today. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sm8900: you're welcome. Thanks, it's nice to be appreciated. I agree that Moxy could have used a softer touch. Not to mention that there is a certain irony when writing:
At this point really questioning the WP:Competency level of this editor..
[22] (i.e. WP:Competency is a redlink!). But I actually do agree with them that your frequent use of section breaks can be a bit much — especially when it involves indenting or outdenting their comments. Anyway, I hope you two can work it out amicably. If I can help with that, please let me know. Finally, as an aside, why do you continue to refrain from capitalizing words normally at the beginning of sentences? It makes it difficult for someone like me, for whom English is a second language, to read. In any case, good luck! El_C 05:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)- I refrain from capitalizing sentences because that is my preference. And please do not change the subject. I am asking for your help with comments pertaining to me personally. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sm8900: this is my talk page, but even if it wasn't, I am permitted to add any "aside" as I see fit to comments I submit! Anyway, as I explained to you earlier today, "varying degrees of competences are required" on Wikipedia. That is not a personal comment, but an evaluation of one's abilities (or lack thereof) with the manner in which they edit Wikipedia. Moxy linking (or mislinking) to that explanatory supplement is not a personal attack, if that is what you're driving at. El_C 06:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- yes, assisting other editors with competence, or skills, is fine. however, publicly labeling a specific editor as lacking in "competence," or labeling them publicly in any manner, is a personal comment, from any perspective.
- and I didn't intend to imply that you cannot discuss anything you want on your own talk page. of course you can. the phrase "please don't change the subject" was not meant as a rebuke, merely as a plea to focus upon this specific query. I do appreciate your help. thanks.--Sm8900 (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sm8900: No, I disagree. It is not a personal comment. It has little if anything to do with one's personality. It has to do with a learning curve. It is an assessment of how skillful one is in editing Wikipedia successfully according to its policies and guidelines and style expectations. And please capitalize your sentences normally — again, your comments are difficult for me to read with ease. El_C 06:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sm8900: I see you've added to your comment after my last edit conflict, so let me respond to the additional part. Almost everything on Wikipedia is done publicly. If an editor is frustrated with one's competency, say, related to creating frequent section breaks, when they express that frustration, it is of course made public. But that does not mean there is anything untoward about that. El_C 06:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- El_C, I do appreciate your replies to me, your kind and patient help, and your insights here. just to reply to this topic, here is a quote from WP:Harassment: "Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." I think that is relevant to this specific item. I appreciate your help.
- by the way, I do consider this matter to be fully closed and resolved now. I am not requesting any further action, and I don't feel that any further action is needed. I just wanted to note that one detail here briefly, just for information and in case you want to comment. I do appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sm8900: in this context, that may count as casting an aspersion against Moxy, which I would advise you to refrain from in the future. El_C 15:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- sorry, but with respect, I disagree. that was not meant as an aspersion against Moxy in any way; I apologize if it seemed like that's what it was. you already know my specific concerns; the comment above did not expand them or add to them in any way. in my opinion, I feel that it is not "casting aspersions" to note specific data from wikipedia, after one has already raised a specific concern. I was not adding to my concern, merely noting some objective information that relates to this topic in general. I'm glad to hear your views on this, and I'm glad to discuss this here. I appreciate your helpful reply. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- You cannot quote passages from the Harassment policy, say that it "is relevant to this specific item," and yet still claim it unconnected to the user to whom you are in dispute here. Sorry, but that just not a reasonable premise. El_C 15:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am expressing my concerns to you. instead of replying to them or discussing them, you are telling me that merely mentioning them those is something that are going to warn me not to do? is that correct? I think that I don't understand that part, so perhaps you could clarify. Sm8900 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
[M]erely mentioning them those is something that are going to warn me not to do?
— I'm not sure I follow. But you cannot imply that someone is engaged in harassment without evidence, anywhere on Wikipedia, where again, public is public. El_C 02:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am expressing my concerns to you. instead of replying to them or discussing them, you are telling me that merely mentioning them those is something that are going to warn me not to do? is that correct? I think that I don't understand that part, so perhaps you could clarify. Sm8900 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- You cannot quote passages from the Harassment policy, say that it "is relevant to this specific item," and yet still claim it unconnected to the user to whom you are in dispute here. Sorry, but that just not a reasonable premise. El_C 15:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- sorry, but with respect, I disagree. that was not meant as an aspersion against Moxy in any way; I apologize if it seemed like that's what it was. you already know my specific concerns; the comment above did not expand them or add to them in any way. in my opinion, I feel that it is not "casting aspersions" to note specific data from wikipedia, after one has already raised a specific concern. I was not adding to my concern, merely noting some objective information that relates to this topic in general. I'm glad to hear your views on this, and I'm glad to discuss this here. I appreciate your helpful reply. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sm8900: in this context, that may count as casting an aspersion against Moxy, which I would advise you to refrain from in the future. El_C 15:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Sm8900: this is my talk page, but even if it wasn't, I am permitted to add any "aside" as I see fit to comments I submit! Anyway, as I explained to you earlier today, "varying degrees of competences are required" on Wikipedia. That is not a personal comment, but an evaluation of one's abilities (or lack thereof) with the manner in which they edit Wikipedia. Moxy linking (or mislinking) to that explanatory supplement is not a personal attack, if that is what you're driving at. El_C 06:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I refrain from capitalizing sentences because that is my preference. And please do not change the subject. I am asking for your help with comments pertaining to me personally. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
What is going on
I don't know what's up with the user Markaz Isthifah but he's making a mess. I've twice reverted edits where he altered the signature on my talk page notices to him.. he's also made a garbage category, altered other talk page notices, and then pasting promo crap in sandboxes. It looks like a language barrier, WP:CIR issue or both. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- And it looks like you blocked him by the time I finished this message. Well done - thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I've indeffed them. They are clearly unwilling or unable to communicate at this time. El_C 16:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
And I'm willing to bet that it was a sock account of Markaz Isthifah Sunniya, registered a few days ago.My mistake, that account is on other Wikimedia projects but not en-wiki. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I think I fixed my WP:AE appeal link
I can't ping you there, because of the absence of a signed section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Copy that. You are free to respond to comments, though, within reason. El_C 02:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Philippines GINI unrevert
Hi. Here, I've undone your recent revert re the 2015 GINI figure for the Philippines in the article on that country. As mentioned in my edit summary for that undo, there is a conflict between this figure and the figure used for ranking which comes from the unreliable List of countries by income equality article, and the supporting source cited in that other article currently throws a 404 error. I have not considered what, if anything, to do about that conflict or looked into that 404 error. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up, Wtmitchell. That's my bad — I've already apologized to the original editor for my mistake. I very much appreciate your diligence. Regards, El_C 08:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Harassment
Could you please tell M.k.m2003 to leave me alone as well? He literally just sent me a mail written in Persian, even though he has been told on several occasions that I don't understand the script. Here's what he wrote, seemingly nothing bad with a quick Google translate. He has been after me this whole day, and seriously lacks WP:COMPETENCE.HistoryofIran (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll have another word with him. El_C 18:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi I thought this user is fluent in Persian But he doesn't want to talk, All that I sent him:Apology-Thanks-Sympathy-Avoid future tensions And I didn't say anything bad, This email should not be made public, Please hide it. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
This word to thank:Harassment M.k.m2003 (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Google translation will change my mind, If you think this is an insult you can get help from fluent Persian users, All my words are kindly spoken, Without anything offensive M.k.m2003 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, M.k.m2003 — private content removed and revdeleted. El_C 20:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Is there a secret ignore button on Wikipedia that I haven't been told about? Could really use it atm. [23] --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, they keep saying that they are withdrawing from the discussion, but yet they keep the conflict going somehow. El_C 22:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This user also offends reputable sources, He shamelessly made my email public Although it has been said kindly. What is this template? (زبان مادری این کاربر فارسی است= The native language of this user is Farsi. Yes I was misled by this pattern, He is not Iranian. Tell her to change her user page Because Iranian knows Persian very well M.k.m2003 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean
offends reputable sources
, but I suggest you two try to avoid one another in the immediate future. El_C 23:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- @M.k.m2003: Could you stop thanking me for my edits as well? Just completely leave me alone, it's not that hard. I'm getting rather tired of getting constantly pinged by you, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) HistoryofIran, FYI, Preferences → Notifications has a "muted users" section where you can list users from whom you do not want to receive notifications. – Levivich 03:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- @M.k.m2003: Could you stop thanking me for my edits as well? Just completely leave me alone, it's not that hard. I'm getting rather tired of getting constantly pinged by you, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Levivich: I'm not a troll And I was not going to harass But I'm sorry. HistoryofIran My thanks were just a sign of friendship And I certainly won't face you anymore Rest assured. M.k.m2003 (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi M.k.m2003, just be clear, I didn't say or mean to imply that you were a troll; I don't know anything at all about this dispute. I just wanted to mention that if anyone doesn't want to receive notifications from anyone else, the software has a "mute" function in the preferences. That's all. – Levivich 17:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Block request
Please block 36.79.253.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). S0091 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Already done. El_C 00:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Page Protection Request
Hello, I would like to mention these pages Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Vishakapatnam and Kurnool to be protected for now. As there is lot of vandalism going on. I request you to please kindly handle this issue as soon as possible. Lakshmisreekanth (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've already protected Andhra Pradesh earlier today. I'll have a look at the rest momentarily. El_C 13:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
sock puppet
Hey. I see that you blocked CounterBritishPropoganda for disruptive editing. I think he's very likely a sock of Missileinfo who was blocked for similar POV edits. A quick look at the usernames of his other sock accounts would tell you he's the same user. Regards. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 17:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thanks for letting me know. El_C 17:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Reliability of a source
Dear El C, since you are familiar with the ongoing discussion on Qasem Soleimani, I was wondering if you would mind telling me if I did right in this edit. Is WP:RSN the correct place to raise the issue? If yes, is the format I used correct? It would be much appreciated if you move/edit it yourself if necessary. Thanks in advance. Ms96 (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am not actually familiar with the ongoing discussion (which one?) — yes, RSN is a fine resource to raise issues of source reliability.
Feel free to start a request about this there (you don't need me for that), butI see that you already started a request there, so my advise is to be especially concise. Good luck. El_C 10:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Please review this close
G'day El C
I'm requesting you review this RM close.
I can't even see consensus to move, let alone a snow close.
I suspect that the eventual result of this process will in any case be a new naming convention. If this RM result stands, it's a precedent for many other corporate renames. IMO it would only be a valid snow close if we already had that consensus.
And I'm not against that, but I don't think we're there yet. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Noted and replied on that page. El_C 03:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you please Semi-Protect this article for a while? It has recently suffered from a spate of anon vandalism, and all of the IP edits dating back to October have been only vandalism. It's really starting to show in the history logs. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Re: "We must respect the historical sources" mantra
You forgot to add to your close, "It has been strongly suggested you find different pages to edit so you won't be in conflict with each other". That solution would be less painful for all of us. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- The problem is that they both edit similar pages, so what do you do? (Short of opting to live in shoe!) El_C 22:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- It would be nice. But it also would be nice if someone explained to Mikola22 that edit warring is not good, even in the case of "we must respect the sources."--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Ms96
Hi, so after the page got unprotected this editor (Ms96) again re-added the disputed text (edited version) even after I told him that there is a RfC and that he cant be bold, and add even an edited version of the disputed text without discussing or proposing it first in the talk page. I don't want the article to be fully protected again. Could be extended confirmed protected because a lot of editors are creating accounts and making disruptive edits like Ayatollah mahdi and this editor in that article. I have sent a notification to Ms96 about the sanctions in Iranian politics related articles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Now that I was pinged, I say here. Dear El C, please please please read the whole discussion under "lack of neutrality" (as well as "Iranian propaganda Heading") and also "RfC about inclusion of Iranian propaganda section" (maybe you would also be interested in "Polls published by Center for International Security Studies (CISSM) University of Maryland School of Public Policy and Iran Poll" in WP:RSN). I'm doing my best, but this endless disruption is tearing me apart. Ms96 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- While the discussion takes its course, the status quo ante should remain in place, per WP:ONUS. El_C 22:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is a different issue (not about Ms96) but there is an editor who started a RfC in that article which was completely not neutral and not very clear as I explained here. I don't know what to do. I am just complaining and the editor is not responding. I want to make a new neutral RfC but I don't know how. I think the current RfC should be closed but I am involved in that discussion so I am not very trusted among editors there. If an admin closed the discussion, it would be great, but again, I don't know where to request or how to request closing that RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Already done. I have just clarified the RfC question a few minutes ago. The RfC should not have editorialized and been phrased in such a vague way, but it wasn't as if editors had too hard of a time following what it was, ultimately, asking. I don't think the RfC preferences expressed thus far need to be repeated in a new RfC, however. El_C 22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- We were debating about having a dedicated section about "Iranian propaganda" in that biographical article. You said it is about a paragraph but thats not true. Also editors have already voted in that discussion. I think a new RfC should be made and it was very easy to make a neutral RfC but judging from that editor past in Wikipedia I am not surprised.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to think of how to phrase the RfC question. Give me a sec. El_C 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Just close it. It is a mess. A brand new RfC, I will ping all involved editors and those who have already voted. We dont need that unneutral text to be at the beginning even if it was changed. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I get that imperative, but I'm also wary of copying and/or repeating all the responses submitted thus far. I'll bring it to discussion. El_C 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Just close it. It is a mess. A brand new RfC, I will ping all involved editors and those who have already voted. We dont need that unneutral text to be at the beginning even if it was changed. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to think of how to phrase the RfC question. Give me a sec. El_C 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- We were debating about having a dedicated section about "Iranian propaganda" in that biographical article. You said it is about a paragraph but thats not true. Also editors have already voted in that discussion. I think a new RfC should be made and it was very easy to make a neutral RfC but judging from that editor past in Wikipedia I am not surprised.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Already done. I have just clarified the RfC question a few minutes ago. The RfC should not have editorialized and been phrased in such a vague way, but it wasn't as if editors had too hard of a time following what it was, ultimately, asking. I don't think the RfC preferences expressed thus far need to be repeated in a new RfC, however. El_C 22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is a different issue (not about Ms96) but there is an editor who started a RfC in that article which was completely not neutral and not very clear as I explained here. I don't know what to do. I am just complaining and the editor is not responding. I want to make a new neutral RfC but I don't know how. I think the current RfC should be closed but I am involved in that discussion so I am not very trusted among editors there. If an admin closed the discussion, it would be great, but again, I don't know where to request or how to request closing that RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- While the discussion takes its course, the status quo ante should remain in place, per WP:ONUS. El_C 22:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Please don't accuse users of lying —that is an aspersion that fails to assume good faith (maybe it was an oversight, why assume "lies"?)— and please also don't assume that anyone could be "playing with [my] mentality," either. The RfC's question editorialized and was too vague, to the point that I conflated the dispute here (top of the section) with it, which is my bad. Anyway, I opened the question to discussion on the article talk page, in any case. There is no need to continue to split the discussion over here, on my talk page. El_C 23:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Protection of Isabel dos Santos
Hi El C. I see that you protected Isabel dos Santos last year; I just logged a request for protection again. I see that you have just made edits, so in the hope that you are still logged, could you please take a look? Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Done. El_C 00:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Anything wrong?
Hey, can I ask a question? What's wrong with me thinking Stefka Bulgaria's tendentious editing is being ignored? Please look, in my recent report he kept ignoring our discussions in October 2019. He pretended as if we had no discussion on that. Something is wrong here and he is kindly allowed to go with no warning, the least thing he deserved. --Mhhossein talk 08:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein apparently didn't have time to reply to a TP discussion that went answered for 9 days, but seems to have plenty of time to advocate for a warning or sanction against me. What would be helpful is more focus on discussing the actual content of the article, and less time filing reports against other editors who have (unlike the OP) actually substantiated their edits on the article's TP. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Since your response was given back in back in October 2019. --Mhhossein talk 19:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I would rather avoid splitting the discussion and, in general, not entertain MEK spillovers onto my talk page — that should be reserved only for the most urgent cases. I've already addressed some of these concerns on the article talk page, where I have indeed cautioned and instructed them on how to move forward. Feel free to respond there, especially to my proposal regarding what duration there ought to be for repeating exhausted topics. El_C 20:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Awful protection
over Gurbaksh Chahal. You have (literally) got 5 editors with 20,000+ edit counts deeming the opposing editor as an UPE-SPA. He managed to game ECP by mass-firing IABot and now, you have sysop-protected. ∯WBGconverse 12:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- El_C. Please, see this ANI thread, reduce your protection and look in over there—your colleague Deepfriedokra wants a second opinion. ——SN54129 12:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, will look further into it. El_C 13:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Why revert me?
Why have you reverted me on my own sister's talk page? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Because it his her talk page. See your own talk page for more details about your problematic editing in that regards. Let's continue the conversation there. El_C 11:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)