User talk:El C/generic sub-page10

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this comparison(My final version vs My first version) shows I did improved and modified my work a lot since the first version and not a single revision was done without modification based on other editor's opinion. Plus, this comparison (My first version vs The previous version) shows I do respect other's contribution and reserved all information in original text. I simply added some new information based on different sources.
I request to remove the protection on this page so I can continue improving my work. My historical actions did shows my sincere attitude to improve this page and solve the dispute with other editors. I will take the responsibility to constantly improving my work based current concerns and suggestion and any further concerns in the future. Regards. —Fenal Kalundo (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your historical actions revealed edit warring, so the page will stay protected for a while. El_C 00:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussion here, the User:Contraebutors responds by deleting your message and then continues to edi-war to add their WP:Synth content without any explanation or attempt to answer the attempt to discuss the edits, which they also deleted from their talkpage.

Also the user reverting very similar material in the same sections of the same articles Gal Gadot and Shlomit Malka, last year was User:Geulaoh or User:Wikipedia-Translator and I wonder if they are the same editor as User:Contraebutors, given the remarkable co-incidence that they would be re-inserting material in those two same articles as the user last year. Avaya1 (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours for violating 3RR. Perhaps initiate an SPI report... El_C 12:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has gone straight back to edit warring the same WP:OR material, without any explanation or attempt to engage in discussion. And just deletes anything on their talkpage trying to discuss it. Avaya1 (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user continues edit-warring on the same article to insert WP:OR content. Avaya1 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week. Seems highly disruptive to return to the same edit warring after the block, especially with the astonishing edit summary: "rv vandalism against 12 different editors". That seems like a straight-up provocation. El_C 20:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:White phosphorus munitions#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2017--181.90.197.11 (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this request, but as a relatively inexperienced user, I would like to solicit your help in keeping an eye on the Yassmin Abdel-Magied page. As you can see, I've been doing quite a bit of work on it, adding information, re-formatting, trying to keep it factual and informative, with appropriate citations rather than opinion pieces in tabloid newspapers, rather than with the undue bias on certain "controversies" which certain people like to push. I am running out of time before going away for a month with limited internet access, and I suspect that anonymous users or vandals may keep attacking this page.

I noticed that you'd edited it once before and are an admin, so wondering if you're able to keep an eye on it for a while and revert any unnecessary changes? There's still plenty of room for improvement, but this needs to be done by disinterested parties, not those who have an agenda to push. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, happy to keep an eye. Enjoy your time away. El_C 12:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You did not allow me to complain about the Maratha empire map vandalisation, but it is still being vandalised by that IP. Please do something about it!-Dona-Hue (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who never responded. I never prevented you from complaining. It's just an inferior map—how is it vandalism? El_C 16:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend El_C, I do not wish to argue with you - it will not serve any purpose. You removed my complaint from a notice board (please see the matter at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/780971822) about a user repeatedly replacing the map there with an inferior map. At least can you protect that article so that only registered users can edit that page? Thanks!-Dona-Hue (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try to explain to the IP why one map is superior to another? One edit 2 days ago is not grounds for semiprotection, I'm afraid. But you can try RFPP. El_C 20:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your report from AN3 because you claimed you were reverting vandalism—but vandalism reports go at AIV, which was my argument at the time. El_C 21:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have done the needful. Thanks!- Dona-Hue (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above article is being edited and vandalised by adding false and misleading information which is derogatory and communalistic. Urgent lock required before anyone again vandalises it AnadiDoD (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about Communalism? Anyway, it looks like it was semiprotected for a week. El_C 08:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Jimmy Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#I_ask_you_make_warning 95.29.156.251 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. El_C 18:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. I ask you implement these words of Jimmy Wales: "If there is an official response from either Medvedev or the government, then that clearly must be cited."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC) (from topic on his page). It was the words about MVD, but now you may add also information about court. - 128.73.113.234 (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• 1. You've provided no such statement. 2. I already added the Defamation suit to article about the documentary. 3. Banned users are not allowed to contribute here. Full stop. El_C 14:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, just wondering about this [1]. It seems the request for SP was perhaps over the top. A single vandal-only account, which was eventually blocked, looks like the sole source of vandalism. Can you unprotect please? 86.185.30.254 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was more vandalism than that. [2] [3] El_C 21:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but it's not "persistent disruptive editing". Those last two are more like test edits. No worries. Not really bothered. Unfortunately this type of fast-moving high-profile article attracts unnecessary protection almost as much as it attracts vandalism. 86.185.30.254 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a issue with this user iamcheese this user keeps on reverting my edit and shortening United States to us when all other articles are not shorted any advise HardcoreWrestlingFan 04:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC) HardcoreWrestlingFan 04:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You need four reverts fo violate 3RR (I'm only seeing three reverts). El_C 04:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought it was three, thanks for letting me know HardcoreWrestlingFan 16:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC) HardcoreWrestlingFan 16:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardcoreWrestlingFan (talk • contribs)

Hello El C. I wanted to let you know that you deleted an article but its talk page is still intact. Please see Talk:Risyad Abdala Ramadhan. Cheers and have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 11:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 11:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it clear that if he continues to try to make our articles state that the earth is flat he'll be blocked. He's been trying to add an image created by blocked User:Middled. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, he thinks he knows the Truth. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks for looking out. El_C 14:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the earth is flat. That is a very good way to keep people stupid and to hide the truth block anyone who speaks it, shame on Wikipedia. What image was he trying to add? NewWorm 06:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewWorm (talk • contribs)

Talk:Ali_Khamenei#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017--190.31.127.101 (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ali Khamenei#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017 (2)--181.90.21.85 (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A user removed several sourced paragraphs in the article about ayatollah Kahemeni because of copyright problems. I rewrote the content in different words in order for an extended confirmed user to restore it. Please, would you mind taking care of it? (thank you very much): Talk:Ali Khamenei#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017 (2)--181.93.227.62 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 03:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C. Mhhossein has restored his POV tag at Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) despite having no consensus to do so. This has violated the arbitration notice at the top of the article talkpage which states that consensus is required before restoring a reverted edit. On the talkpage I have currently two editors agreeing with my position and he has noone supporting his position. In addition, as I noted on the talkpage, Mhhossein has advanced no real arguments in support of his position. Also, he reverted me on 2 June, without replying to my comment on 31 May, although, as his contributions show, he edited multiple times after my 31 May post at the article talkpage. I think his disruption merits at least a warning. Thank you. Dr. K. 14:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus required is no longer part of ARBPIA3—see my latest changes to the Arab-Israeli editnotice. El_C 14:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh, gosh. Another change in that already complex area. Who can keep up with this? Anyway, thanks for the update. All the best. Dr. K. 14:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Willard84 is evading his block by still editing talk page while logged out.[4] I was going to open SPI but I didn't because I found there was a SPI against him for such behavior before and had been given last warning "It is not acceptable to use an account and an IP on the same article,"[5] by a CU before. Capitals00 (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP for 72 hours and lengthen the block for the user also for that duration. El_C 04:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El_C: This guy is clearly still editing while logged out to evade detection[6][7]. Perhaps it's time for a longer block? —MBlaze Lightning ^T 06:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my comandante. First of all, I made a minor edit request in the BDS article. Second, what do you think of this removal? Perhaps you could recover the content without a direct quote? There is an entire paragraph of John Strawson that is hidden, while I think that Ishmael Khaldi deserves at least a sentence in the article. Perhaps you could suggest a trimming down of the material? Thanks--186.125.80.252 (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry, I'm not really in the mood for ARBPIA today. El_C 04:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is back AND not even in English this time. Opinion? I just ask because you deleted it the first time. LordAtlas (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you participated in the discussion about Dennis Brown's block of Franzboas, I'm pointing you to this, which presents some proposals for additional action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to this case. Just to be clear concerning the "Consensus required" state, do I now need to start a new RFC to get the text into the article, which was just decided in the previous RFC a week ago, or may I restore the closed version of the text as the current consensus? Cheers,--Dailycare (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the "closed version" is—however the RFC was closed counts as current consensus. El_C 16:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so just to check, is it OK to change the text to the form decided in the RFC? Or do I need to establish a consensus concerning reverting to the current consensus? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the result of the RfC is the current consensus. El_C 05:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you revert this guy? (only extended-confirmed users can edit) Obviously Algemeiner is not a "blog", but a known Jewish newspaper. Thanks.--181.1.244.137 (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 03:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You misled me. That was a reprint of a blog. El_C 05:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as evidence of you enabling a long term sockpupeteer, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive for an abundance of evidence of the Aregentinian IP on Telecom Argentina S.A. with a single minded focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict is in fact that user. And again, as before, can you please explain to me how it is this is not a straightforward violation of WP:MEAT? You are making edits at the direction of a user banned from making those edits by an arbitration decision. The same thing happened here, which likewise involved a banned sockpuppeteer. nableezy - 05:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is all news to me. I assumed it was an IP in good standing making edit requests, ones which I directed them to make at the article talk pages multiple times. I made a mistake here and aim to ban the user from my talk page. I wish someone would have told me about this a while back rather than letting me make a fool of myself. El_C 05:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody makes mistakes, and I appreciate your quick admission of that, but this is why this has to go to the talk page and not an individual user. None of the talk pages are extended confirmed protected, and it allows those of us who remember these things from years past to bring it up so everybody sees it, not just see a revert on the article without an explanation as to why it happened. nableezy - 05:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, again. I promise to do better. El_C 05:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being so short with you, but I have seen Andres asking you before. I have wasted far, far too much of my life on these silly (and in this case, also rather racist) socks, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's not a big deal. I was surprised more than anything. But why not say something the first time you saw it?—I don't understand. And, frankly, am feeling a little hurt by everyone being in on it except for me. That sucks. All it would have taken was a few seconds to let me in on the secret. At least now I know what everyone else did, so sincere thanks for that. El_C 09:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well what I did this time, was to place a {{sockpuppet|1=AndresHerutJaim}} on both the user page, and talk page of that IP. I assumed you saw that, and my apologies for apparently being wrong. I should of course have notified you, when he pinged you earlier, here ....but that disappeared among the zillion things I should have done... Again, sorry, Huldra (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your email (not related to anything above). You will probably get a notification in addition to this, but the issue warrants fast attention. You may want to revert my comment when you have seen it, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 07:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the two primary edit warriors are prohibited from editing Norwalk, Connecticut, could the page protection be removed? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 18:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your revert on the las anod page was not very well thought out. geographically it should either comply with its intetnationally recognized location i.e. Somalia or how the majority of residents self-identity i.e. khaatumo - not by a hostile foreign tribal organization (i.e. somaliland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.134.136 (talk • contribs)

I'm just sick of single purpose accounts edit warring on that page instead of using the article talk page to advance their argument. El_C 09:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could I ask for your assistance regarding an issue? Over at the Template:Iraqi Civil War infobox a rather rude editor is constantly changing the start date of the 2014-present Iraqi civil war from January 1st to June 4th (unsourced). Per two previous consensus established, where sources were cited for the January start date, it was established it started in January 2014 (when ISIL took over Fallujah and much of Anbar) and the name should be Iraqi Civil War (2014-present). He is constantly reverting back to June instead of January and he has now also removed (2014-present) from the heading of the infobox (this is required since this is the second civil war, the first one, for which we have a separate article, being from 2006 to 2008). I tried pointing out in the edit summaries when reverting him that a consensus was previously established and that he should start a discussion on the talk page if he wants a new consensus (instead of edit warring), he ignored that and simply made insulting comments. For now I will chuck this to his inexperience (has edited for only 3 months) and that he wasn't aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. I have now reverted his edit and cited almost half a dozen sources that point to the rise of ISIL starting in January 2014, which is the time that was agreed to per consensus. I even opened a dialogue at his discussion page and proposed we discuss the issue at the article's talk page and ping all involved editors. However, I have a feeling he will again revert me (and remove the sources) without starting a discussion on the talk page. What could you suggest? EkoGraf (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for one week. El_C 18:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hopefully we will be able to discuss the issue through the talk page now. EkoGraf (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please take a look at this. Thank you very much.--181.1.145.52 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is likewise AndresHerutJaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) nableezy - 22:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please add the following picture of Israeli troops in the Golan above the paragraph that starts "On the morning of June 9, Israeli jets began carrying..." (in this section, as it was before previous picture was removed for lacking commons permit):

Thanks--186.124.202.48 (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is also AndresHerutJaim. nableezy - 22:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jewish_diaspora, where I asked for admin input on your interpretation of the happenings on the Jewish diaspora article and the sanctions you threaten me with should I not revert my last edit to that article. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was too late for that attempt. El_C 00:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted there again, this time in the regular format. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#El_C. Please forgive me for that link making the impression as though I am reporting you. That is just a result of the insistence of admins, that I should use the regular template. I am of course not reporting you, just asking admins to review your article ban. Debresser (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure whether to bring this up at AE or here, but let's try here for now. WP:CRP states that, under the consensus required provision, editors must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus - ie. reverted material can't be reinstated without consensus. But at the article talk page, you said, So, no new changes without gaining consensus first, for the foreseeable future. That's quite different to what CRP says; I wonder if this difference is somewhere near the bottom of the disagreement? I can sort of see what Debresser is getting at; once CRP is imposed, an editor is allowed to make a change and another is allowed to challenge it by reverting it; an editor then wanting to reinstate the reverted change needs to obtain consensus to do so. So, after you imposed CRP, Dailycare made a change, and Debresser challenged it by reverting it. Anyone wanting to reinstate that change then needs to obtain consensus.

Of course, another way to look at it is that Dailycare was challenging Debresser's earlier change by reverting it and so Debresser should have sought consensus for his change.

Either way, I can't see WP:CRP meaning what you say it means on the talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what GoldenRing is saying, but I don't see any need to wikilawyer it out of context. It seems like WP:CRP was imposed to stop an edit war over Debresser's version that seems to have very little support on the talk page. In that case, with what seems to be a strong consensus already on the talk page against including Debresser's version, it wouldn't make sense to say "well you need to go back to the talk page to get consensus to revert Debresser" —that consensus is already there. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus version for that passage is what was agreed to at the RfC close—switching back to "some" and adding "mass," again (thereby restarting the edit war), without gaining consensus for it is not something I'm willing to allow at this stage. El_C 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I quite see that. My point really is that I think you've caused at least some confusion by mis-stating what CRP is at the talk page and it could do with clearing up - I see further down that you've said, The point of WP:CRP is that you gain consensus for anything not in the RfC version, including tweaks, otherwise what's the point? and again I can't really read WP:CRP to mean quite that. GoldenRing (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said "those tweaks"—I can see how that was unclear. El_C 18:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you officially take back the invalid ban, and clarify somewhat better on the talkpage what restrictions you want to impose on the article. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. Your version of March cannot be re-added without consensus. I suspect you knew that. El_C 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested you officially take back to incorrectly applied ban you put on me. I already stated elsewhere that I have no problem with whatever restrictions you want to impose on the article (as long as you explain them carefully). Those are two different things, so I don't understand your reply. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your ban is the result of you refusing to self-revert the reinstatement a reverted version, so it is not invalid and, if anything, a rather mild sanction. El_C 18:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have already admitted that you understand how your explanation and/or application of CRP was confusing (and I say it was wrong and therefore invalid), you must understand I had valid reason to refuse to self-revert, and you therefore had no right to sanction me for that. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you knowingly continued edit warring with "mass" and "some"—you're lucky you weren't blocked on the spot. El_C 18:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Let it go. TBH, when I reviewed the history of Jewish diaspora my immediate thinking was that a ban was warranted and that the suitable length would be measured in months, not days. I wouldn't impose such a thing without doing a lot more reading than I've done to make sure I've understood the situation, and you were not the only one who I thought perhaps deserved a closer look, but I think you should wait out your three-day ban and count yourself lucky it wasn't considerably longer. It's up to you how you react, of course, but my gauging of the mood of those at AE is that continuing to push this will not get you the result you want. GoldenRing (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never appreciated the "mood" at WP:ANI or WP:AE. Nothing that goes on there has anything to do with justice or good editing. Debresser (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is plain to see from how leinient the sanction imposed in this case was. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been a mistake. El_C 14:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review Amakuru's recent move of Israel and the Apartheid analogy to Israeli apartheid allegations, the title that had (weak) consensus at the time of the move was "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" or "Alleged Israeli Apartheid" and the proposal was for "Claims of Israeli Apartheid" talk page move discussion — there is no consensus for the title it was moved to. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I informed Amakuru why the new title is incorrect even regardless of consensus. Zero^talk 12:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: you yourself supported the title that it was moved to, so I'm not sure what the issue is here. I can only evaluate the discussion as it occurs in the RM, which had been open since 1 June and was overdue closure. I'm happy to consider other arguments, but it's surprising when there is a near unanimous consensus, including support from the person comlaining. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. No one but Shrike supported this title, and it was discussed at some length. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the discussion, and as Zero has explained, this title changes the topic of the page. Effectively, we no longer have an article about Allegations of apartheid made against Israel, and the content in this article is not on-topic for the new title. Since this move was against consensus, and changed the topic of the article without any discussion, as a courtesy, I am asking that you move to the correct title before I create a new article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: You supported it here: [8], although technically you said "Israel apartheid allegations" rather than Israeli. Is that what the issue is? Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was the first suggestion, it was discussed at length, and multiple editors, including myself, agreed on "Allegations of" or "claims of", you should not have just ignored the subequent discussio or the second move proposal which was based on that discussion Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: Then you should have struck out your original support. It's not reasonable to state an opinion and then expect someone to read through walls of text to realise that you changed your mind. And there should never be a second move proposal started before the first one is clsoed. Anyway, I've reverted the move and relisted the second discussion now, so hopefully this mess can be sorted out and the correct consensus title chosen. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, never mind. Striking that comment above. The whole situation was confused, so nobody was to blame. Just a misunderstanding! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, striking out revised opinions in future discussions is good advice, thank you. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

(Looks like I missed the discussion.) Relisting seems sensible. Certainly, I'll try to keep an eye on the latest RM. El_C 14:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C,

I was just curious about why you restored the IPA for Anissa Jones as you did here? The name really doesn't have an alternate or difficult pronunciation; so I'm wondering if this improves the article or just adds confusion for the average reader? Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to undo. El_C 21:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I have no firm objection. I was just wondering if there was something I missed regarding it's value. X4n6 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion, either. A few non-disruptive edits of 69.117.44.133 may have slipped through the cracks. El_C 21:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... got it! Thanks for the clarification. X4n6 (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the honey-pot. talk:Dominant minority too. tpv Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase "jew"—always revealing. El_C 23:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What do you think of this? (sourced content was removed) I don't think the Mitchell source is less reliable than Arab authors (activists) cited all over ARBPIA.--181.1.147.20 (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That IP is canvassing; please consider admin action. Zero^talk 10:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe WP:CANVASS, IP. El_C 13:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He doesnt observe WP:SOCK, what makes yall think a warning to not canvass will matter? Something should be done about the AndreHerutJaim sock IPs. nableezy - 20:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a new IP, what would you have us do? Admins have given up on blocking and logging these on 2015. El_C 00:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocks, semi-protections, any number of things. Or are you saying that dedicated IP hopping allows one to circumvent WP:SOCK? That admins, including yourself, will not do anything about repeated violations of policy? nableezy - 18:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two years before I came back to Wikipedia, admins have already given up on doing anything about socking by this individual. I don't know how to do rangeblocks (and I'm not that interested in learning), so you may want to ask another admin (maybe Zero knows how to)—which may or may not be helpful in this case as the IPs seem to be of multiple ranges. And all those pages are already protected, hence, the constant edit requests. What other "number of things" did you have in mind? El_C 22:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the end thing from the number of things would be WP:RBI but apparently you are saying that the B in that will no longer be used against somebody who continues to violate a ban. If thats the case then the problems are bigger, in that you are saying that users are free to sock around bans if they chose to IP hop. I very much hope that is not the case. nableezy - 23:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RBI is for vandalism—these are usually single-use IPs. They're not used usually once discovered, so how is blocking helping anything. El_C 23:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to block sightings this banned user, to humour you, but I fear it would just be symbolic and a waste of time. Best to ignore altogether and revert on article and article talk pages. El_C 23:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to log off - can you check a string of recent edits to the above: Thanks Denisarona (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warned the user against making that many test edits. El_C 22:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you were the one who handled the 3RR violation complaint with 188.61.3.218 in regards to Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and I didn't know for sure if it was a violation of their block to use a new IP address to continue editing but they did over at Talk:Mauricio Macri. I'm not sure what the right course of action is for a block evasion so I thought it'd be best to contact an admin. Thanks - SantiLak (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All three IPs blocked for 72 hours and talk page semiprotected. El_C 22:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was in another location and obviously my IP changed so I wasn't aware of the block. How could I know? O_o 128.179.141.47 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)s[reply]

As an editor, it is your responsibility to keep up with any correspondence—you can always register for free and have it all distributed in one location. El_C 15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You don't really have to revert that. First off, I see it anyway. Secondly, I end up getting a subsequent e-mail asking me to do the same thing. Thirdly, I don't edit-war on request - I will admit I have responded to some of his requests in the past - but always after looking into the matter and often taking a different course of action (e.g. one recent thing he pointed out on Im Tirzu was improperly sourced (Elder of Zion blog) and the citation was removed - so I put in a more proper source for the letter (which actually was notable and ran in the Jewish press - IIRC in many local papers, and then received a counter-response) - [9] - I believe you were involved with that one too). I often don't respond or take up points that he raises - as I really don't try to make Israel "my thing" here - I view some pages here as "hopeless" POV forks (e.g. List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017 (at least as long as it was mainly sourced to Ma'an news and the like and updated with regularity by Nishdani) or Israel and the apartheid analogy (which as per its title is a POV-fork of Israeli society and will always be slanted - just as "Icewhiz and wife beating" could never really be balanced despite any counter-claims I and others may make) - and others I really don't want to get involved with - so mostly I don't take this up, but on occasion if this is a good point on a relevant article - I do (and always independently - I'll look at what he raises, but I don't take his formulation). And then he sends me an e-mail anyway if you revert - so I get bothered twice... Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a banned user—they are not allowed to edit any Wikipedia spaces. I'm trying the approach of reverting their edits on sight instead of simply ignoring them, so that's the new plan in regard to them. If they want to have the ban rescinded, they should do so through the normal channels. Their canvassing is, also, not allowed. El_C 17:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you tagged and protected multiple pages on Middle East as WP:ARBPIA (including List of Middle East peace proposals, Jews, Anti-Arabism, 2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza, Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process, Iran–Israel proxy conflict, Iran–Israel relations, Intifada, Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, Battle of Gaza (2007), Fatah–Hamas conflict), which either marginally and indirectly deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict or not at all. On the other hand you skipped tagging the some of those pages as WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. You also tagged ARBPIA for June 2017 Jerusalem attack, while it is tagged on talk page as both WP:ARBPIA and WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and generally SCW&ISIL supersedes ARBPIA per [10]. May i ask why did you choose specifically ARBPIA to tag those pages and not other sanctions and why did you decide to apply sanctions on general topic pages, without dealing specifically with the sanction topic (ARBPIA, SCW&ISIL or other)? Thanks for your attention.GreyShark (dibra) 19:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Greyshark09: I'm not El C, but just to clarify, ArbCom did not say being in the GS/SCW&ISIL topic area meant something wasn't in ARBPIA. They just said it wasn't a subset of ARBPIA. The page you referenced in that portion of your post is about a Palestinian attacking Israelis, which is unambiguously part of ARBPIA. I'll let El C provide their rationale for what they did, but I strongly support all of it and believe everything linked here falls well within the topic area. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a Palestinian attacked an Israeli doesn't mean it is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If the attack was motivated by crime and not by nationalism, then obviously not. If the attack was motivated by radical Islamist ideology of ISIS (which staunchly opposes to any Arab nationalism including Palestinian), as claimed by ISIS here - then nothing to do with ARBPIA as well. For such case there is SCW&ISIL sanctions set.GreyShark (dibra) 12:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how SCW&ISIL supersedes ARBPIA—certainly, the link you cite does not make it clear in any way that I am able to discern. But ARBPIA is far more fitting for that article than SCW&ISIL, the latter's tagging having been rather unnecessary, I feel. Come to think of it, I'm going to remove it from the article altogether. Anyway, "broadly interpreted" is the key phrase here and I stand by all those tagging. But feel free to appeal this in any forum you see fit. El_C 01:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SCW&ISIL supersedes ARBPIA when dealing with the ongoing Syrian Civil War (including Iranian involvement) and ISIL, since those topics do have to do with Israel and Arab League but have nothing to do with the generally preceding Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, which ARBPIA is dealing with. Specifically for the tagged articles:

Having no direct emphasis to Israel or Palestine and can easily also be linked with any other sanctions (such as WP:SCW&ISIL, WP:ARBAP2, WP:ARB911) - List of Middle East peace proposals, Jews, Anti-Arabism, Intifada.

Having to do with inter-Palestinian or inter-Arab violence/politics, but no link with Israel and hence neither Israeli-Palestinian conflict - 2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza, Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process, Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, Battle of Gaza (2007), Fatah–Hamas conflict.

Dealing with Israel in regard to the Iran-Israel relations and Iran-Israel proxy conflict (mainly in parallel to the Syrian Civil War), but not much to do with Palestine - Iran–Israel proxy conflict (tagged as SCW&ISIL on its talk page), Iran–Israel relations.

Dealing with both ARBPIA and SCW&ISIL issues - June 2017 Jerusalem attack (claimed both by ISIL and Palestinian nationalist militant organizations Hamas and PFLP).

I understand that you propose to remove ARBPIA and SCW&ISIL tagging from June 2017 Jerusalem attack as partial solution, is that correct?GreyShark (dibra) 12:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't propose it, I have already replaced SCW&ISI with ARBPIA for June 2017 Jerusalem attack, for obvious reasons. As I have for Iran–Israel proxy conflict. Choosing which restriction to implement is at the discretion of admins. You may appeal each article individually to the Committee—I am not inclined to go one by one and explain why ARBPIA applies to each of these, sorry, that does not seem to be a productive use of my time, or yours. El_C 04:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See [11]. This is injustifiable. It is your duty to restore it. I've made multiple attempts, as you must already be aware of. There is no argument against it. Book page can be viewed here[12]. Kas42 (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been aware and it is certainly not my duty to involve myself in this content dispute, which I will not do. Please use your dispute resolution options. El_C 10:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, move wars and scope wars happening at the page that was originally called Cow-based lynching. The article has changed beyond recognition and has now spawned a copy titled Cow protection-related violence in India. Your help in calming the editors would be appreciated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm wandering where the RM was... I'm not seeing one. El_C 04:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding, non-controversial moves can be made without an RM. But assuming that this would be non-controversial was probably a bad judgment call. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, you protected Stefan Molyneux at my request in February [13] but there are still IP's disrupting the article. Could we do a longer protection this time. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. El_C 10:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it would seem I need your help yet again hehehe. An editor has created an offensive article (Al-Sukhnah offensive) based on his personal opinion that is basically a redundant content fork. We already have a campaign article (Syrian Desert campaign (May 2017–present)), that already encompasses this particular axis of advance (the same subject), which has been sourced to be part of the said campaign. He (himself) considers this to be separate from the campaign (personal opinion), even though its been sourced otherwise, and said he considers the offensive special (it actually fails WP policy on notability). He created the separate offensive article and wrote in the article (citing a source) that the Syrian Army reported the launching of the offensive. However, upon checking the cited source, the source makes no mention of the Army reporting the start of an offensive, and in fact the source says the advances made by the military are a continuation of previous operations. Several other editors also agreed this axis of advance is part of the campaign and not a separate offensive. I explained this to him and merged his offensive article with the campaign article. He reverted my merger. I reverted him and will make no more reverts of him (so not to violate 1RR). So to summarize, he created an article, about a subject that is already covered in an already existing article (WP:REDUNDANTFORK), wrote sentences that do not correspond to the cited sources (Original Research, failure of WP:Verifiability), ignored already existing sources making his own assumptions (again OR), and claimed notability where there is none (failure of WP:NOTABILITY). Also, almost all of the content he wrote was a copy-paste from the cited sources (which is actually just one media outlet), so a major violation of WP:COPYPASTE as well. What can you suggest regarding this? EkoGraf (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tried talking to him, but he didn't seem to get the importance of WP:COPYPASTE (not making copy violations). Also, he didn't seem to understand the purpose of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME. EkoGraf (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it just copies the source, then it's a copyrights violation, which means you could revert it beyond 1RR. El_C 10:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. He seems to have stopped for now. EkoGraf (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you helped me once with an edit war between a few IP's and myself a few months ago. The lock expired and they came right back to the DC Universe Animated Original Movies ‎ page and did the same thing as before. Is there any way to make the lock more permanent? Thanks in advance! Kude90 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 02:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for lowering protection level in MasterChef Junior (U.S. season 5). --219.79.127.17 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. El_C 20:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the block last time,[14] he is again editing the wikipedia spaces(talk, usertalk, article), with the IP[15] where he has already edited with the main account. Edit warring with account and IP[16][17][18] to evade 3RR. Capitals00 (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for a block for edit warring, but for edit warring and socking. Last time you had blocked Willard84 for 72 hours, after I had made a complaint to you.[19] Capitals00 (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They could have just forgotten to log out; I'm not sure socking is a certainty. El_C 02:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C.
I apologise for the fact that we communicate only during "issues".

Recently, I nominated like a dozen of articles about cameras, and lenses for AfD. Before going for AfD, I had PRoD'ed a couple of them. Then an editor (who happens to be an admin), de-PRoD'ed them, and accused me of damaging the wikipedia in an edit summary.

I am not asking about anything else, I am asking only about the AfD nominations. I mean, do you think nominating these articles for deletion was appropriate, or am I actually being disruptive? A second opinion from new eyes/mind will be very helpful here. I nominated the articles as they dont meet WP:SIGCOV. They also pass WP:MILL, and WP:ENN. The #5 point of WP:NOTCATALOGUE can also be applied here.
The list of all the articles in question can be seen at User talk:Chevy111

Thanks a lot in advance. And I apologise again for contacting you only during incidents. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you basically disputing everything in List of Sony E-mount lenses? You should try to find a way to do this in a centralized way, instead of piecemeal. Myself, I don't really have a strong opinion about the notability of those — it seems borderline. But, again, what's key is how you challenge their notability. Nominating tens of articles for deletion seems like it's flooding Articles for Deletion. Better to link each page to one AfD that lists everything you're challenging. El_C 07:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i will stop removing content without explaining, kindly reduce protection on the ahbash page Samsparky (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)samsparky[reply]

Copy that. El_C 03:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I regret that protection from Al-Ahbash has been lifted which brought me here. I would like to take your kind attention to this edit of MezzoMezzo regarding Samsparky (Specially, these edits done by Samsparky: this, this and then this) as per following:

== Off-wiki harassment campaign possible ==

SwisterTwister, I'm messaging you because you're (or were) aware of some of the problems brought up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shawwal/Archive. Basically, members of a certain religious cult constantly create sock/meatpuppets to push their POV in an organized fashion (see here too). Well, recently I noticed this and then this, followed by a coverup here.<ref>

Now, I'm not asking you to get involved because I know you're busy. What I am asking for, though, is an opinion, and please know that there's no pressure to answer. My question is: where should I take this? Organized campaigns of POV-pushing by this same cult has been going on for years, and numerous sock/meat accounts have been blocked along the way. In your experience, would you view AN as an appropriate avenue to bring this to the attention of admins? Or is there a more fitting avenue for this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you McKhan ^(talk) 05:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is addressed to or expected of me here. El_C 06:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, All I request you to please keep an eye on Al-Ahbash and Abdullah_al-Harari. Let's hope that Samsparky follows through. Thank you. McKhan ^(talk) 06:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Sorry for my confusion—I missed the first paragraph... Sure, will try to keep an eye. El_C 06:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, a few months ago I submitted an AN3 report (here) regarding Nathantheawesomekeefer, after which you warned them here. They look to be up to their old tricks again, as they've reverted again today, and it doesn't seem like they will stop reverting and discuss on the talk page. Is this a situation for which you would consider a block? Thank you, /wiae /tlk 18:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will have another word. El_C 03:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you please help me with something regarding the Bosaso article. I have made a few adjustments the the front images but theres are slight gab in the spacing between the bottom 2 images. How do i even out this space and make the sizes of the bottom 2 images equal? Teknick34223 (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure (the bottom-right image's resolution is just different from the rest)—but it looks fine to me. El_C 11:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry, I didn't know I always have to log in to make an edit. Can you please unblock my ip-address? I will only use this account for edits, not my ip-address anymore, but my children and wife then can still use Wikipedia. Sorry for my mistake. Houndground (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your IP is. El_C 04:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have edited the Tyler Shields article. There are two SPA IP-editors (maybe it's the same person...ya think? lol) who have been recently deleting sourced content and then substituting their very POV content. I do not want to cross over the 3RR line, I have attempted to engage this editor/these editors in discussions but I get edit summaries like "the content is well sourced and relevant. i highly suspect you are tyler as you keep removing critical reviews from your own page. the relevant information will remain until this has been determined.)" I don't quite know what to do - would welcome advice etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the article was semiprotected. El_C 04:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing protection to allow for making changes to the page but mckhan removed my edits and I believe that is because he doesn't like the ahbash. How can he just pick and choose what references to make public? If I have a proper reference and I put it on the page he should leave it! Please look at his behaviour: the abuse of this user on the ahbash page dating back to 2005. I initiated a recent investigation of him because of this. Please have a look as proof [20]

Thanks Samsparky (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I apologize the following background is going to be rather long. But please bear with me. Indeed, I would be grateful for your kind patience and attention.

First of all, nobody is "abusing" Samsparky here on Al-Ahbash page. To the contrary, he is abusing us.

With reference to this sock-puppet investigation and under the light of Samsparky's own edit history, one can see that Samsparky's ID has been resurrected after 9/10 years of hiatus as soon as AbeEll got blocked following the same path, edits and behavior of KevinAbdulqader. Samsparky's edits show that after its resurrection, it started doing its edits on Al-Ahbash (Mostly doing Mobile edits, Mobile web edits apart from the very first few regular edits) whereas AbeEll started with Abdullah_al-Harari (later on to Al-Ahbash), however, following the similar path, behavior and even using the same links, both of them ended up concentrating on the very same contentious, disputed and controversial topic. In a nutshell, Samsparky picked up exactly where AbeEII left from which in my humble point of view is rather suspicious.

Despite all that, I, along with MezzoMezzo, have had a long discussion with Samsparky (prior to him with AbeEll and KevinAbdulqader) but all in vain hence the request for protection on Al-Ahbash and then regret when it was lifted.

That's why as soon as the protection from the Al-Ahbash was lifted, I came to your page and when I found that it was lifted upon the request of Samsparky, I knew immediately that he will do the very same edit again and that's what exactly he did (Please, see here).

Please, see here that why the Al-Ahbash keep coming to this page to use it as their marketing Flyer.

That's why I quoted the following

== Off-wiki harassment campaign possible ==

SwisterTwister, I'm messaging you because you're (or were) aware of some of the problems brought up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shawwal/Archive. Basically, members of a certain religious cult constantly create sock/meatpuppets to push their POV in an organized fashion (see here too). Well, recently I noticed this and then this, followed by a coverup here.<ref>

Now, I'm not asking you to get involved because I know you're busy. What I am asking for, though, is an opinion, and please know that there's no pressure to answer. My question is: where should I take this? Organized campaigns of POV-pushing by this same cult has been going on for years, and numerous sock/meat accounts have been blocked along the way. In your experience, would you view AN as an appropriate avenue to bring this to the attention of admins? Or is there a more fitting avenue for this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely, hope that you will be able to read between the lines and see exactly why Samsparky is here (Please, see these edits done by Samsparky: this, this and then this) and why he is doing the same thing which has been discussed over and over again. Thank you. McKhan ^(talk) 05:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsparky, looking at the single-purpose nature of your contributions, might I suggest that you edit some other articles for a while (we do have millions of them). Are you connected to AbeEll, as McKhan is intimating? If not, try familiarizing yourself with our core policies first, especially our reliable sources policy. Also, at the very least, read our conflict of interest policy and with that in mind, perhaps focus on the article's talk page and use it to advance your ideas for the article. Please refer to our dispute resolution options if you run into editing disputes. El_C 07:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying El_C. I don't know Abeell or whoever else mckhan mentioned. I just am seeing wrong information posted about a group i know. And i have been off for a while because I'm bored of mckhan undoing my edits and claiming that my references are unworthy while he claims his are. If there is a conflict of interest issue in this topic it is that mckhan is writing the article about a group he hates. That's why i suggest that someone not involved have a look at the situation and give assessment of it. Thanks Samsparky (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Jobar offensive is witnessing consistent POV IP vandalism the last few days (removal of sourced information with biased POV comments in the edit summaries, as well as insertion of unsourced info). Mr.User200, Editor abcdef and myself have been reverting them but they are continuing. EkoGraf (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can I help? El_C 09:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i have reverted the buuhoodle article to the last stable version because of consistent disruptive edits as you can see through its edit history. The buuhoodle article has been stable for many years but in the last couple of weeks there have been some disruptive edits. I am not prepared to engage in an edit war to restore the damage, can you protect the page from the disruptive edits and help me out. Thank youDabcasarman94 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's already been semiprotected. El_C 09:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me a good reason why new editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page? Jsnsnsnsnsnsn (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA3/Proposed_decision#General_Prohibition. El_C 09:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can please clarify why you support the biased and tribalist information put on this article and support the vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagadhiig (talk • contribs) 04:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Really? The wrong version protected in a content dispute does not make it vandalism. And removing my warning does not actually nullify it. El_C 09:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, hope all is well. Any opinion/advice on this? Amanda, Rob and yourself agree the evidence is compelling and both Rob and Amanda suggested blocks yet the case was closed with no action. The editor in question refused to acknowledge any of this evidence and claims "anything other than that is coincident" [21] when the case is clear. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hesitate to act without there being immediate disruption. Ultimately, I prefer to have an SPI case closed by a CU. El_C 11:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, appreciate the explanation. What I did not understand was that Sro23 (closing clerk) seemed to be in agreement with Rob's assessment yet did not mention Rob's suggestion of WP:NOTHERE regarding Somajeeste. Somajeeste's complete refusal to admit their behavioural issue was not addressed at all in the closing edit. I presume Sro23 closed the case strictly based on the sockpuppetry issue alone (?), which is understandable. Would an ANI report on Somajeeste's behavioural issue be appropriate here? So that too could be addressed? Thanks again --Kzl55 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I is for incidents, so I would wait for an actual incident before filing a report there. But you may wish to start compiling the evidence offline if you think such an incident is only a matter of time. El_C 12:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, will do. My concern is that Somajeeste's behaviour was never addressed in the SPI, despite three admins agreeing the behavioural evidence on Somajeeste's part is compelling (with two of them suggestion sanctions) as well as editors like Cordless_Larry supporting such course of action. Having checked the are you in the right place list on the admin's noticeboard, there does not seem to be a venue to address this specific issue it seems. Or am I missing anything? --Kzl55 (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You applied indefinite semi-protection to this article, and pending changes are still in effect. All the edits will be accepted and there will be no need for anyone to review the edits now. Can you remove the pending changes protection (keeping the semi-protection) on the article? —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits} 14:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been taken care of. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits} 22:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm a new wikipedia user. I saw that you blocked the IP that was vandalizing Reina Gossett (correct me if that's not true) and I was wondering if you could help me with the further vandalism happening. It seems that the same person is now continuing their vandalism from a new IP address, and since I'm new to wikipedia, I'm not sure what the next course of action should be. Do you have any idea what we should do next?

Thanks in advance, Jchmrt (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 12:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Jchmrt (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings El C! We happened to discuss this issue earlier, so I'm turning to your wisdom. In recent weeks I saw a few discussions among admins regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict and U.S. politics, with a general trend towards dismissing the infamous provision-that-keeps-on-giving as impractical. See for example the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive218#Consensus Required restriction in American Politics. However I still see this restriction active on some articles, notably at Donald Trump, where the edit notice says You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. What's the deal? — JFG ^talk 20:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. CRP (a page which I wrote) is still a thing, sorta, but is left to the discretion of admins; usually reserved for and used in isolation at particularly troubled articles. But it's usage has certainly dropped dramatically, since the Committee has supplanted it in WP:ARBPIA3#Motion:consensus_provision_modified with a new rule ("If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours."). I still invoked it one time in Jewish diaspora—but admit to not have been following it closely enough to enforce it lately. Still, you may wish to seek further clarification from WP:ARCA about the rule's much more common usage in WP:ARBAP2. (But I suspect that they know) El_C 11:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

היי בנאדם, אני מבין שאתה מעריץ של לנין וגווארה ושאנחנו לא נמצאים על אותה מפה פוליטית אבל בכל זאת נראה לי שאנחנו יכולים להבין קצת אחד את השני לא? תבדוק בוויקיפדיה העברית ותראה שאני לא מנסה לכתוב פה שטויות. אתה כן? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.14 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the Hebrew Wikipedia says, at all—so no, no agreement. And anyway, you are replacing sourced content with an unsourced result. We don't do that here, on the English Wikipedia. We have a policy about citing reliable sources, which we try to adhere to rather strictly, especially when it comes to articles of historical import. El_C 07:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

איך לא? אני לא מדבר על מה שכתוב בתוצאה של המלחמה! תקרא טוב את כל העמוד. אתה ישראלי? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.24 (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a watch, and may need semi protection for a couple of weeks. Rising disruption by IPs where they are removing sources or tag bombing without any discussion of the talk page. Perhaps because the week long annual Onam festival starts in the last week of August. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. El_C 07:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, There are a Unreviewed page Raam Mori, created by Me. Can you do the needful Please. Thank you. Gazal world (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Gazal world (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 15:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your declaration back in June that there should be no sweeping changes made without a concrete discussion on the talk page, editor IbrahimWeed made an un-discussed and unilateral name change of the article Iraqi civil war (2014-present) to Iraqi-Islamist War based solely on his own opinion and without sources to back it up. He thus made changes to the infobox as well to which you were referring to. A previous discussion in September 2015 reached a consensus for the title to be Iraqi civil war (2014-present). Another editor has already initiated a request for the title to be reverted back to Iraqi civil war (2014-present) and I have myself given a strong support vote for it due to the unilateral, undiscussed, POV and OR nature of the change by IbrahimWeed. A three other editors also voiced support for the title to be reverted back. EkoGraf (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 15:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. Eight editors overall agreed on the talk page that Ibrahim's move should not have been done in the first place. EkoGraf (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IbrahimWeed reverted you and again renamed the article back to his unilateral title of Iraqi-Islamist War. Fortunately, DrStrauss reverted him and returned the article's title back to the old one, calling on the consensus that was established on the talk page, which he now closed. I think IbrahimWeed might try again unilaterally, in an OR fashion, and against consensus, to move the article. A short-term protection might be in order. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a pattern. Will warn. El_C 06:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, These two articles need a watch, given the persistent edit warring between or by IPs with absurd edit comments. The IPs apparently are not reading the cited sources, nor care what the RS are stating. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will try to keep an eye. El_C 00:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

UnincorporatedCommunityAdder (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to consider Economy of Mangalore to be nominated for Good Article (GA).
Please review this article, and atleast rate it as 'B' class article for now, till the Good Article (GA) nomination takes place.
Appropriate citations have been placed, and the article is written from a Neutral point of view.
Simple-man-everyday (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, nice work—but sorry, I don't participate in ranking articles. El_C 23:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that you've worked on Imgur before. I was wondering if you'd also help with a few issues there.

I've seen some other IP editors who've similarly tried to fix the problems but some trolls come in and undo their efforts. I tried to fix one too, but I get the same result. It appears that someone is trying to WP:OWN that article and the problems it has.

The main one of such problems is that part of the pronunciation guide is wrong. It says "like 'image-er'," which, by itself and in pronunciation-key-based terms, is inaccurate because it's trying to use English-based parts that include a silent letter, and pronunciation keys don't use silent letters. But if we include a qualifier such as "in English" then it would work. Also, what's the hyphen supposed to be for?

Let's handle this one problem for now and then go from there.

So will you please go back there and notice this edit and save the corrections back into place without fanfare? If you would do that then I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. And then after that, we can discuss what else it needs. Sound good? 2600:100E:B108:3143:A5BD:257C:619F:8810 (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try to convince the editor whose edit you are undoing, first? El_C 23:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually he wh undid mine. I can still try to do that, but I'd like to be backed by another editor first before "going in." As you may be able to see, he has given even another editor trouble when they tried to correct it too. Besides, why should I try to fight in that uphill battle first when it might be so much easier just to show it to someone like you, who will probably be a whole lot more reasonable than he is, and if you can see what I'm talking about and redo my correction, then he'll probably get that there's a consensus towards correcting the problem, and he'll be more likely to stop, especially if you explain that pronunciation keys don't work that way. So why not just do it that way? Oh, also, it looks like you're an admin. So why not also block him for edit-warring (though slow it may be)?2600:100E:B122:3B3:294:C577:76F1:CE05 (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I'm just not that active lately, But I would still urge you to simply start a conversation with the other editor instead of looking for other shortcuts. How do you know it won't work if you don't try it? Better articulate your position to the other editor on the article's talk page is the first step. El_C 00:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just block this account as WP:NOTTHERE - so far he has two edits and both are to vandalize the same controversial article (one reverted by you and the other by ClueBot) - these troll accounts should be stopped early on, before they are allowed to disrupt the work of other editors. (I guess you could try chatting with him first if you think there is hope that this account may belong to an editor who might become productive?) Probably this entire topic area should go through a major clean up effort, and then added to ARBCOM. It would require a veritable army of editors to get it done. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely the account is now effectively inactive, but please let me know if they cause further trouble and I might do just that. El_C 01:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When we first met you told me that calling another editor a genocide denier was a personal attack and that if I did it again I would be sanctioned. Well here an editor calls me a genocide denier [22] - can this be rev del'd? Let me also explain that I am very familiar with Lemkin as international law is a specialized area where I develop content and that I have never denied the Armenian genocide. In an article that is 235,229 long, a subject that is mentioned in passing a total of three times is most likely undue for prominent placement in the lede. At least I think it is, and this is a legitimate edit. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop distorting and making stuff up. I didn't call YOU a "genocide denier", I characterized a particular edit of yours as having a denialist POV, which it definitely does. Khirurg (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying my edit "has" a (denialist) POV, but you did not accusing me of making edits that are motivated by genocide denial. Ok, yeah, sure, that's convincing. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Playing victim is intellectually dishonest and does not make you look good, in fact the opposite. Khirurg (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is for you to leave me alone. Not to "all of a sudden" start stalking me. I've told you three times now to stop. I have never interacted with you before today, you have so far demanded that I be topic banned at AN/I, posted two hostile messages on my talk page, posted personal and uncivil comments about me on Talk:Turkey and now followed me to revert me on Armenian Genocide again by making personal comments, and this time accusing me of having a "denialist POV". That is not collaborative, it is a pattern, and it is not what I am here for. Stalking and harassment are wrong. Seriously. Stop. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "stalk" you or any such victimological nonsense, I have had Armenian Genocide on my watchlist since before you started editing wikipedia. As for stopping, you would do well to look in the mirror, what with genocide-denialist POV edits [23] and hostile actions such as removing my comments from talkpages [24]. You're one to talk. Khirurg (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

The argument about whether that passage is undue for the lead can be argued on its own merits without bringing the matter of a "denialist" point of view as being a factor in that debate. Because, it only serves to make the editorial interaction toxic and inflammatory for nought. So, please don't invoke denial so casually in the future, Khirurg. *** That said, multiple editors seem to take issue with your edits, Seraphim System, and yet you fail to use the talk page (especially as it involves such a highly contested article). I suggest you try gaining consensus for your edits there, first. *** But more generally, I suspect this to be partly a spillover for the mess outlined here, which I can't really comment on because I've yet to read it. El_C 06:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you assist me with some information?

1. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: Since the parties are not obligated to comply with the advise of DRN moderator, what's the solution when someone is sure that the other parties are not going to agree with him anyway and a ruling from a judge is essential. I am sure DRN is not an option in this case. Could "Mediation" be an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Mediation Committee? If not, then is "Arbitration" an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Arbitration Committee?

2. What’s the difference between Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and a specialized noticeboard such as “Fringe theory noticeboard”? I know specialized noticeboards are subject specific. But my question is that whether the moderators in “Fringe theory noticeboard” are only administrators or general users as well? If there are general users as well, how can I become a fringe theory noticeboard volunteer? Do I need to list my username anywhere and/or add any template in my user page?

3. When I am in a dispute with a couple of admins in a Wikipedia page, what’s the process of reporting those abusive admins. Let’s say, the admins are reverting any edit that is against their personal views and beliefs. And those admins need to be removed from the page. The Wikipedia manual says as admins can be removed through a dispute resolution process. But it doesn’t explain how. Because DRN moderator or Mediation committee may not be able to remove an administrator. So, if an user is in dispute with administrators, should he directly file a case to Arbitration Committee?

4. How can I add a new section and subsection to a Wiki article and remove an existing section from a Wiki article in visual editor?

5. I found that some contributions are deleted from “History” page of an article. So how to delete a contribution and who can do it?

6. Wiki policy states as I should not copy contents from other websites and should rather write my own contents. But what if the contents are open source contents? Can I directly copy those in Wikipedia? Are online news posts open source, including the images in the news? Can I use these texts and images in Wikipedia without editing? Can I copy and paste statements of medical national and international organizations in Wikipedia without editing?

7. Where to find images for a Wikiedia article if the image is not already available in Wikimedia? Are the images collected from news posts open source? And many sites don't have their images copyrighted. Do those images qualify as open source? When I upload an image, Wikipedia asks for copyright information. I have no idea what information to provide? What info should I provide if the image is in open source? And if the image is owned by me? Wikipedia asks me to contact the copyright holder and ask them for copyright information for the image. But some websites don't have "Contact us" section, some other sites are unresponsive when they are contacted, and even when I contact a website owner, he may not be able to provide me copyright information as the images are not copyrighted. So what information to provide Wikipedia in such a case? How do Wikipedia verify if the images are already copyrighted or not. If I claim to be granted permission for reuse from the copyright holder, how does Wikipedia verify the copyright holder has actually granted me permission for reuse of the copyrighted content?

8. How to add videos to a Wikipedia article? Do I need to provide copyright information for a video available in Youtube? Are there other policies on videos such as policies for graphic videos?

9. When I create a new article, how do I save my private draft for the article. If I click on "Save", the draft will become public and will be accessible for anyone. But I like it to be private. Is it possible. Furthermore, when I edit on an existing article, is there a way I can save my edits as a draft before publishing? It is an essential function. Because some posts may be very long and will take a long time to write. So, my unsaved works can be lost if browser tab is closed or if the texts are accidentally selected and deleted. So saving draft is essential.

10. Where can I save the usernames of my co-writers in my Wikipedia account like a phone book? I can't memorize the usernames of every persons. Thus, I need to have a phone book when the usernames will be saved in the respective categories.

11. How can I be connected with the community to improve each Wikipedia article? I know each important article is being monitored by some administrators. But how do I know which administrators is monitoring a page so that I can discuss with them about improving the article? How to get connected with the community for editing articles? I heard that communication is important here. But how? Everyone is stranger here. Whom to contact among these random people?

12. What’s the use of pending changes reviewing by administrators and “pending change reviewers”? As much as I know anyone can revert another user’s edit. In that case, what will change if an edit is approved by an administrator or a “Pending changes reviewer”? Will other users be unable to revert the edit back then? If not, then what’s the use of pending changes reviewing? Furthermore, how do the users know an edit has been approved by a administrator or a pending changes reviewers? Will the approval appear anywhere such as in the “History” page?

13. What’s the requirement and process for becoming a pending changes reviewer? Can anyone become a pending changes reviewer?

Abir Babu (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I've already answered all of his questions on my user talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! El_C 00:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFPP instructions, I'm requesting that you please reduce the protect level on Wikipedia:Editnotice back to semi-protection. Per Special:Diff/776054990#Template:Editnotices, it seems that you may have increased the level of protection on Wikipedia:Editnotice in error. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you (El C) have been offline a few days, Steel1943 posted this at WP:RFPP. Since I'm confident their understanding of what happened is correct, I've reduced to semi. This is just a courtesy note that this is resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello El C, you did delete the contribution to the page in question after I made an addendum today but kept the source. While I'm glad the source is intact, you could always look at the talk page to comment on my comment in regards to the removal of the addendum. I believe you will find at least some of it may be necessary for clarification, or if need be perhaps reword the addendum a bit so it is easily understood by the reader. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athenaswill (talk • contribs) 04:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have an "Edit: does the source need to refer to reductio ad absurdum if it refers to the superposition argument which is commonly associated with reductio ad absurdum? [Etc.]" right there in the body. We just don't do that. El_C 04:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El C, when you changed the protection to full protection for a recent content dispute, it removed the indefinite semi-protection that Samsara placed on the article. The article protection recently expired and has left the article unprotected. Will you re-add the indefinite semi-protection? This is one of those articles that should be indefinitely semi-protected. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 21:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to the list of admins and saw you listed there. How are people supposed to know from your user page? Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never given it much thought. There's always Special:Log/El_C/Special:Log/Anythingyouwant. El_C 18:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after commenting above, I looked at those logs for the first time in many months. It’s hard to remember everyone you come across at Wikipedia, but your name definitely rang a bell. If you want your involvement in disputes to be recognized as admin involvement, then I’d recommend saying at your user page that you’re an admin. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit but was asked to revert by User:MelanieN so I did. My understanding from our previous interaction is that this edit by me was okay because I could have made it at the same time I made my previous edit. Thoughts? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of VM having a series of edits (partial revert) interrupted by an unrelated edit from you, which was then continued by him immediately after (for the full revert), is not the same as having an "8-hour gap" with "multiple intervening edits" in between. Timing has to count for something. El_C 05:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, okay I will in future do exactly what VM did and nothing different. Sure would be nice if "someone" would spell all this out in an essay or a guideline or something. It doesn't seem like I was edit-warring if I could have done it when I made the previous edit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how easy it would be for you to replicate. It's just not a scenario that happens that often, due to a confluence of rather unique circumstances. Also, not just me, but two other admins at AE found that VM's edits did not constitute more than one revert. El_C 05:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not disagreeing now with the AE decision. I just want to understand what it was based on, aside from the circumstance that VM is VM. I don’t see how I was edit-warring today by making an edit that I could have made with my last valid edit. That’s why, after the AE decision, I asked for clarification at WP:Edit warring, only to be insulted there by User:NeilN. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was based on —indisputably— a series of edits, which got interrupted in the middle, only to immediately resume. It's quite clear this was not the case here. El_C 05:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, next time I’m making a series of edits overlapping with someone else’s edits I will keep going as long as they don’t interfere. Good luck to editors who are unaware of this rule! Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can you have your series of edits interrupted by an unrelated edit? And more importantly, why would you bother? El_C 06:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn’t VM’s series of edits interrupted unknowingly by my unrelated edit? Anyway, I wasn’t trying to replicate anything today, I wasn’t planning to try in the future, and won’t. What happens happens. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asked to self revert an edit on Racial views of Donald Trump because of a consensus required template on the article. Looking at the template it was one you created but there is no note on the page or talk page itself. Is that still in effect? PackMecEng (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's in effect. See WP:CRP for a page about it. El_C 00:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, I didn't notice NeilN already had it covered. El_C 01:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, thanks for the clarification. Have a great day! PackMecEng (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user is repeatedly deleting fair edits surroundomg meditation practice simply because he/she disagrees with the edit. Jacobgwiki (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you speaking to? El_C 05:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote me that "Editorialising, not to mention duplicating the same editorial in both articles, is not permitted on Wikipedia". Well, so Wikipedia users have just to get used to the fact that there are two pages dealing with the history of the same country, and that it does not seem possible to merge them. So be it, people can draw their own conclusions about this anomalous situation even without my "editorializing". Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C. Thank you for facilitating a resolution to the dispute on Kim Davis. Hopefully the involved parties will contribute to a compromise that everyone can live with.- MrX 🖋 12:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. I think the truth, in this case, will reveal itself in the details. El_C 01:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just look down at the list ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.239.37.228 (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor, I'm not sure how to answer you, so I'm also trying here. Don't hesitate to erase if it bothers you. ABout the antiquity of many mythological motifs around the Pleiades, I tried to bring information by condensing them, because it's all in the linked paper. On the presence of certain mythological motif at the time of the first settlement of America, I can refer to Lankford, George E. 2007. Reachable Stars Patterns in the Ethnoastronomy of Eastern North America. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama press, Gibbon, William B. 1972. “Asiatic Parallels in North American Star Lore: Milky Way, Pleiades, Orion”. Journal of American Folklore 85(337): 236–24, Berezkin, Yuri E. 2017. Roždenie zvezdnogo neba: Predstavlenija o nočnyh svetilah v istoričeskoj dinamike. Saint Petersburg: MAÈ RAN, and Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1968. L’Origine des Manières de table. Paris: Plon. For the Recent African origin of modern humans, I can mainly refer to Berezkin, Yuri E. 2017. Roždenie zvezdnogo neba: Predstavlenija o nočnyh svetilah v istoričeskoj dinamike. Saint Petersburg: MAÈ RAN and to the linked study. The advantage of the linked paper is that it sum up and synthesizes the different approaches. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal and is signed by two specialists, one French (there was recently a paper in Scientific American on his approach), the other Russian. Do you want me to add the links? How can I help improve my addition? Warm regards, and thank you for your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.238.122 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe use the talk page to present your addition to other editors, first? Because there's room for improvement. I thought your last addition didn't strike the right balance between quotations and original prose—with much more emphasis needing to be placed on the latter. El_C 00:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.238.122 (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a semi-protection request for an article (2018 Afrin offensive) against recent disruptive IP editing. If you able to investigate if the protection is warranted that would be great. If you think the protection isn't warranted that's cool too. Thanks in advance and sorry for the bother. EkoGraf (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems another administrator found the protection warranted and has protected the article. Still, I thank you for your help in the past in resolving article disputes. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I'll be keeping an eye. El_C 00:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) EkoGraf (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the article will need a longer protection after all. Now that the protection has ended, its being continuously vandalized by one IP editor, despite him being constantly reverted, and also a few other IP editors are inserting unsourced (possibly POV) information. EkoGraf (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 12:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the article will need an even longer protection. As soon as it became unprotected today a newly-created account made an edit that is not per the sources cited (or rather he is removing cited information). I also believe the newly created account is a sock of a long-running blocked sock-puppeteer who has had several newly-created accounts blocked recently, all of who were requesting the same changes be made as the guy that made the edit today. EkoGraf (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm sorta away. Is this still an issue? El_C 20:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... for hiding offensive content over at 2018 Women's March. Much appreciated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. El_C 22:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgot to login and had wished to do a bit of editing to the Hirschsprung's disease article as there are mistakes that need be corrected (for example SIP1 is the deprecated name for ZEB2 and should not be used) and I feel that the intro to the genetics section was useless fluff that could be cut out from the article Please do not knee jerk over trivial corrections Edit: I meant to say GEMIN2 not ZEB2 Mfernflower (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason you used zero edit summaries to explain all that is...? El_C 06:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bad habit of mine I need to break Mfernflower (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting these pages. The IP editor is Ararat arev, a banned user. Lately, his wiki-activity consists of inserting "Osiris-Orion son of Ra" into ancient Egypt articles. A connection between Osiris, Orion, and the sun (and Jesus) is some tangential part of his obsessive belief that Armenia is the wellspring of the cultures of the world, or something like that. When he gets into one of these spurts of editing, he's pretty persistent and moves to other pages; he also hit Abu Simbel temples, Thutmose IV, and Ramesses VIII today. In addition, he has a habit of jumping to new IPs and then going back to old ones, so it's best to block IPs that he's used recently. I don't have admin tools, so I'd appreciate your help with this pest. A. Parrot (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Eight blocks and four semiprotections later. El_C 04:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please do me a favor and lock up my user page and user talk? I am expecting to be away for a long while. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I'd love to help with that, but we're not allowed to lock up user/usertalk pages unless those pages face clear instances of vandalism or other abuse. But I will keep an eye on it for you. Enjoy your vacation! El_C 08:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EI C:, Can you have a look on Pandyan Dynasty. There is some issue going on with common languages. An IP and another user keep on deleting the content which is cited without proper valid reason. There is a discussion going on in the talk page, but they doesn't seem to be participating in that discussion. Have a look and provide your views. aggi007(talk) 12:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm sorta away. Is this still an issue? El_C 20:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C,

Hope all is well. Can you look into semi-protecting the Turkish military operation in Afrin? It has been undergoing a lot of disruption by IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm still sorta away. Is this still an issues? El_C 09:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago ...

hi ears
... you were recipient no. 1590 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) El_C 09:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should insert edit notice on all Kashmir conflict related articles, where subject restrictions applies per recent rule on arbitration enforcements. You have added these notices before[25][26] but maybe more has to be done. My Lord (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. :) I wanted to point out an issue that has arisen. The last several days an anonymous IP editor has been making POV unsourced edits and has been removing sourced content along with its sources in three articles. These edits have become obvious they are simple POV vandalism (a word that I rarely use when describing a fellow editor). Me and several other editors have been constantly reverting this IP guy but he constantly keeps coming back and keeps making the same un-constructive edits. The articles in question are: Turkish military operation in Afrin, Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present), Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). EkoGraf (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]