Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:53, 9 June 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 15 16 17

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 ... 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!" 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  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 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)

4Tality Fractal

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)

Thanks very much. I realize.my wording above presumes you'd be willing, and that I didn't actually ask, so thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics#Request for comments on the 'political position' parameter of the political party infobox
• Talk:Romania#RfC
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: HispanTV
• Misplaced Pages 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)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks, Gerda! El_C 08:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Good day, see? Take music and flowers to your liking ;) - It's great to see your name so often on my watchlist. One aread where I often wait for admin action - not now - is WP:ITNN, where we nominate for recent deaths to be shown on th Main page, and often the time between an article found and then is seems long to still call it recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, good ol' ITNC —where I got no credit for being the first to have  Posted the Corona virus outbreak, but upon (admittedly, perhaps somewhat prematurely) doing the same for the Kirk Douglas RD got a what-the-fuck-barbeque— it's a magical place! El_C 11:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I see, sorry for touching some wound ;) - Same for me: last year, I nominated a great pianist for RD, after I first had create an article which took time, and then carried away to also make it decent, - and by then her death was so long ago that she wasn't mentioned at all. The more woman, and the more foreign, that danger seems imminent, and if I may bother you in case I seee it coming again, that would be great. At present, it's a man, listed 20 Feb (although who knows if that was the day?), and nobody even commented yet, so nothing to be concerned about right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, by all means, if you feel Peter Dreher is , let me know so I could do the honours. El_C 12:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I nominated him, so am not the most independent to judge ;) - and I'm already busy with the next, a woman, but mostly not foreign. - I really think we have some unintended bias there: the most prominent figures (white U.S. males) get speedy attention, and appear soon at the top position, while the female foreigners - often reported late to start with - take so long to even be noticed that they get only a place towards the end, finally, - as long as we go by date of death and not "in at the top". Result: those who are promminent already get preferred showing, more in front, and longer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, countering systemic bias is a treacherous mistress — though in the case of Kirk Douglas, I have to admit my own affinity for his admirable work countering the Hollywood blacklist... Anyway, +Peter Dreher to RD. El_C 13:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

February flowers

Alte Liebe

Thank you, love-ly! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I nominated the poet for ITNN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

At the ! El_C 14:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

and posted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

That was quick! I helped? El_C 17:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

think so ;) - today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Next foreign women RD: Odile Pierre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: sorry for the belated response — I overlooked your last message. Apologies for not being able to assist with that one. Please don't hesitate to list more. I'll try to be more cognizant of this thread next time, I promise. El_C 03:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Gerda's corner

To help me better remember! El_C 05:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Gerda’s corner is lovely. When I have more time in my life and can do things beyond blocking socks, I plan to spend time there getting some of the Holy Thursday hymns on the main page. Gerda, if it’s not too late to find one, let me know. The Pange Lingua is always a first choice, but if there are any others you can think of, I’m open. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, El C’s talk page is lovely, especially for his hosting my musing about music he likely doesn’t care about one iota! TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I like all kinds of music, including of the eclectic and esoteric variaty — lately I've been Dimashing it up (special thanks goes to Jasmin Ariane!). El_C 05:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Lovely corner, thank you! Today is The day of music, two choirs singing. I'd like Beati improved - but it's in the evensong, perhaps I'll get to a few more lines. On IWD, I should also get Elinor Ross in better shape ... - but singing comes first. Listen to Beati by voces8, another article needing improvement. Singing comes first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

On the ITNN page, 6 Mar, Carsten Bresch. We will possibly never know when he died, but should use 6 - when the world was informed - as the day by which we go. I may be alone with that view ;) - Lovely lively colours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Expect the sky to fall at ITNC — posted with Mar 0? (!). El_C 13:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, and I added "Posted", but don't want to pass credits. DYK you know that it is as easy as clicking on the words "credit" in the nom? Nice progress on the soprano, but out for singing (alto), second round. A good source for her death would be a nice addition, anyone. this is all Spanish to me, and the English one is a blog. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

nom done, and the credits were done by someone else - bedtime --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Sleep tight. El_C 23:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

done also, and she's there - today's topic seem to be errors (3) in the OTD section of the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru took care of that! - What should I do about this decline? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If you're confident it's good, I would move it to main namespace nonetheless. El_C 10:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

How about you? - I asked the decliner for reasoning, but got no answer. I think it might be better if it's not a personal thing between them and me, so an independent pair of eyes might help. - I don't go via AfC, nor does my friend LouisAlain, but last year many of his translations were sent to draft space, for lack of refs, just because de and fr have different ideas about referencing. I try to rescue, that's all. Then get a ridiculous template on my talk recommending the Teahouse, and still see the ridiculous decline template recommending to seek help from an experienced editor, - the things we do to voluntary contributors ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Mainspacified. And I didn't even visit the Teahouse! El_C 13:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

pacified ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me, El_C! Concerning Dimash: Oh wow, I really didn't expect that! But I'm happy you enjoy it! It's funny, it's not even a genre I usually listen to. But the first time I heard him 2 years ago, I immediately loved his music. I love his voice, his emotional interpretation; and his vocal skill, range and versatility are just enormous. And he seems to be a very nice and humble guy, which makes it even easier to like him. PS: "eclectic and esoteric variety"? Wow, that sounds interesting. Jasmin Ariane (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

♫ Welcome to the corner, Jasmin! Yes, I love Dimash's Sinful Passion, New Wave, SOS d'un terrien en détresse, Ogni Pietra (Olimpico), Opera 2, and more. Indeed, music-wise, I'm all over the place. Yesterday, I was listening to the Mahavishnu Orchestra, I'm listening to Charlie Byrd right now (because I love bossa nova, above all else), and I'm listening to the China Philharmonic Orchestra in the car currently. So, yeah, all over the place. Welcome, again! ♫ El_C 16:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Please log Peel Commission

El_C, please log Peel Commission's ECP in the Arbitration enforcement log. Buffs (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops, looks like it slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder, Buffs. El_C 14:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

YW/thanks! Buffs (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Rollback

Hey I know what they are used for, however, everyone can access them and it doesn’t require any rights so when I look at the summary provided it doesn’t show anything about why it was done, it would be great if it did though! I’ve seen numerous people (including a huge war today with an IP address and every other editor using it but they all listed why they were rolling them back and not just the general version. I hope this makes sense to you! Thanks Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ 03:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't. Rollback is a user right, requests for it are made at Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Rollback. El_C 03:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I first got rollback back in 2005 when I became an admin — only admins had rollback then. Later on, the developers added it as a user right that admins are empowered to grant. El_C 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Visioncurve

I have lifted your block on Visioncurve as that user has withdrawn their legal threat. I left a pretty stern warning for them to disengage with HistoryofIran. I hope you don't take any offense to me lifting your block. I'll try to keep an eye on that editor. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No offense taken, Yamla. More eyes on the editor will be appreciated. El_C 10:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

New messages

Hi! Please take a look at the message here. The IPs were indeed sock evasion as the investigating admin has confirmed on the talk page, perhaps you missed the new messages. Za-ari-masen (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. El_C 21:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you know a wikipedian who understands chinese?

Hi on William Chan, there's an IP changing the name of a character that the actor is playing. He linked this claiming that it was an announcement post that the name of the character was changed. Do you know a wikipedian who can understand and translate Chinese so it can be determined if this IP is trying to trick me? OcelotCreeper (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no one immediately comes to mind. El_C 03:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

爷爷打屁股宝宝. EEng 03:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I can sell you a horse. El_C 03:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Rojava map

@El C: Hi again! There is now another new user (GlobalMilInfo) that has made the same edits as MehmetFarukSahin to the map on all the Rojava-related articles. I believe there is some involvement of the blocked user Bill497, as he canvassed on Wikimedia Commons and the edits he called for are being conducted by multiple users now, and none use the talk page to discuss the issue. So whether it's actual sockpuppets were talking about or users acting as proxies should I use SPI for this issue? I want to be careful so I do it correctly. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, use SPI. In the meantime, I've rollbacked their reverts and warned them against continuing to do so. I'm not happy that a user who has been here less than a week gets involved in a series of mass reverts. I am invoking WP:GS/SCW, so that decision is at my discretion. El_C 11:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

copyvio

Are you sure you're not aiding and abetting with copyvio, El_C? Cf. & Talk:2020_Royal_Chapel_of_Milot_fire. This account was previously blocked as an IP. -- SashiRolls 04:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Was just fixing the layout. Did not investigate beyond that. El_C 04:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that all that text seemed like due weight to you. Over 4K on one fire? (more than twice as much weight as the 2010 earthquake)

Weirdly, in the History of Paris the Notre Dame fire isn't even mentioned. -- SashiRolls 05:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't look at any text, I just fixed the awkward image layout. El_C 05:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

of a copyright image. Odd adminning, that. -- SashiRolls 05:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you say, SashiRolls. El_C 05:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see you helped out. Thank you! -- SashiRolls 05:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. Glad I was able to help in the end. El_C 05:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thanking you for the page protection. I hadn't seen the block. I hope he appeals convincingly, after taking the time to write the story up and find references and images and all. I don't imagine that will happen, but it would be an even nicer end. -- SashiRolls 06:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

For sure, that's a nice thought. El_C 06:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Communist Party of Cuba

I need to come clean, im afraid i have overstepped massively without thinking about it, i have reverted a particular edit way more than i should. So there is a person who removes communism and replaces it with socialism in the infobox. To back this up, this person uses an article from the guardian, which is regarded as a reliable source. However the article is about communism being removed from the 2018 draft cuban constitution, whereas in the final 2019 version of the constitution, Cuba is still dedicated to a communist future . And even if what the article says were correct, the national constitution is not the party constitution. This person also uses a new IP for every edit, which i believe is against wikipedia ToS. Now, i feel like i cant justify reverting this edit any further, so could you or anyone you know look into the problem for me? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not an article with which I can help out with, either as an editor or an admin, for reasons I'd rather not expand on at this time. I suggest you use AN3 to report any edit warring. Regards, El_C 17:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mars Effect

The socker is back this time with an even more unreliable source. Tknifton (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 16:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Vargas

On 2 March 2020, the article Vargas (state) was moved to "La Guaira" during cross-wiki disruptive editing. After being moved back, on 7 May it was moved again to "La Guaira". Because of the dispute, including its use in reliable sources, I believe that a move discussion should have been opened because of the dispute per WP:RM#CM and I expressed it as such in the article's talk page, but the user that move the article felt it was "not necessary". Should a move dicussion be opened to proceed with this change? --Jamez42 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. And it was moved by you, you neglect to add. Anyway from your quoted material: if neither of these English names exist, the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present) ... should be used. What are you contesting? The state exists in the present and that is its modern official name, in the present. Thus, I'm not inclined to mandate an RM and move back the article at this time. Not without a convincing policy-based argument. El_C 01:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

My bad; it didn't cross my mind since all the questions that have I done in this talk page have been about disputes I have been related with, I apologize if this wasn't clear and I would take care in the future.

My main point is based on WP:NCPLACE since references still widely use the name the name of "Vargas", even after its official change on 2020: This is even more common in Spanish sources, which are commonly used in related articles in the English Misplaced Pages: The reason why I bolded "if" is because I'm arguing that either the widely accepted English name and the widely accepted historical English name are "Vargas" (which includes historic uses such as the Vargas tragedy).

Another problem that I have argued is that the capital city of the state is already named "La Guaira" and the move can easily lead to confusions among the users, both because of its recent change and because the change has not been widely accepted yet, so WP:TOOSOON arguably applies too. The most common use I have seen in English noted for "La Guaira" is to refer to the city and not the state. Something similar happened when the Federal District (Venezuela)  was split into Vargas and the Capital District back in 1998.

Last but not least, I don't know if there is a precedent in the naming conventions, but I also wanted to note that the International Organization for Standardization still refers to the entity as "Vargas". I believe that summarizes my reasons and concerns of why the original title should be kept, and as such, a change should at least be further discussed.

As always, many thanks beforehand! --Jamez42 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth explanation, Jamez. My point remains, however, that this isn't an historical article, even if it includes a history a section and so on. But by all means, discuss away — I'm just saying that I'm still not inclined to mandate a move back as an admin action. El_C 20:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI

In relation to the ANI that you recently closed: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grudge by Admin User:Buckshot06 you said that it was a content dispute. That is incorrect. The last editing dispute that I had with Buckshot06 was resolved over a year ago. The issue is Buckshot06's grudge against me as shown by the diff and Buckshot06's own comments: "My 'grudge' is your repeated unwillingness to accept in any form or fashion that North Vietnamese sources are able to be reliably used for any casualties/numbers purposes, as far as I can tell, whatsoever. It was their war as well, and after 55 years I believe that at least some of what they write consitutes reliable sources. Yes, I believe you are unacceptably WP:OWNing the Vietnam War articles, biasing them against acceptable and reasonable use of assessments from Vietnamese sources *half a century* after the war ended; yes, I believe you're far too biased toward a very U.S.-military centric view; and yes, I will happily provide further examples of your WP:OWNing behaviour at any appropriate forum. The only reason why I have not filed an WP:RFC against your behaviour is that I do not have the energy to fight with you on this. Trust this makes my grudge or grievance against your behaviour over Vietnam War related articles clear." this despite the fact that, as I said above, we have no had an editing dispute in over a year. I really don't understand why you and other Admins don't see this as a behavioural problem or are Admins beyond reproach? Mztourist (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not beyond reproach. That's why there's WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Talk:Military_Assistance_Command,_Vietnam#Move_of_DAO_section_to_Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Saigon seems to be limited to a dispute over content. That it spilled over to some claims of behavioral violations, by either side, does not necessarily makes it so. There needs to be better evidentiary basis for that. Otherwise, you should use WP:DR to resolve the contested content details. Back in 2018, Buckshot06 was told to consider themselves involved as far as acting in an admin capacity with you and I do not see how they have faltered in that since. Please if you respond further, no walls of texts, but instead, please limit yourself to brief summaries alongside relevant (recent) diffs. El_C 10:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As advised above, the edit dispute on Talk:Military_Assistance_Command,_Vietnam#Move_of_DAO_section_to_Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Saigon was resolved in May 2019. The issue at hand is this: where Buckshot06 seeks to solicit a User with whom I have another dispute and then his comments on the ANI, copied above, where he throws a range of criticisms at me despite us not having had an edit dispute since May 2019. Mztourist (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

They probably shouldn't have inserted themselves into that latest dispute, but I don't see how that's actionable. They are entitled to criticize you, just like you're entitled to criticize me. El_C 11:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Mztourist, to followup further: I did misread the May 2019 dispute to read May 2020, so your correction is accepted. But I still don't think your ANI report is actionable at this time. I would submit that Buckshot06 needs to limit themselves to noticeboard reports regarding claims of OWN misconduct by you, rather than making that claim by otherwise inserting themselves into disputes they feel suffer from this. El_C 11:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the error. So you think an Admin fishing for support like this and unsubstantiated personal attacks are acceptable as "criticism" and not an "intractable behavioural problem"? Given the incorrect closure of this ANI and the non-decision of my earlier Hounding ANI it seems that Admins like Buckshot06 are regarded as being beyond reproach. Mztourist (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

They are not beyond reproach and them being an admin was not relevant to my evaluation. I have already amended the ANI close with a caution to Buckshot06 to avoid drive-by accusations against you. But otherwise, that one incident is not actionable in so far as sanctions are concerened. El_C 11:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Mztourist, please don't make claims of personal attacks without providing evidence. Otherwise, it becomes an aspersion. Thank you. El_C 11:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've read through this discussion and acknowledge my name has been raised. I'm open to constructive suggestions as to how I would suggest that Mztourist might enter into discussions in which he might consider North Vietnamese sources valid for insertion into articles on the American-involved period, 1960ish-1975, instead of WP:STONEWALLing. Open to suggestions, because I am very frustrated with his WP:OWNERSHIP of these articles and persistent over-bias towards the U.S. point of view. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it can't be through terse drive-by commentary that basically serve as jabs. You do all the work and write a comprehensive request. Maybe an RfC at RSN which asks whether "North Vietnamese sources valid for insertion into articles on the American-involved period, 1960ish-1975"? Then a substantive discussion can commence. Good luck in amicably resolving the dispute. El_C 11:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

El C thank you for revising the ANI close. In relation to your comment that I made claims of personal attacks without providing any evidence, the evidence is Buckshot06's "I believe you're far too biased toward a very U.S.-military centric view" above and his earlier comments and queries about my affiliation: which amounts to "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" as stated under Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?. Please tell me what Buckshot06 again accusing me of WP:STONEWALL and WP:OWNERSHIP without any evidence are if not personal attacks? Mztourist (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

My evaluation is that there was no ad hominem with any of that quoted material. El_C 12:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, then what do you call his continued WP:STONEWALL and WP:OWNERSHIP accusations without any evidence? WP:ASPERSIONS? Mztourist (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already cautioned Buckshot06 about that. But I think that you, too, should do some introspection, per the other ANI report. El_C 14:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:NomdeA & Piers Robinson

Hi El_C. I noticed that you'd temporarily blocked this IP for making legal threats which I fully understand. However, looking at the edits made by NomdeA (talk) to what I assume to be his article, he does have a point.

Conspiracy theorist

Pressure group; no academic standing and again, now just a pressure group

Huff Post for a BLP?

Huff Post again

Conspiracy theorist as occupation and again

The majority of his edits to this article are reverted, they do not appear neutral and when challenged he responds with personal attacks & casting aspersions; such as accusing other editors of vandalism & meat puppetry. diff1/diff2 He's had previous warnings for edit warring & for removing swathes of information from articles without trying to identify alternate sources. Can you please take a look at his history? Or advise me where I should raise it? Thank you. --DSQ (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have warned NomdeA to not make claims not supported by evidence. I have provided them with the relevant discretionary sanctions alert and have also placed the article under discretionary sanctions. This will allow me to apply sanctions, if these are needed, at my own discretion. El_C 10:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that. And OMG your chipmunk pics are absolutely stunning! --DSQ (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, DSQ. And thanks for the kind chipwords! El_C 10:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Cv

Despite your warning, this user is continuing copyright violations. A recent example is here. Aman Kumar Goel 19:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff with a brief quote? El_C 19:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is his edit. "some teams will be co located while others would operate across different organizations similarly certain functions will be performed by dedicated project teams while others by matrix teams" (28 words) directly copied from here. Aman Kumar Goel 19:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I blocked for one week and revdeleted. Thanks again for helping out! El_C 19:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Article belonging to ARBPIA

Do you think this article Hebraization of Palestinian place names that was created by user:Onceinawhile should be WP:ARBPIA as user:Davidbena removed the tag on the talk page --Shrike (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Shrike. You may wish to see this here. At any rate, I'm willing to abide by any consensus reached in this article.Davidbena (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Davidbena, My problems that the article right now read very one sided it doesn't talk about source of the Hebrew names and how Arabs that settled the land used and Arabized the Hebrew names Shrike (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We can add those later. The article is in its natal stages. BTW: I have also submitted an official request here to have the ARBPIA template removed from that article, as the nature of the article has more of a historical context than a political context.Davidbena (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Whatever editors prefer is fine by me. But for future reference, any editor may add the ARBPIA talk page notice, but only an uninvolved admin may remove it. Good luck with the article, everyone. El_C 16:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Blond God from Yellow emperor wiki page

This is obviously WP:FRINGE. Claiming him to be blond and Indo-European would therefore be claiming he was a historical human figure. The immense vast majority of scholars, historians, linguist reject and denies that Huangdi was a living perso. Hunan201p have not made any reply since 4th of May after I showed him the massive number of those who rejects Hunan201p claims https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Yellow_Emperor

In same, the blond talk page and Fringe theories noticeboard, all the editors (all 6 including me) agreed to remove Huangdi being blond and indo-european. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Blond https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Blond

Like other editors have said " It's extremely misleading. Only one sinologist suggested he was related to indo-european and the vast majority does not consider him blond. The way Hunan201p edited it would make people think that he was really blond. " Other editor said "The fact Indo-Europeans" are speakers of vast language family not a synonym for "blond people". Also " Like Queenplz had said, there's even cultural perception section for mythical and historical figures that have some concensus mainstream view of being blond. Huangdi has no mainstream concensus of being blond, there's not even a scholarly debate because the claims of him being blond is almost non-existant "

Hunan201p edits all based on historical Asian figures but with strong eurocentric agenda. Misplaced Pages had never edited anything about Huangdi being blond and indo-european since it was created from 2004. Why now is there a section for it.Hapa9100 (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why. If there is no consensus for inclusion —if there is consensus against inclusion, even— then it should not be included. Not until such consensus for inclusion is established. El_C 08:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Modification of the Beirut wiki page

Hello. This morning I had modified the photomontage in the information bar of the Beirut city wikipedia page because I thought it did not represent the city well. I also changed the coat of arms to a less pixelated version and removed the "seal", which is not a seal but a modified version of the coat of arms. For me, these changes were improvements, especially for the coat of arms, so I don't really understand your decision to not take into acount these modifications SCHW (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

To me, the change was not an improvement as it lacked proportion. But the place to discuss article content is on the article talk page. El_C 16:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright SCHW (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Deontay Wilder

Hello admin person. I wasn’t sure if this was appropriate for ANI so figured I’d message you. Any chance this can be deleted from the edit history? I think it’s quite disgraceful. – .O. 20:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 20:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the protection level, I don’t think vandalism should be that bad of an issue anymore. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Anantapur

Hi El C - I'm intrigued by this edit of yours - why have you changed the infobox to a different spelling from the article title? and in what way did the article title break any links? - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Arjayay. It wasn't intentional. Just an unusual edit conflict we had, wherein I also failed to address all the vandalism, which you did succeed in doing. Anyway, now fixed. All the best, El_C 10:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries - just wondered if I was missing something (other than a few screws in my head) - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for following up, Arjayay. Nice of you to drop by. El_C 10:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Open proxies

I suspect that a certain user might be back, but for the moment, this in itself is not why I'm posting this. It is a trigger to ask a question that occurred to me only a few years back when I was experimenting with a VPN. I noticed that editing WP via a VPN is disallowed even when logged in, but that a large number of VPN exit points were not identified by WP as such. It seemed to me from a few IP edits that this might have been this user's mode of operation. Which brings me to my question: can you point me to where to ask about whether blocking of edits via VPNs is being actively pursued? —Quondum 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Last week, there was a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Open_proxies#How_banned_are_VPNs?. I would recommend you query that discussion (perhaps with some pings attached). Good luck. El_C 17:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer – silly of me not to look at the talk page. While I'm not sure that the indicated thread pertains, at least the page seems to be the right place. But first I will spend some time reading other threads. —Quondum 18:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone's socks

Hey El C,

Could you please check these? Thanks. François Robere (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This looks like another one. --bonadea contributions talk 12:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• See this thread. serial 12:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this latest spree has been dealt with. El_C 19:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Macuto

David Tornheim added a category (Category:Military coups in Venezuela) to a redirect (2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt). Per WP:RCAT, I thought about removing the category, but I wanted to consult about this first. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not try to discuss the matter with the editor in question before doing anything? El_C 19:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent :) I have asked about the issue in the user's talk page. David also removed today the R pejorative that I added to the redirect. I asked him about the removal in the main's article talk page. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there is a legitimate concern that needs to be discussed. I don't understand why Jamez42 thinks it is more appropriate to discuss his proposed changes here, my talk page, or even the target of the redirect rather than the best place: the talk page of the redirect created by Quidster4040 two days before the requested move discussion.

My 1st edit seems self-explanatory and non-controversial: Category:Military coups in Venezuela includes multiple attempted coups, and the title of the redirect I added is identical in form to the others. It seems consistent with WP:RCAT, especially the part WP:INCOMPATIBLE, which says "Alternative names should not look out of place on a category page. This is often a way to satisfy disagreements over renaming an article when more than one name seems equally valid."

As for the claim the name is pejorative, it appears to be Jamez42's (and possibly other editors) opinion(s). Cmonghost asked twice () for WP:RS that identifies the term "attempted coup" as being pejorative when abundant WP:RS in the discussion uses the term to describe the action. I explained this in the edit summary of my 2nd edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: David, the main policy that I cited was WP:RCAT, questioning why you choose to categorize a redirect instead of the main article.

I'm also concerned that you place this category before the move discussion has concluded, since the original title continues being "Macuto Bay raid", not "coup". I have offered in the discussion a list of over 70 sources, all used in the article, that show that the use of the term is not widespread. I have also argued that the word "coup" is not always pejorative (see the 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état as an example), but given that it is not widely accepted, it is non-neutral.

The template's documentation specifically states that: Use this rcat to tag any redirect in any namespace from a non-neutral title, which is any word, phrase or name that is pejorative, not neutral, controversial or otherwise offensive and is therefore unsuitable to be used as a page name. These are the reasons of why the category should be removed and the tag should be restored. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Unrelated to the discussion above, an IP removed a primary source inline tag in the article without explanation around a week ago. Is it possible to restore it? --Jamez42 (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As of 16 May, David Tornheim has started editing again in Venezuela related articles, specifically the now called Operation Gideon (2020) and United States involvement in regime change in Latin America, which was one of the two articles related to the closed AN/I.

In the previously named Macuto raid talk page, David expressed distrust at reliable sources (WP:RS/P), describing them as "neoliberal" and naming outlets such as The New York Times, Bloomberg and CNN as examples, while arguing that deprecated sources such as TeleSUR and Grayzone should be taken into account. Editors in the discussion have expressed that this position is concerning.

David has now moved and merged the "Accusations" section from the last stable version, without consensus, which was one of the disputed changes in quetion in the AN/I. Another editor and I have asked David to split the section again and have discussed the situation thoroughly, to no avail. As of the advice given in the María-Esther Vidal article, I thought it was important to inform about these developements. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That, indeed, is problematic. But I still think there may be a chance to resolve this dispute in usual way, through further article talk page discussion, or failing that, a dispute resolution request. Anyway, perhaps there is a compromise to be had...? I have also added María-Esther Vidal to my watchlist, but I am unsure to what you are referring to exactly there (advise-wise). El_C 13:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The main dispute in the article is whether should be merged or split in a single or different sections, respectively. I proposed a version for the text for a merged section, which is David's preferred action, but he also disagreed with it. I too believe that a dispute resolution request would be the best course of action, so I think that I will be seeking to start one in the following days.

The mention of María-Esther Vidal's article was mostly on the advice to inform you about the last developments in the edit history, I meant to use it as an example and fortunately the issues seem to currently have been resolved, so there's no need to add it in the watchlist :) --Jamez42 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note: editor ReyHahn has proposed that the previous stable to be restored and editor ZiaLater has expressed that the Venezuela section should only include the "2019 to present" period. Given that the WP:ONUS lies on the editor proposing the changes, in this case David, shouldn't the original version be restored before further changes are discussed? Many thanks beforehand. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

My view is that the status quo ante version is the version that should be displayed while a dispute remains unresolved. El_C 18:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. Considering this, may the 26 May version of the section be restored? --Jamez42 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably. But that determination should be assessed on the article talk page. El_C 12:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Protection on Kim Jong-un

Greetings El C. I fully agreed with the protection put in place on this article. I think it's perhaps time to remove it now, as based on pageviews, the traffic on the article has dropped to pre-death rumor levels from a high of nearly 1.8 million pageviews on April 26, to under 16k yesterday. I could have posted to WP:RFUP, but thought I should see what your thoughts were, as you were the one who protected it most recently. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I've downgraded the protection from ec to semi. If all goes well, will lift that, too, to restore pending changes again (remind me). El_C 01:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the protection level, I don’t think vandalism should be that bad of an issue anymore. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about discretionary sanctions on List of concentration and internment camps

Hello El C, I wanted to ask about the WP:ARBAPDS sanctions applied to List of concentration and internment camps. A user has asserted that they only apply to the American portions of the article (and beyond this, expresses doubt over even this). My question is two-fold. First, is this accurate (that it only applies to the U.S. portion)? Second, if so, does this mean reversions to the other sections of the article are subject to the usual 3RR?

I am trying to not edit-war with this user over their additions to the article, which their sources, in my estimation, do not support. If the above is true, I would have again reverted their stuff and asked again for them to join the talk page to discuss. But since I am under the impression that 1RR and no reinstatements without consensus applies to the whole article, I was just about to go to AE for enforcement. They reinstated material I removed here; here is this diff of their reinstatement.

For full transparency, I mistakenly violated 1RR yesterday when I reverted another portion of the material; when I noticed, I immediately self-reverted when I thought I had made a mistake.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The way the templates are written, it applies to the entire article. But I would not be inclined to enforce non-US material with the AP2 DS. It's a good question. You may wish to query the Committee about it. I'd be interested in the answer to that. El_C 16:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Given that this specific case is merely a matter of a content dispute and the question is more about how to proceed, I am not really interested in going deeper to get a full explanation. Cheers. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

MB

I got the impression you did not want to mention much more about MB on such a highly viewed page. I noticed this. Specifically the first paragraph. I doubt this really happened; rather it was likely "created," and then written into a story by a reporter who did not vet his sources very well. Ditch ∝ 01:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps. But we don't investigate what reliable sources write — we leave that to other reliable sources. Rather, we apply due weight to the given material, which may or may not be the case here. El_C 02:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

On closer look, it seems that entire subsection is highly excessive in relation to an encyclopedia article about the county. El_C 02:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

ARCA

Hi El C, I've asked for clarification on the awareness requirements for the 1RR at ARCA. I listed you as a party as the block/unblock earlier made it seem murky and thought you might have thoughts to add. You can find it here. nableezy - 06:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Jeez, don't remind me. El_C 17:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Kalapani territory

Kalapani territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi El_C, I notice that you have placed Kalapani territory under indefinite semi-protection. I wonder if you will consider ECP since the POV edits are now being made by confirmed users too. The Nepalese government has just escalated the dispute by claiming 400 square kilometres of Indian territory. We are seeing increased activity on all the related pages such as Tinkar, Lipulekh Pass etc.

Pinging Bishonen as well, so that she is aware. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 17:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Your recent block of this user

I might be blind, stupid, or both - but I'm not seeing how this username is against policy and is hard-block, let alone, block-worthy? Can you help me to see the light so that I can kick myself and yell "I'm an idiot" like I deserve? Just ping me in your response so that I'm notified; I have wayyyy too many pages on my watchlist right now. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~ 23:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No organizations in usernames are allowed. Not to mention that provocations in edits are highly discouraged, as well. El_C 23:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That was the name of a real organization? Ah, then I am crazy! I didn't check... lol ~Oshwah~ 23:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, I have no idea if it's real, but they're acting as if it is (again, see edit), which is highly disruptive. We don't need a World rabbinical court basically issuing edicts in edits, with a suspicious use of lowercase "jews," to boot. No thank you. El_C 23:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~ 01:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the block, but I wouldn't read too much into the (ex-)user's omitting capitalization. It's possible that his or her native language is Hebrew or Yiddish, which are written in an alphabet that does not have upper- and lower-case letters. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

From "The Lower Case Jew: T. S. Eliot appears before the rabbinical court in Jewish heaven. But the lower case "jew" that spawned them all, that I don't forgive. El_C 01:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

How to add art and reference to the maker in wikipedia

Hello El

I'm new to wikipedia as you might have noticed.

I just bought the silver panther statue, which link I posted as a reference. I thought of sharing it and their maker on wikipedia so others might find the beautiful piece if they like panthers and art, sculpture in specific.

How should I have done this properly without infringing wikipedia guidelines?

Best regards Artsyst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsyst (talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Artsyst. Promoting that website/artist is not allowed on Misplaced Pages — yes, even though the art itself looks pretty stunning, so congrats on your purchase. El_C 02:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you unblock me please

Hello I noticed you blocked me. Can you unblock me please, I didn't do anything wrong. I just learned how to use the talk thing on Misplaced Pages. So can you please unblock me. TylerKutschbach

Multiple editors have been trying to get your attention, TylerKutschbach — please respond at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TylerKutschbach first, if you don't mind. El_C 03:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I be unblocked now since I now had attention to the editors who tried to get my attention.TylerKutschbach

 Done. El_C 04:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A squirrel for you!

I just found this squirrel, uploaded by Whpq, and it reminded me of your chipmunks. I hope it brightens your day! Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Softlavender! I was just hanging out with some squirrels and chipmunks earlier today. Good time was had by all (i.e. peanuts!). El_C 04:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky

Hi El C, would you consider semi-protecting the Igor Sikorsky article again? You protected it for 3 months beginning in January, and the disruption has continued since the protection expired. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, BilCat. I get the sense that an indef semi will be eventually applied, but for now: Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 23:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Yeah, I get that sense too. It's a contentious issue that won't be solved in our lifetimes. Sigh - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Hitler-car.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hitler-car.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 17:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Improper actions

Before your self-imposed moratorium, the last RM was closed noting the need for an accurate title, and anticipating further RMs. To shut this out and counter that closure is improper, and not for you alone to decide, nor was it agreed that it covers sub-articles. The RM discussion over the main title has no relevance to this or any specific cities, as many are holding varying combinations of vigils, picketing, riots, etc. ɱ (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It has to be up to the individual page editors in the communities to decide how the killing reactions should be displayed in the article and it's title. ɱ (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think we need to go through the same motions in each of the local articles. That is a timesink and is disruptive to those articles' stability. Anyway, I informed AN of my actions, including the move protection, the move moratorium and the extension of the moratorium to the local articles. The thread is located at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#George_Floyd_protests. El_C 01:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't for you alone to rule on. Allow a community consensus. The situation has varied immensely between cities. Columbus is a warzone, and the article title does not reflect that in the slightest. ɱ (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, that is my decision. If consensus is against that decision (at AN), I will bow to it. I'm not sure we're in a position to quantify the intensity of the disorder from one locality to the next at this time, so turning to the parent article's consensus seems like the prudent thing to do for all the local articles. El_C 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Your extension was just in reaction to this. Don't hold me to rules you just create now to apply to my situation. ɱ (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was in reaction to this. And to prevent similar disruption to other local articles' stability, should similar disputes arise. El_C 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that myself and two other uninvolved admins (Drmies and Cullen) support this approach at this time. El_C 01:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone else started another move request - I don't know if you need to close it or if anyone can?-- P-K3 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Done (if we're talking about the same thing — I think we are). El_C 19:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Aspersions

Hello, El C. I hope you're safe and well. Alexikoua has been casting WP:ASPERSIONs that editors (those are N.Hoxha, Bato and I) who are making a completely valid point (about there being two different tribes, one Albanian and one Vlach) on Bua tribe (where he's involved in the content dispute) are socks of a banned editor, Rolandi because he supposedly made the same argument at some time many years ago Simply nonsense. Rolandi +sockfarm are just short-term drive by SPAs User_talk:Alexikoua#Thessalian_Buas. Discussions about this topic as you'll notice in the talkpages of related articles have been held for at least 10 years. As you may remember, I've had disputes with Alexikoua in the past too and always I have to contact an admin to make him stop misquoting bibliography. It is really upsetting to me that he's casting aspersions in this content dispute. I always send the work done in wikipedia to colleagues to check the bibliography in case they find it useful for their own work and it upsets me that I'm facing misinformation with real-life consequences on how other people view the way I act in a citizen science environment like wikipedia. I tried to explain that on his talkpage but he deleted me asking for an explanation and then returned to my talkpage to insinuate more unexplained accusations . What is the way to make him stop casting these very hurtful accusations? I may seem like I'm overreacting but like I said, what I do in wikipedia is not "divorced" from my everyday life. I'm proud of my work in wikipedia and my small attempts to contribute to it and I find it incomprehensible that someone just because they're in a content dispute with me would insinuate such a serious accusation. The worst thing is that I can't even defend myself via checkuser oversight because this isn't a report but just an editor who is spreading rumors from talkpage to talkpage.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but for a reason which I can't explain Maleschreiber feels offended due to my reply to Antidiskrtiminator in my talkpage  ] about Rolandi+ and his socks. Rolandi+ was indeed a disruptive editor and his sockfarmimg was revealed by various Checkusers ]. However, Maleschreiber is completely uninvolved with this pattern as such I wonder why should feel offended with the specific blocked editor. Alexikoua (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have serious objection why this ] can be an accusation. In fact I'm saying that I can 'not' understand MSchreber's connection with Rolandi+.Alexikoua (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that Alexikoua genuinely didn't mean to leave any room open for any other interpretation about me or other editors in his reply to the insinuation on his talkpage after this exchange on El C' talkpage. When something like this comes up, the best thing to do is to reply in an upfront manner for it to be resolved. The fact that you didn't reply to me in the way you're doing now when I brought this up in your talkpage (you actually deleted my request and left me that first ambiguous message) further exarcebated my feeling that you accepted the insinuation that other editors and I are "connected" to Rolandi. My frustration began in the first place by the fact that I treat wikipedia as a citizen science project which I regularly discuss about with my colleagues (in a non-CS environment for the purposes of bettering and mirroring peer-reviewed processes among other things), so I definitely wouldn't want anyone to leave open to interpretation the slightest of issues like the one that was insinuated on Alexikoua's talkpage. It strikes me as incomprehensible to even imply that either I or Bato or N.Hoxha would ever be involved in such behavior. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber, I'm sorry but I share Alexikoua's puzzlement, as they had neither mentioned you (or others) directly, nor as far as I can see by implication. El_C 17:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The insinuation was made by the other editor in the first place - that editors who expressed a certain view may be somewhat connected to the banned editor Rolandi and Alexikoua's chain of replies looked to me at the time like he was not refuting it. I felt that this left "open" room for interpretations in the context of sock aspertions related to that banned editor and I reacted in the way I did. Looking back at this, I admit that I probably overreacted because of real-life implications that accusations have. I'm glad that it's now clear that no such insinuation on his part exists.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Killing of George Floyd

You appear to have moved the article but not the talk page, which is (at the time of writing) still at Talk:Death of George Floyd. GiantSnowman 11:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Now Done. Thanks for letting me know. El_C 11:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Just in case you need the support

I was planning to wait until the second after the 7-day time period passed, then close the Death of George Floyd discussion in favor of the move, with the same rationale you posted. So if people succeed in getting it overturned because of the time period, it will be moved again as soon as the 7 days elapses.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I doubt there's going to be a call to overturn over expediting it by a few hours, but thanks — I appreciate the support. El_C 12:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy to help.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You might want to expand on your rationale there though. I don't feel strongly enough to take this to WP:MVR but I guess some will and demonstrating that and how you appropriately weighed the various policy arguments, especially in light of WP:BLPCRIME, will probably go a long way to avoid this being overturned on lack of justified rationale alone. Regards SoWhy 12:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll think about it. But as one participant who has changed their preference from oppose to support had argued: killing is not necessarily a crime. El_C 13:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have expanded my close. I hope it makes more sense now in relation to policy. El_C 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Closure of move request

Is there a policy reason why my request was closed? It seems pretty heavy handed to close the request, to me.Casprings (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Jesus really! Stop being involved with this and closing perfectly valid RMs. There's no harm in moving as evidence arises. The main article was just moved too, so your arguments are meaningless. ɱ (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I am uninvolved and will continue to act in the interests of the project. If you wish to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, that is an option that is avilable to you. El_C 19:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Casprings, the policy reason is that these move requests are disruptive to the stability of the article. While consensus can change, it does not change that rapidly. El_C 19:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ɱ, you do realize that I am the one who just closed the latest move request and I am the one who moved the main article, which makes my argument here far from meaningless. El_C 19:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I can see how more then one move discussion at once can be disruptive. I do not understand how a move request opened after that one closed is disruptive. Editors could or could not find the suggested name a better title. Either way. But I don't see what is disruptive about the discussion. I have requested a move review. Casprings (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion, here, on my user talk page, has run its course, but okay... El_C 19:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You suggested it to me. . Casprings (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE reads: after discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review. I think you ended the discussion here prematurely, but oh well, what's done is done. El_C 20:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If that is the case, my apologies. I thought you were telling me I should go open a move review if I had an issue.Casprings (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, it's all good. El_C 20:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2020 for Death of George Floyd

@El C: I here review your move closure made on this page. What closure based on? Users individual opinions or facts? I mean Death of George Floyd was a friendly title from the start. Regice2020 (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to ping me on my own user talk page. Anyway, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The closure was based on the rational I provided in my closing summary... El_C 09:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Your closure is in good faith,but it seem to injected your own opinion about the Flyod deaths and real life protest in your closure summary. @Infernape612: made a simple reasoning on why it was better to be kept and this is heavily handed move as @Casprings: said. Why?Regice2020 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I really don't see how that is the case. I examined the strength of the arguments. I do not see how I injected my own opinion to the closure summary. El_C 00:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition to that, I do not see how its disruptive when someone opens another request moves after rm closure and the same closure user inserted a lockdown to prevent another from being made for 30 daysRegice2020 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what? It is disruptive because consensus had just been established a few hours before. The user had nearly a whole week to advance their preferred title in the May 27 move discussion. El_C 23:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

T-ban, etc.

Hey El C,

Recently there's been some back-and-forth between Volunteer Marek and several editors, some verified "socks". Most of it is the usual "edit-war exchange" on town names and various other details, but two stand out:

On May 25th editor "Mellow Boris" made an addition to Zygmunt Krasiński, a Polish romantic poet. VM quickly removed it, but self-reverted since it falls within the bounds of his T-ban. On May 26th the same editor started an article (or perhaps a "stub") on Krasiński's The Undivine Comedy. The article discusses Konrad Swinarski's 1965 stage adaptation of the poem in the context of Poland's recent and current history (again, within the bounds of VM's T-ban). This mention is explicit in the cited source. Nevertheless, VM promptly deleted the article. A week later, and the current revision - duly WP:DYK-ed - barely mentions the antisemitic content of the work.

The reason I'm only sending this now is because I wanted to check the sources myself, seeing how the first and the current revisions differ so much. I've come to the (unfortunate) conclusion that the work is more than "mildly antisemitic" (see Talk:Zygmunt Krasiński#Source quotes), which justified the original text as far as WP:VANDALISM is concerned.

The bottom line is VM reverted two legitimate edits that fall within the bounds of his T-ban, by an account that wasn't blocked, banned or even investigated for any breach of policy. This is clearly outside the remits of WP:BANREVERT, and it comes just two weeks after you warned him "to avoid skirting the line with respect to their topic ban". François Robere (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey. I don't even remember the scope of Volunteer Marek's topic ban, so I may not be the expert you think me of... El_C 12:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It was Poland during WWII, was it not? El_C 12:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

History of Poland during World War II, including the Holocaust in Poland. The first edit mentions Nazi political theorist Carl Schmitt, the second discusses the play's production in the context of post-war Poland. The statement made in text about Polish "bystanders" (par. 4) is taken directly from the source: The historical context is essential here... Twenty years after the end of the Second World War, the Holocaust remained a profound trauma... Today, after the publication of ground-breaking books by Jan Gross, Andrzej Leder and Niziołek, we have come to understand that the reality was far more complex. Acts of great courage and sacrifice happened... Polish society en masse played an extremely ambivalent role of passive observers, ‘bystanders’, sometimes also actively taking part in ... In 1965, faces of Jews whose homes were repossessed by Polish families were still remembered, and those memories must have awakened repressed feelings of guilt and aggression. François Robere (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

1938 is pre-WWII, however, so I'm not sure how the scope of the ban was contravened, even though it is cutting it close. El_C 13:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, bans are "broadly construed", so "cutting it close" (for the n-th time, including your warning from just two weeks ago) should really be enough.

What about the second edit? François Robere (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. Maybe take it to AE to get an assessment by a quorum of uninvolved admins (I may participate). I don't feel confident enough in deciding this on my own. El_C 13:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Very well. François Robere (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It's about a freakin' EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY POET ffs! Trying to make that into a topic ban violation on "World War 2 Poland" is about as bad faithed as you can get. And this is 100% WP:GAMEing by Icewhiz's socks (or one of Icewhiz banned buddies socks, I'm not gonna play the stupid game where I'm expected to figure out if it's Icewhiz himself or one of his neo-Nazi friends) and this is 100% being enabled by Francois Robere, who's agitating on behalf of these socks. And like my comment said, this isn't the first time he's done this and it really needs to stop. Same pattern everytime - Icewhiz socks post some disruptive stuff, get reverted and then Francois Robere swoops in and tries to restore it or defend the sock's edits. It's blatant Wp:MEATPUPPETRY on behalf of a banned user and not even the legit kind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

Whoa, neo-Nazi friends — really? You are not allowed to personally attack editors like that. No, not even chronic project-wide banned LTAs like Icewhiz. That is totally unacceptable. If you do that again, you will be blocked immediately and without further warning. I realize you've lost your temper here (lack of a sig or a full stop being indicative of that), but there is a limit to the kind of outbursts that may be permitted on the project. So, please don't do that again. Anyway, I don't know why you two feel myself (and my user talk page, or email for that matter) is an appropriate soundboard for these neverending disputes. AE exists for a reason as platform where, again, a quorum of uninvolved admins can weigh evidence. If there is a pattern of misbehaviour, both of you are welcome to present your respective cases there. I, for one, do not relish neither the role nor the responsibility of being a singular deciding uninvolved admin when it comes to the heart of EE/APOL disputes. No thank you. That is why I have colleagues among the admin corps who frequent the AE board. Again, I may participate (or I may not) and may even close reports, depending on the case (or for that matter, the day), but no more of this here, please. El_C 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Seguro64

Hi, El C! Regarding User:Seguro64, I saw your nice gentle comment to them on their talk page. You may not have been aware of their previous vandalism to their article a couple of days ago, here. I warned them about it but they deleted my warning. Just so you will have a more complete picture of this person’s editing history. BTW they have reverted your warning and added the objectionable edit to the article again. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, they didn't revert your warning. Just mine. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Whoa, why weren't they immediately blocked for that blatant BLP violation? It's almost unbelievable. El_C 23:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have now partially blocked the user from the two mainspace articles (see my notice here). El_C 00:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably should have done it but it was just one time - and I am very involved at those articles so hesitated to take action. Actually it was no different from their recent edits except that this time they have a "source". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW thank you for your important presence at those pages as an uninvolved administrator. Closing the move discussion, imposing a move moratorium, stepping in where necessary - those articles desperately need someone like you who can make calm decisions and take needed actions when most of us who are monitoring the page are too involved to do so. Blessings on you. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Melanie, thank you for your support and for these exceptionally kind sentiments — they are greatly appreciated! El_C 03:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As for that current move review, it reminds me of the old saying: No good deed goes unpunished. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. What can you do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (Short of choosing to live in a shoe.) Once again, thank you for your eloquent comment of support. El_C 02:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Iranians in China

Hi, see the recent edit on the page...I think it needs an obvious admin intervention. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC))

Done. El_C 23:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ol Pejeta Conservancy ~

Hi El C! ~ Just dropped by to say good morning ~mitch~ (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, mitch. Thanks for dropping by. Morning to you, too — for sure, let's make it a good one! El_C 10:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

We are not discussing a move we are discussing possibly "moving" the page

Maybe I am wrong but this ] now look like Wikilawyering. Can you please clarify what you mean by "I am enacting a one month moratorium on further move requests for this article".Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. El_C 18:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Cesdeva

is seeking TPA restoration on UTRS. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to UTRS, but I object to it being restored for any other reason save an apology and a promise to do better. El_C 03:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Err. No that's not his rationale. I'll note your opposition on the ticket. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, their multiple personal attacks on that page speak for themselves. I usually give some leeway to blocked users, but there ought to be a limit to what we tolerate on the project. El_C 04:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a thank you

Just a note to thank you for taking civility seriously. Your efforts in keeping discussions respectful is genuinely appreciated and I wish others would follow the example. I hope this finds you well.   // Timothy :: talk  03:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Timothy, that is kind of you to say. I appreciate your note very much. All the best, El_C 03:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Scientific racism in Brazil

Dear El C. How can I defend my addition if you bann it from the talkpage without letting others to judge the validity of my arguments and the content of the addition? I think that is not fair-play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan M.S. Arteaga (talk • contribs) 00:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, you cannot duplicate the same (lengthy) section across multiple article talk pages — that is not fair play. El_C 00:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

but I am just letting others to read the section that has been deleted! Do you mean that I cannot let others judge if the contents are appropiate just because you want? How can I claim that my addition should be included in the page if you delete it from the page of discussion???!!! This is really incredible, Mr.Che Guevara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan M.S. Arteaga (talk • contribs) 00:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I am talking specifically about duplication. You cannot duplicate the same (lengthy) section across multiple article talk pages. Full stop. El_C 00:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Non stop attacks by a user

This new user SegoviaKazar is constantly reverting to his own versions in the Kaftan article and accusing me of POV pushing and vandalism. I would really appreciate it if you could have a word with them. M.Bitton (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. El_C 01:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Civility and Personal Attacks by Nishidani

Nishidani has been warned multiple times to avoid personalizing the IP area and to avoid being uncivil and avoiding personal attacks. Because I reverted him in a non-IP area article due to a template issue he has now gone on one of his rants again, but ended it with a broad personal attack on the "pro-Israeli" editors. He was warned that further disruption would lead to sanctions, even though that has been repeatedly ignored. However, this quote is really a violation of almost everything Misplaced Pages stands for and I think something ought to be done: "The I/P area's toxicity can be summed up as follows: it has a conflictual continuity because two groups exist, those who desire the full factual and scholarly record to be set forth in articles, and those who insist that a lot of information must be repressed. One generally shows an encyclopedic passion, the other evinces a bureaucratic surveillance of articles designed not to construct them but simply monitor the content to assess whether its ethnoreligionationalist slant is favourable or not" Thank you. Sir Joseph 13:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, editors should not be allowed to request a specific admin that something ought to be done. If Sir Joseph feels somebody has committed some reportable act he can report them to the proper forum, where all editors can analyze the actions of all parties. Not present a slanted description by taking one sentence out of context in the hopes of convincing their favored admin to take action. nableezy - 15:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how that is taken out of context or how it is not a personal attack? He's summing up how the IP area works, one group is the best, and the other group sucks. This is also not the first time he has done so. Sir Joseph 15:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, first, it is definitionally out of context, as you took one sentence out of a longer post, with that post and the preceding comments being the context. And second, he doesnt say anything personal in that sentence. Regardless, if youd like all parties behaviour here, including your own, examined, you are free to report it. You should not however be lobbying a specific admin on their talk page to take action, especially on the basis of a disingenuous report in which both the comment is misrepresented and displayed without its context. nableezy - 16:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sir Joseph, my impression is that each sides derides the other —as a side— from time to time. Personally, I don't like it. I didn't like it when Levivich engaged in that recently, and I equally dislike it now seeing Nishidani doing the same. But I don't believe in either instance that it rises to the level where enforcement action is needed, especially when these generalizations take place on those users' respective talk pages, where some leeway is normally extended. Certainly, you are welcome to take this to AE, where a quorum of uninvolved admins would examine the dispute. I am a fairly lenient as an admin, so perhaps such a report there would result in an enforcement action, but I tend to doubt it. Nableezy, editors are allowed to bring anything they see fit to the attention of an uninvolved admin. I, of course, reject outright that I am anything but that when it comes to, not just ARBPIA, but every single discretionary sanctions topic area out there. That said, if an individual admin takes on such a case singularly, and exhibits failings —as was the case recently in my handling of Levivich's ARBPIA violations— that is on them. Yes, even with the arcane and counter-intuitive and contradictory ARBPIA ruleset notwithstanding. El_C 16:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, might I remind you that you tbanned me for a comment on my own talk page? Further, this is not a one off comment, Nishidani has years of uncivil comments, and also his comments about "ethnoreligionnationalist" part is a specific one where he got a warning from Sandstein I believe.Regardless, when we are trying to make Misplaced Pages a more friendly atmosphere to edit in, these comments have no place. Sir Joseph 16:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, if I recall correctly (vaguely), that was after repeated violations of an existing topic ban. But feel free to remind me (with diffs), because I genuinely am unable to recall the full context there. Anyway, I agree that such a polemical comment is suboptimal. Again, I'm not about to take enforcement action regarding it, but you can quote me on that. El_C 16:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, nope, this was the TBAN for a comment on my talk page that GoldenRing applied and then vacated and you then reclosed with a three month TBAN. Sir Joseph 17:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I remember now. But I don't see how it applies to this case. Your violation was beyond the pale and not just a vague polemical statement along the line of Levivich's or Nishidani's. El_C 17:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, as was Huldra's but it took a trip to the dentist to get her sanctioned. Sir Joseph 17:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, sorry, but I am just not recollecting these incidents as clearly as you are, so short of some reminder diffs, I am at a bit of a disadvantage. El_C 17:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, She said the killing of Israeli settlers (and then edited it to say armed settlers) is appropriate. Sir Joseph 17:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This is rubbish, I asked a question (and it was not rhetorical: I genuinely did not know the answer: still dont! But I have learned not to ask questions anymore :-( )) Huldra (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

and she was blocked and then the blocked was reviewed at AN and was overturned by consensus that saying that is OK. Levivich then brought her to AE where some people argued that it wasn't a sanction-able offense and then they had my AE action right on top where my talk page TBAN was used as an argument and finally a TBAN was implemented. The hypocrisy was out in the open. Sir Joseph 17:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I see. That incident does sound vaguely familiar. Again, you are not supporting any of the above with diffs, and my recollection is shoddy, at best. I don't even recall my level of familiarity with that incident in order to comment further. El_C 18:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive251#Huldra and it I believe has a link to the original discussion where editors thought that comment was OK and shouldn't have received a block. On that same page is my own TBAN. Sir Joseph 18:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reminder. But I'm not sure how useful it is to relitigate the past in that sense. El_C 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, not relitigating anything, just mentioning that you sanctioned for talk page content. Sir Joseph 18:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, a sanction or lack thereof depends on variety of factors which are particular to the individual case in question. There is no one-size-fits-all. El_C 19:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, earlier I was thinking of the Holocaust quote incident, rather than this one submitted to AE by Bradv. Which goes to show the importance of providing evidence to avoid misunderstandings. My own memory, at least, is simply not up to par. El_C 19:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, when you have editors going to talk pages of admins to make reports asking for action when there is an WP:AE established process for that it leads to the belief, fair or not, that people are picking their judges so to speak. That should not happen, and in my view you should be extremely wary of users lobbying you on your talk page to take some action. Its one thing when youre already on another users talk page, it is quite another when somebody is making a report directly to you on your talk page. nableezy - 16:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, I accept the argument that the optics for that practice may be suboptimal. But whether that "should not be allowed" per policy is something for the Committee to decide, since that is their domain. El_C 16:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I think we're all responsible for working to make thinks the way they "should be", though I agree it is the committee that says what actually is. nableezy - 17:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have been active as an uninvolved admin in the ARBPIA area since becoming an admin in 2005, so it isn't surprising that I get some related spillover traffic to my talk page. But I have repeatedly sanctioned Sir Joseph for ARBPIA violations in the past, so the argument that I am somehow his "favoured" admin in this area seems a bit far fetched. El_C 17:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, I don't even care for sanctions, but I think a warning that calling an entire group of editors, bad people who aren't interested in the truth, is not the way to edit Misplaced Pages. Why is there a need for an AE action when it's clear that the comment is not appropriate? Sir Joseph 17:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the comment was not on, but I don't think it called the other side "bad people." Again, like with Levivich's comment to that effect, it's just a vague polemic that is basically unhelpful and serves to increase rather than bridge the divide. El_C 18:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, "One generally shows an encyclopedic passion, the other evinces a bureaucratic surveillance of articles designed not to construct them but simply monitor the content to assess whether its ethnoreligionationalist slant is favourable or not" is a clear personal attack and also commenting on the "ethnoreligionationalist" slant is what he got warned for before. Sir Joseph 18:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where an editor was mentioned to make that polemic a "personal attack," per se., though again, I agree that it was unhelpful. El_C 18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, or this? doesn't sound very civil at all. Sir Joseph 17:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, toward whom? I'm not really the civility police — if no one specific is being attacked, at least. El_C 18:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

ygm

Doug Weller talk 07:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Got it and responded, Doug. El_C 07:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ

This user is still having difficulty with understanding WP:COPYVIO. For one, he restored this copyright violation, and his recently created pages also violate copyrights: Aman Kumar Goel 18:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 19:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Gerda's June corner

Could you perhaps look at User talk:TheSandDoctor#Meta? I don't get it. Bedtime may be a reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't get it either. But that's Meta for you! El_C 22:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

watch Millipede, then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm missing a meta joke there! El_C 23:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, today's theme is abundant love! El_C 01:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Meta was my grandmother's given name. - Back to the first: a user was blocked indef, reasoning "removing content from pages" which is something I do on a daily basis. The blocking admin supplied a link to Meta which proved wrong, and someone else a better one, but still five question marks about what happened there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I cannot make sense of it either. At any event, outside sounds good — the chipmunks beckon. El_C 12:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME

Please help me understand your interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME in your recent close. You state that "killing is not necessarily a crime" but then rely on ME reports that state it was a homicide, which as you know, is one human killing another. Almost every single form of non-state-sanctioned homicide implies some level of criminal liability. By changing the title of the article to "Killing of" you are saying that someone is liable for his death. The only non-criminal homicide that would apply in this situation, justifiable homicide, is legal defense to a charge of murder/manslaughter, so it's not really something that should be used to decide a title of an article prior to any court decisions. That leaves us with only criminal homicide. 

Regardless, WP:BLPCRIME states: For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. A ME's report is not a conviction nor is it a decision made by a court of law, so a conviction has not been secured; therefore, the title is seemingly in direct violation of this policy. Let me know if my train of thought is misplaced. Thanks. Nihlus 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Nihlus, when I said "killing is not necessarily a crime" I was actually quoting a participant in the discussion who had changed their preference from oppose to support following the ME's conclusion. As my closing summary explicitly states, whether the homicide is deemed a murder or justifiable homicide is up to the courts to decide. Killing could mean either one of these, so in that sense, I believe it to be neutral in so far as BLPCRIME is concerned (because it does not take a stand in that regard but, rather, takes its cue from the ME report, per se.). El_C 22:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance someone changing their vote has. If you are waiting on the courts to decide the level of homicide, then policy seems pretty explicit in saying that you cannot suggest that someone has committed a crime without a conviction. The usage of out of court opinions has no standing in policy as well. Perhaps this should lead to a greater discussion as to what extent this policy should apply, but the current policy seems clear. Nihlus 22:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought. If it's deemed a justifiable homicide than there is no crime. El_C 22:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, and it can only be deemed a justifiable homicide by a court. Until then, any mention of homicide or killing implies criminal liability. Nihlus 23:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

But the ME deemed it a homicide, they just didn't specify what kind of homicide it was (murder or justifiable), so that neutrality is something we can work with (title-wise) until the courts concludes which of these it was. El_C 23:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

They are not in any legal position to decide which homicide it is, which is the entire point I am making. Saying that something is maybe murder or maybe justifiable homicide is not "neutral"; it's a game of BLP Russian roulette. Also, neutrality isn't the space between murder and death; neutrality is death until a court says otherwise. Nihlus 23:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that the ME deemed it a homicide, I don't see why that conclusion could not be reflected in the title. That there was a killing is beyond doubt (in so far as the ME report is concerned). I do think the fact that it could go either way makes it neutral enough for our (BLPCRIME) purposes here (in the interim, until the courts render their decision), so on that particular item, we may be at an impasse. El_C 23:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The ME and their report is irrelevant as there is no exception listed for MEs in policy. Regardless, I am not sure I can explain it any other way. I will wait for Talk:Death of Eric Garner#Requested move 2 June 2020 to play out before I bring it up for larger discussion. Nihlus 23:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, we are each entitled to interpret the policy, its letter and its spirit, in our own way. But I'll try to keep an open mind. El_C 23:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User: 176.33.83.45

Dear El C,

I've noticed that you are aware of the Armenian and Kurdish/Turkish conflicts and maybe you could check this IP. The IP is pretty sure that there was no Armenian genocide and defends this opinion. Check his contribitionsI'd prefer if such ethnic changes in the Turkish/Armenian conflict come from a registered user with some hundreds of edits and reliable sources.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 22:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, can you block OTD-Ông Tuấn Dũng?

S/he is still at it. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. El_C 22:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all you do!

just wanted to drop by and say thanks for all you do to facilitate the free sharing of knowledge via this wiki. Among other things, I saw some of the shit you dealt with earlier this month even (the two guys fighting over some sort of edit war involving socks and a T-Ban, for instance), and I don't envy that responsibility. So thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macks2008 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, Macks2008, that means a lot. I appreciate your kind words and recognition very much! El_C 04:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

LTA Manda 1993

Thank you, for protecting the page, Special:Contributions/125.161.139.136, Special:Contributions/36.72.163.207. It was one of the destruction by Manda 1993. It usually distrupting articles about TV Indonesia, and many of his accounts attacked Steward, one of which was Stryn. See m:Special:History/User_talk:Stryn. MRZQ (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the comprehensive info. El_C 05:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Doubts

Hello El C, I would like to hear your feedback on this question - Cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. What is the question exactly? El_C 18:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The article might need to be protected for a few days since there were 8 rv within 9 hours today. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. El_C 21:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You did good. I see a (new) discussion is now ongoing on the talk page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The question was - what do you as an experienced editor think about that part being included in the lead i.e. is it relevant for the lead? Some editors are claiming that there was a wide consensus for the current version, even though that was absolutely not the case. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Sadkσ, I would rather stay uninvolved in the content dispute, actually. El_C 05:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

184.183.27.71

I was going to report it as the vandal noticeboard, but you are already aware of it, can you block them?Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. El_C 20:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Some say you shouldn't ask an admin to block someone

If I send you $5, will you please deal with this SPA for "Your actions are clearly - against African people. Shame on you.", ""The blood" of Covid 19 victim's will be partially on your hands.", this just now, and pretty much all the other contribs? Thank you, Levivich  02:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Warned. Easy money! El_C 05:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, keep the change. Levivich  06:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Tricked! El_C 06:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

NSenaratna

Please see User:Nsenaratna/sandbox/Sorry —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool, unblocked. I think you should just take it slow and discuss any issues with the editors who raised these. I hope you choose to stay and continue contributing. Happy editing! El_C 05:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard

I inadvertently started a discussion about an editor on WP:AN instead of WP:ANI. Should I close it and start a new one on ANI or move it (including the comment by another editor)? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Nah, it's already been there for a few days. Unless there's new developments, I'd just leave it be. Starting a new report at ANI would effectively be bumping it. El_C 11:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked first. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020 continued use of TP

I invite you to review User talk:The Cat 2020 subsequent to the block and request that you consider:

1. TC2020 does not appear to be using their talk page to appeal their block or take advantage of any of the advice being presented.
2. TC2020 has all signs of resuming the combative edit style and subject matter for which they were blocked
3. Attempting to leverage the President Trump Executive order on "cencoring" social media to argue that they should be unblocked
4. Claiming that a block levied against them on the Russian Misplaced Pages for spamming is also illegal

For these reasons I ask that you extend their block to indefinite as the threat of disruption against wikipedia remains. Hasteur (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)