User talk:NeilN

Today's featured picture The Monteleone chariot is an Etruscan chariot, dated to circa 530 BC, that was uncovered in 1902 at Monteleone di Spoleto in Umbria, Italy, in an underground tomb covered by a mound. It was part of a chariot burial, containing the remains of two human corpses along with two drinking cups. Measuring 131 centimetres (51+5⁄8 inches) in height and designed to be drawn by two horses, the chariot itself is constructed of wood covered with hammered bronze plates and carved ivory decoration. The Monteleone chariot is now in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Artifact credit: unknown Etruscan sculptor; photographed by the Rogers Fund and the Metropolitan Museum of Art Recently featured: Carpocoris purpureipennis Sagunto Rokeby Venus

Sock IP

Hey NeilN, could you block 212.15.182.119 And 212.15.168.19, they appear to be Sockpuppet IPs of Chernobog95 as they both use nearly the same geolocation as the IP he was recently caught socking, 188.129.26.144. Here’s the proof . SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamaranEmerald. Both IPs last edited about a week ago so Chernobog95 has likely moved on to a new IP. If they return to the same IP (or are currently using another IP) please let me know and I'll block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you look into this?

Would you take a look at the behavior of both parties here, here, here, and here? I'm at my wit's end. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but that's not the way it seems to me. I don't want to take it to AN/I and make a big magillah about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you decide to take a look, just examine the recent editing on Neo-Nazism and also see Talk:Neo-Nazism#Excessive citations. I honestly don't know what's going on here. I could characterize the situation for you from my perspective, but I'd rather you evaluate it without that. I'll take my lumps if they're coming to me, but I need to know if I'm crazy or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Asdisis sock again

89.164.229.190 first edit asking for discussion (Asdisis loves long discussions), then fighting to add Croatian name as original instead of Serbian (Asdisis is Croatian editor whose main purpose here was to defend Croatia vs Serbia, those were his own words), and finally, at discussion his typical WP:IDONTHEARYOU for what he was banned for. FkpCascais (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thans a lot, lets hope he gives up. FkpCascais (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Outing question

Hi Neil. I have concerns (backed by evidence) that someone who has not disclosed their identity or COI is editing an article about themselves as well as whitewashing and disrupting an article about a close business associate. How do I raise these issues for community discussion, e.g. at WP:COIN, without violating of WP:OUTING? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: If the editor has posted no links on Wikipedia to their real world identity then follow the directions at WP:OUTING: "Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy)." There's no way a community discussion can be held in this situation. This is an issue because I can (and do) block for UPE if I receive solid evidence, I can't block for undisclosed COI. Probably your best bet is to email arbcom. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What would I ask Arbcom do in the absence of UPE evidence? Compel the editor to put a COI disclosure on their user page? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Assuming you've already placed a COI alert on their talk page and been met with silence, you could ask for an editing restriction if the disruption is sustained and not insignificant. The community doesn't expect its editors to waste their time on people who hide their true purpose for editing articles. If you wish me to have a look at the situation, I will. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The disruption probably isn't at a level that warrants admin intervention at this point. What's really needed is some assistance resolving nine (9) running content disputes with this editor. A few days ago I posted neutral requests for help on every relevant talk page I could think of, but apparently no one's interested. 9 separate RfCs seems like overkill and might not be appreciated. The best next step I can think of would be WP:3O. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

72bikers

Take a look at the recent deletions from 72bikers talk.[1] Several editors have been documenting toward an almost certain topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye and responding on their talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:1RR for three months enacted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Briannabrown11

Can you please take a look at this user's edits? Between the possible username violation, to the obviously promotional edits, I'd like an Admin to take a look at this... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Username blocked. Also revdeleted the copyright violation. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Padlock

Any chance of a padlock at Lonia? Anons are repeatedly adding various unsourced statements and mangling the sourced stuff. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Done. Let me know if auto-confirmed editors show up adding their authentic knowledge. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha! And a pig just flew past my window. - Sitush (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Chernobog95 Revisited

Hi NielN, I just found Chernobog95 using one of those sock IPs again today, like I said before this ip, 212.15.168.195 uses the same geolocation as the ip Chernobog95 was previously blocked under, 188.129.26.144, here’s the proof SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamaranEmerald. Can you please provide diffs of edits that show similar editing behavior? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Very well:

• One of the first clues that shows that 212.15.168.195 is a Sock IP of Chernobog95 is the tags left behind from the edits he/she has made in the past. Prior to his/her block, Chernobog95 made edits on pages using a mobile device, which left the tags, the two tags read "Mobile Edit" and "Mobile Web Edit" [2]. 188.129.26.144, the sock IP Chernobog95 previously used, also left behind those same tags as Chernobog95 on a regular basis [3], and so does this IP [4].

• Similar to 188.129.26.144 editing the same pages that were previously edited by Chernobog95 with similar content [5] [6], 212.15.168.195 has been editing pages previously edited by 188.129.26.144 [7] [8]. The diffs provided also show that 212.15.168.195 has used the exact same written content as that of the one inserted by 188.129.26.144 months earlier, with the only real difference being the arrangement of words. 212.15.168.195 has also edited several pages previously edited by Chernobog95 in the past: Hwasong-6[9] and Scud[10]

• Chernobog95 used non-native english in his/her edits they made prior to his/her current block [11] [12]; the same went with the IP he/she edited under while blocked [13], [14], [15], [16]. Like Chernobog95 and the previous IP, 212.15.168.195 uses non-native english in the edits he/she has most recently made [17] [18], this is supported by the fact that the geolocation for 212.15.168.195 matches that of 188.129.26.144, the IP Chernobog95 previously used before it was blocked [19] [20], which shows both IPs being located in or just outside of Zagreb, Croatia, a nation where English is not a native language.

• It should also noted that the IP also edits pages under the North Korean Portal and the Rocketry Portal, two portals Chernobog95 frequently edited under prior to his/her block. And like Chernobog95, 212.15.168.195 uses the phrase "[unspecified individual] confirmed etc..." in the edits they make on certain pages [21] [22] [23] [24]. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• @SamaranEmerald: Thank you. Blocked for a month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Can I get you to look at something please?

Before it escalates, an editor challenged an edit here. The discussion was hatted twice and I had to unhat it because it's a legitimate question. The challenged material is in the section "Racial views". Some editors what to blame everything on racism even when it's not racism, and in this case, it's a conspiracy theory that was concocted to prevent an opponent from being a candidate. The same thing happened to Cruz. Please take a look at it before it becomes too long to read. Thanks in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

More support that it doesn't belong where they have it: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk: Donald Trump

In what universe is archiving a closed and hatted discussion "Very *not* apprpriate [sic]"? --Calton | Talk 00:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: The universe where the hatting was done less than a couple hours before the archiving and is disputed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:Firearms

Could you take a look at the ongoing discussion here? –dlthewave ☎ 12:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thewolfchild

Hi. Is this posting at AN/I by Thewolfchild a violation of the instruction recently given to him as the result of an AE case "not to personalize disputes or to use inflammatory language ('comment on the content, not the contributor')"? [25] His comment was directed at me, and the comment of mine he was responding to [26] was directed at another editor altogether. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: That whole discussion is about editors' behavior and personal grievances. There's little content discussion involved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but Thewolfchild is the only one I'm aware of who's under a sanction that covers such behavior. Anyway, no big deal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Crispy Leo

I noticed you blocked this account indefinitely and then changed it to a 24-hour block. I'm assuming it's because of the two previous soft-blocked accounts (far too many users are soft-blocked when they should be hard-blocked - drives me crazy). I just reblocked those two accounts as CU-blocks. I would like to do the same with Crispy Leo. I soft block may entitled a person to create another account, but not two - in theory, such a game could go on ad infinitum. In addition, based on their edits, it is absurd to let this person continue to edit after the expiration of 24 hours. Is it okay with you if I reblock Crispy Leo indefinitely? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Definitely okay by me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Aww crap... sorry...

We managed to apply the block to MageMagic009 at the same time and I overwrote your block with mine. My apologies. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely no need to apologize. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

TPE?

thoughts? Also see their edit history. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Maybe. The Dalida edit is suspicious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Manipulateus

• Manipulateus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello NeilN. This user has an unblock request open. I was thinking of declining it, but it now appears that the formal grounds for the block may not be right. Based on Ponyo's findings, he was not using multiple accounts. What should we do? At a minimum, changing the grounds for the block to something like edit warring might be considered. The other option might be to lift the block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I offered to unblock them if they agreed to two conditions but they refused. I'm okay with changing the block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Chessmaster 2000

Thank you for the rangeblock on the edit-warring IP, NeilN. I'm not sure if this is a different person or the same person using a different IP range, but someone added something similar to the article and posted something on the talk page. Reviewing that user's edit history and talk page is a bit perplexing too. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:C56A:5593:6807:9CF7 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Judging from the edit summaries, it's the same person. I would've blocked for a week for continuing to edit war but that IP just got off a multi-year block a couple months ago. Re-blocked for two years. Posted here as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wow! Thanks for following up. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:6496:81D:C1F0:D7F6 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Question...

I added a NPOV tag to a GAC, but the tag was removed per this diff with a snarky edit summary. Just to let you know up front, it is not my intention to get anyone in trouble. I am justifiably concerned that the article was even nominated in the condition it is in. Rather than go into why there are NPOV issues, I'll just say the TP is chock full of them, but the nominator refuses to acknowledge them. Since the article is subject to DS, I'm not going to replace the tag without seeking advice as to what extent I have to go beyond what I've already gone. Also see [27]. We don't nominate articles for GA in order to get a GA reviewer to fix the issues. I believe the diff I provided supports my reason for adding the NPOV tag on the article, and would appreciate it if you would restore it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The GAC has no bearing on a NPOV tag, but an article will not pass if the problems are still present. You should be willing to discuss issues if you are adding the tag, however if you think the problems are massive then start the GAR and see what happens in a week. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This is just more of Atsme's sabotage attempts. She doesn't want the article to exist at all. No exaggeration. She has never gotten over the fact that the community rejected her attempts at a G10 speedy deletion and an AfD. She's good at using talk pages to make huge flag waving and general objections, but not good at making specific suggestions and actual attempts to improve content, largely because she doesn't seek improvement of something she thinks shouldn't exist at all. A topic ban for all things Trump would really help, because she wastes lots of our time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, it would be very much appreciated if you would stop the PAs and groundless accusations. Emir, the article is simply a GAC at this point, but never should have been. If the purpose was to get input and help for improvement, a peer review should have been requested before jumping into a GAC. The NPOV tag belongs on the article, and there should also be inline tags to show exactly where the issues exist, but the WP:OWN issues at that article prevent that from happening as we've seen demonstrated by the removal of the NPOV tag. I came here to ask the advice of an admin, and of course, here comes BullRangifer to spread more ill-will while casting aspersions with zero provocation from me other than my efforts to help, hoping they will at least make an effort to get the article right. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Inline tags are more effective than an NPOV tag at the top of the page. Proper talk page threads work even better. Very specific suggestions, rather than general accusations, get specific and constructive responses from most editors, including myself. I have no trouble working with editors who have diversely opposite opinions than myself, as long as we AGF, are civil, and seek specific article improvement.

Those who have different goals are harder to work with. Those who don't get specific, such as mentioning specific wordings or sources, are also hard to deal with. There is no there there, because they just create a vague chilling atmosphere, a dis-ease, because everyone notices that they consider "something" wrong, but they proffer no specific and real solutions. They are just complainants, and when it becomes endless and circular walls of words, month after month, they should expect to be ignored and not get closer to their goal, which in your case, according to your actual words and actions, is to get rid of the article altogether. Since you're not getting that, why don't you just stop complaining and find something worthwhile to do? There is no ownership. Those who are reasonable get results, regardless of their POV. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You might want to check-out MelanieN's TP where I pointed out the AP correction, and the diffs I added to the article TP dating back to Nov 2017 when I tried to explain the same thing (with RS to support what I was saying). All I got was the same ole WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT routine. I am truly concerned that your obsession with Trump-related articles may be getting the best of you based on your TP. Seriously, BR - you need to lighten up...WP has no deadline. Spend more time finding scholarly articles that will lend more credibility to the material you add because the news sources are borderline questionable for statements of fact (see WP:NEWSORG). MelanieN has agreed to withdraw the GA nom, and I have offered my help in getting the article ready to be presented as a GAC. I ask that you please stand down with the PAs, condescension and resistence against what I've been trying to explain to you. It is far more rewarding to work in a collegial environment with editors who are working together for the same goal...and that goal is a quality encyclopedic article, not another coatrack to hang one's grievances against Trump. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"MelanieN's TP where I pointed out the AP correction, and the diffs I added to the article TP dating back to Nov 2017..." Now that's something concrete. Would you please renew that request on the talk page? Start a new thread where we can address it. Things tend to get lost with time, and sometimes good suggestions never get addressed and end up in the archives. If it's a good suggestion, then it might get attention a second time around. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You might want to check-out MelanieN's TP where I pointed out the AP correction, and the diffs I added to the article TP dating back to Nov 2017 when I tried to explain the same thing (with RS to support what I was saying). All I got was the same ole WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT routine. Hey, wait a minute! You provided a link to AP's correction to an earlier article of theirs.[28] The correction contained information which is ALREADY in our article, in two places, very explicitly, as I explained to you.[29] Were you still not listening? The information you wanted us to add to the article is ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE and has been for a long time. I seriously resent you accusing me of IDIDNTHEARTHAT; I replied very specifically to your link and suggestion. This appears to be more a case of IDIDN'TREADTHAT on your part. I would like to work collegially with you as you keep saying, but this is no way to start. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Melanie, just so you'll know - you misunderstood what I was saying: ...the article TP dating back to Nov 2017 when I tried to explain the same thing (with RS to support what I was saying). All I got was the same ole WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT routine. I was explaining the reception to my suggestions on the article TP dating all the way back to 2017. You can look in the TP archives to confirm the various responses to my concerns and suggestions. I was not referring to you or the current discussion on your TP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Are you willing to add inline pov-check tags (no more than four to start) instead of an article tag? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

...and start a talk page thread for each one, with a specific explanation of the problem and a suggested solution. No general or vague accusations, just concentrate on improvement of content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, please accept my sincerest apologies for involving you. I was willing to help prepare the article for GA, but after reading MelanieN's response here and on her TP, I've decided that it's best to avoid working under such pressure. My comments about the NPOV issues can be found in the archives of the article TP. I've made 90 edits - the 1st edit was participating in an RfC, Nov 8, 2017, and my last edit in an attempt to improve the article was February 7, 2018 (excluding my recent comment about the GA nom). They can easily isolate my comments and determine if there's anything useful. Thank you for your patience and understanding. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Oddly name user

I have noticed a user with an odd name, Neilen, phonetically this could be identical to your username. Not sure if this impersonation perhaps by a certain sock or just a coincidence. Either way you might want to keep an eye on this user. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

My analysis: This is clearly not a new user. Most of their edits have been constructive, but some have replaced existing material with unsourced content (always with a clear POV pro-Trump). The ClueBot vandalism tags were an error, the edits (pretty much the same edit at two different articles) were not vandalism. I do see a little edit warring here. Just FYI. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I noticed them too, but they slid off my radar. Too much on my plate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Then stop trying to operate the radar when you are eating! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

LMAO! Good one. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I see a lesser but still perhaps notable resemblance with your username MelanieN. Maybe I am overthinking this but it does seem a bit odd. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No surprise; we both end in -N. It was once suggested (jokingly) that we must be socks of each other. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia and MelanieN: The name thing is probably coincidence. It was once suggested (not jokingly) that Nil Einne and I were socks of each other. This differently spelled compatriot of mine isn't going to last long if he doesn't change his editing behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, your differently spelled compatriot came back today, made a bunch of disruptive edits (unsourced or not supported by source, re-added when reverted, etc.) and got himself blocked topic banned from US politics. What's interesting to me is that in his comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nielen he addressed an appeal to you! [30] He addressed you by name, interesting. And he also, somehow, surprisingly for a brand new user, knew exactly how to post on the AE page. He is now indefinitely topic banned. Wonder how long until it becomes a block as well? --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:72bikers

Mind taking a look at this post block conversation [31] He does not want me on his talk page but is busy making demonstrably false statements including that I tried to get him blocked as a sock and that users are working together toward an almost certain topic ban (follow his link). Looks like a civility or BLP violation against me. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Just stay off his talk page. If he continues to make references to you I'll tell them to either allow you to reply or stop talking about you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for watching. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that did not work. Between his talkpage removal comments and what he is saying in his talk he is building a good case for action to further limit his editing ability. Legacypac (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

While he has no problem posting personal attacks against me (see above) now [32] followed a number of hours later [33] I'd warn him against clerking and modifying another user's posts but he has banished me from his talkpage. Is this something you can act on or go to AN? Legacypac (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Reverted and warned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm seeing similar behavior again 1 2 in response to a warning. –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Irvine22 socks.

FWIW, I believe the accounts That cocky boy & Daft Cnut are both socks of the banned Irvine22. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Thanks. They're both indeffed but if more show up please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Will do. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Sasha Sashman, possibly another one. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one, Irv Stonohan. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Another one, CarsonNCraig. The Dave Snowden article may require protection. GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Now he's stalking my edits across Wikipedia as 103.23.18.158, via reverts. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the block & rollback :) GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Another one: Hard me, Kissy. Semi-protection is required. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Semi-protection is already present but they're blowing past that. I've applied extended-confirmed protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Hello, I'm Wikitigresito. I noticed that you recently removed content from WP:Articles for deletion/Yaser Murtaja without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. wikitigresito (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Left message --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI -- civility-challenged editor

Hi NeilN. There's this guy. His name is "Factchecker atyourservice". He's been quite uncivil for quite some time on the Talk:Trump–Russia dossierpage. Like here to MelanieN and Bullrangifer: [34]. MrX gave him a DS notice recently, but he thinks it's "dumb" according to his edit summary.

SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe what you just did, SPECIFICO. You can't go after every single editor who disagrees with you or the prevailing POV at the Trump articles. Factchecker atyourservice may not be all wine and roses but he isn't uncivil. I've seen far worse that has gone unchecked. He challenged the NPOV issues in a 7500+ word article that is based on nothing but unproven allegations, and meanders all over the place. We're trying to fix it, and actually it has resulted in progress. Try harder to adjust to those editors who disagree with you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and Atsme: I've read through the talk page a number of times and largely agree with Atsme. Factchecker atyourservice not being "all wine and roses" is pretty apt. They're making legitimate points but need to be careful not to stray into the "this article is a disgrace and all you guys are biased!" territory that many hit-and-run editors start off and stay in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, as you are well aware I barely have edited that article and I'm not one of the ones it has insulted or disparaged. One of the many reasons you attract so little agreement with your positions on WP is that your manifest tendency to make personal remarks (as you have done about me here) helps nobody to get work done around here. As to this user, all you have to do is look at MelanieN's reactions to know that this guy seems to have creeped her out. The fact is that Coffee added the "civility" restriction to implement Arbcom's AP2 decision and this editor is one of the relatively small numbers who are still violating it. Admins can't be everywhere all the time and so it's only helpful to point out flagrant violations. I've called out some of the worst offenders in that area and frankly we are all better off that the Admins redirected their efforts to other pursuits. WP is a work area. Would you work on a shop floor with a guy who talks to you the way that user addressed MelanieN? Really? She doesn't like confrontation and she may even come here and say she doesn't care, but plenty of others do and would care and an unsafe editing environment devalues and discourages their volunteer efforts here.

NeilN is not obligated to do anything about it. He's a volunteer as well. In this case I expected a warning to that user, but I've seen NeilN decline in similar situations in the past. That's entirely up to him. Soooner or later, disruptive editors get shown the door, and IMO it's better to help them to a more constructive path before it comes to that. SPECIFICO talk 12:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment since I was mentioned: I wouldn’t describe them as uncivil as Wikipedia defines it. If they continue their current talk page behavior it could become disruptive - with their lengthy sweeping generalizations and their refusal to name a specific problem or suggest an added reference that could actually improve the article. I made a genuine effort to work with them - hoping to model what collaboration looks like and encourage them to do more of it. From their reaction I have concluded that they have no intention of collaborating with other editors or trying to improve the article. I do not intend to respond to them or deal with them any further. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I purposely did not ping you to avoid dragging you into this. I don't see any personal attacks as WP defines them, but uncivil is way broader and clearly fits a lot of the talk page comments from this editor, imo. The fact that MelanieN has reacted by deciding to avoid the typically harsh and unproductive interactions with this editor, regardless of whether she chooses to call them "uncivil" is clear confirmation of the problem that the DS is intended to extinguish. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the stonewalling at that article is far more disruptive. Editors who bring light to the issues via legitimate discussion are relentlessly criticized by editors who make claims of FORUM etc. Then comes the spinning of what was actually said in response to the FORUM accusations...and quite frankly, the pattern becomes rather noticeable. Factchecker, JFG, and others have provided lists of issues and suggestions - some of us have called RfCs - but we're still dealing with stonewalling and/or attempts to make the opposition appear disruptive. The next thing you know, there's a pile-on at AE to get rid of the opposition (whoever tried to change the status quo), and busy admins are forced to make quick decisions without knowing the full story. I've noticed that tactic used most often by teams protecting Coatracks, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway...with regards to Factchecker_atyourservice, he didn't just happen to show-up at that article - he tried to clean things up early on as the archives will show. I (and other editors) thought he did a good job of laying everything out and describing the source issues. For all that work, he was accused of FORUM, writing walls of text, disruptive behavior, etc. MelanieN, you asked Factchecker to point out the blog sources and (I imagine quite innocently) called him "guy"...while I thought nothing of it, he responded in-kind by calling you girl - that's how things escalate. But aside from the petty stuff, here's where it gets interesting...Politrukki added two inline tags marking the blog sources and those tags were quickly reverted. Keep in mind, that even NeilN suggested that I add a few inline tags which is customary when material and sources are challenged in an article, but I decided not to partake and this is exactly why. The behavior we're seeing at the article leans more to OWN which is the root of the disruption, so let's try to keep things in perspective. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I will just say that NeilN's suggestion (04:15, 8 April 2018) specifically contributed to my decision to use inline tags. Politrukki (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Get a life you folks. You're fighting about whether you're fighting on the page of an Admin who's already chosen not to get involved. Jeez. In real life, folks would back away and cross the street. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO!! I think you just solved the mystery to "why the chicken crossed the road"! ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

As long as constructive discussion is happening, it's fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I always welcome nonsense and squabbling on my talk page as well. That way I won't miss any laffs. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Special Development Council

Hi, the article was created by Rajrajh, upon whom sanctions had been placed today preventing the creation of certain India-related articles. This new article relates to the topic, but not explicitly. This is also the fourth instance of the day that I'm CSD'ing their article on grounds of copyvio. Please take note. Thanks, MT Train^Talk 17:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mark the train: Rajrajh has been blocked indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Asdisis block evasion ... again...

Here, he quite openly talks from IPs knowing IPs will be blocked but he will continue anyway. What is most disgusting is that he is a highly manipulative liar (no problems in saying so) who does and says whatever necessary to defend its POV. The community noteced his inability to work colectively since his participation here is just for him to impose his POV, and not to comply with rules, not even mentioning, to learn something.

So now he found a way to participate despite indef-blocked. It is a case for discussion on how to solve this kinds of persistent disruption. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: I don't know why you responded to them. Just revert and report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I have no connection to the user FkpCascais is mentioning and I see quite often that he accuses other IPs to be this Asdisis user. Second, how am I POV pushing FkpCascais, when I'm agreeing with you? Wouldn't that make you also POV pushing? I'm allowed to participate in the discussion so please stop reverting my posts. Anyways, I said what I had to say so we won't be seeing much of each other on this discussion. Bye until next time. 89.164.105.233 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Andre Ingram semi

Hi NeilN. Any chance of semi protection for Andre Ingram? Lost of traffic and vandalism at the moment. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Gadfium took care of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Good & bad news ...

Hello NeilN, lets begin with the good news: in collaborate work within Talk:Colt_AR-15#Threaded_Discussion it was possible to check and verify sources for the Port Arthur massacre. Bad news is in my opinion that in this process we discovered an IP-User from British Columbia, City: Nanaimo & Victoria who since years is altering weapons informations in crime-related articles.

• Step by step I found that f.e. Special:Contributions/38.142.19.186 + Special:Contributions/AlainaP14 could be this user.
• I have the feeling, that it coud be a similar case with this user: IP 96.54.224.159. (User systematically altered informations about identification of weapons in crimes) See [35] [36] [37] [38]. + IP Special:Contributions/70.66.13.54&offset=&limit=500&target=70.66.13.54 has the same edit style [39] and wow Special:Contributions/96.54.224.159&offset=&limit=5000&target=96.54.224.159 IP active mission since 2011 & talkpage ;-) next IP is Special:Contributions/104.128.253.21 with changing weapon info here. + Special:Contributions/104.128.253.2 All this IPs are located in British Columbia, City: Nanaimo & Victoria

The problem about continuous changes without giving reliable sources is big enough. Additionally it can lead to a Wikipedia-Effect with unsourced facts as Springee mentioned. As you are far more experienced in cases of possible vandalism or/and sock-puppetry I would like to read your ideas about the problems with the IP from British Columbia. I have the feeling that a Wikipedia:CheckUser might be recommendable. If you should share this feeling please initiate this case, because I am not able to do this here. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

George Roy

I made an edit that i believe now will allow the original page to remain. Thank you~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalanche2018 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Avalanche2018: To be honest, most of your formatting edits have not been helpful (not out of malice, but confusion about how to edit an article) and the last one was the same. The article is not in danger of deletion as the subject clearly meets our notability guidelines thanks to the references you've provided if that's what you're worried about. I strongly recommend you read through the tutorial to gain a basic understanding of editing. If you don't understand why your edits are getting reversed, please ask. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: editing articles about politics/politicians (Paul Nehlen)

Thank you for the information about the Arbitration Committee and sanctions... I wonder if the authors using unfounded pejoratives against a political candidate received the same notice. Were they also notified of the "Five Pillars" of Wikipedia, which includes, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" because that should, it seems, preclude calling someone a white supremacist when no article they cite includes that description and the man himself has admitted to be a white nationalist but denies being a white supremacist.

Maybe it's just me, but this whole article on the "Arbitration Committee" findings seems to violate the 3rd Pillar of Wikipedia..."Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." unless, "mercilessly edited" means only making edits that leaves in someone else's unsubstantiated name-calling. (And let's not even get started on the 5th Pillar, "Wikipedia has no firm rules" LOL!!!!)

QPhysics137 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The idea that it is “unfounded” to describe Paul Nehlen (who posts pictures of himself in the Oval Office surrounded by the severed heads of stereotypical Jewish people on pikes) is... dubious at best. Unfortunately for Paul, Wikipedia describes people as reliable sources do, not as they might wish to be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@QPhysics137: Disregarding the way you framed your first question, a few editors hadn't been notified or were notified more than a year ago and a few had been. I've placed more notifications. Arbcom findings are taken very seriously and disagreeing with your stance is not owning the article. It means you actually have to use the article's talk page to make your case and come to a consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: After searching at length using many combinations of "Nehlen" "Oval Office" "heads" "Jews/Jewish" I found zero references or links to these pictures you claim exist. Could you provide the links? And as to, "as reliable sources do" I read all five of the links placed after the smear label and not a single one of them called him a white supremacist. This also addresses your comment, @NeilN:. How do you suggest reaching consensus with someone who ignores the very articles they are citing and inserts their opinion instead? It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with the hate-filled fringe...on both sides of the aisle. But clearly using the "white supremacist" pejorative is not supported by the cited articles, so it should be removed according to Wikipedia's own rules (5 Pillars and rules on biographies of living persons). QPhysics137 (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's very much supported by the cited sources. Like the one I just added: House Speaker Paul Ryan’s announcement Wednesday that he will not seek another term could open the door for a white supremacist to win the Republican Party’s primary in his district. Also, the very classy anti-Semitic image I referred to: here. Hope this helps you understand why the descriptions aren't going anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Using Twitter to make controversial claims about living persons is a clear violation of WP:BLPSPS. I hope you or NeilN act(s) accordingly. Politrukki (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Politrukki: That source is not used in the article. As far as I can tell, whenever the subject's tweets are used as sources, they are also accompanied by secondary sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood me. I meant that NorthBySouthBaranof should not be making controversial unsubstantiated ("who posts pictures of himself in the Oval Office ...") or poorly sourced (citing a tweet by some random person) allegations on this talk page. Alleged pictures are irrelevant anyway, because we would need reliable sources to interpret what they prove. Thanks for checking that the bio does not use tweets inappropriately, anyway. Politrukki (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @QPhysics137: You're going to have to explain your assertion to me as four out of five sources have "white supremacist" in their headline and the fifth has "House Speaker Paul Ryan’s announcement Wednesday that he will not seek another term could open the door for a white supremacist to win the Republican Party’s primary in his district." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm disinterested in your content dispute in general, but headlines are not considered reliable sources. It is common that a perfectly fine source uses a headline that is not substantiated in the article. Politrukki (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

While that is true in general, in this specific case the claim is there in the text as well as the headlines, in all five sources. It's absolutely not a matter of interpretation - the sources directly state that this individual is a white supremacist. (I have not been involved in editing these articles, I hadn't heard of the person before now, I just saw the discussion on this talk page, and had a look at the sources.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. My point was only about the headline comment. I don't know who the person is nor am I interested to know. I have not read any of the sources. If the sources say "white supremacist" in the body, contrary to QPhysics137's claim, I don't mind if this sub-thread is hatted as distraction. Politrukki (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: "You're going to have to explain your assertion to me as four out of five sources have "white supremacist" in their headline" Because sensational headlines don't always reflect what's in the article. Take the Al Jazeera article, for example. Go to the page...do a CTRL-F search for "supremacist" and you get 14 hits. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM is used to describe Nehlen. I'll look at that fifth one again, but the first four are like the Al Jazeera article...they may have bombastic headlines, but the articles themselves do not cross into that possibly libelous area of accusing him of being a white supremacist. QPhysics137 (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@QPhysics137: Then you'll have to make that argument on the article's talk page, not here, as I am only dealing with admin matters (e.g., BLP) in this case. And please mind our no legal threats policy when using such terms as libel and slander. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: "Then you'll have to make that argument on the article's talk page..." I see...so the people changing my edits BACK TO WHAT IS FALSE have to be convinced that I should be allowed to change it to what is correct?
LOL
Great editorial work you're doing there, Mr Administrator.
"And please mind our no legal threats policy when using such terms as libel and slander." How about I mind THE LAW when using terms? That would be a refreshing change around here, wouldn't it? Calling someone a racist in print is libelous unless you're ready to back it up in court. And claiming to use articles that DO NOT use that term about him as your basis for using that term only shows that this is nothing but a case of hate-filled people wanting to express their hateful opinions (which is, as I've already pointed out, a violation of the 2nd Pillar of Wikipedia...MR ADMINISTRATOR!!!) QPhysics137 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@QPhysics137: Not really a good idea to invoke THE LAW here if it's obvious to anyone familiar with libel laws of the U.S. (which we have to follow) that your basic premise is incorrect. The U.S. Supreme court has "...held that statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true are protected from libel claims, as are statements of opinion relating to matters of public concern that do not contain a provably false factual connotation." Why do you think people are free to publish "Donald Trump is a racist" or "Hilary Clinton is a criminal"? If you're that concerned, email info-en-q@wikipedia.org per WP:LIBEL. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Or don't. Because we're going to tell you the exact same thing NeilN just did. GMG^talk 19:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: "Not really a good idea to invoke THE LAW here if it's obvious to anyone familiar with libel laws of the U.S. (which we have to follow) that your basic premise is incorrect." I don't know what law school/bait shop you got your degree from, but I assure you that printing an unsubstantiated claim of racism *IS* opening one's self up for a libel suit. And putting down "references" that do not actually support the use of the term only makes the injured party's case stronger.
Perhaps you'd like to educate yourself before your next fallacious response. (But somehow, I doubt you will.)
Why do you think people are free to publish "Donald Trump is a racist" or "Hilary Clinton is a criminal"? How many of them are stating it AS FACT in a published media outlet AND providing "references" that they are claiming proves it to be factual? (Do you not get the difference between a sign at a rally and a sentence is a newspaper...or Wikipedia article????) QPhysics137 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

References

@QPhysics137: Might want to read more: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] Bottom line: the article contains no libel. If you want to argue content and sources, don't do that on this talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: LOL So you really don't realize that using "references" that don't support your position makes the name-calling "with malice"??? REALLY??? You can't noodle that obvious fact out in your little brain? LOL Sad, sad, sad.
"Bottom line: the article contains no libel." LOL Keep telling yourself that Neil...I'm sure your brain has no problem convincing itself of all kinds of nonsense. This really is getting to be a lot of fun watching you lie and make a fool of yourself...I'm just wondering at this point why. Are you really too dim to know the difference between your citations (on which I don't see a single instance of someone calling anyone a racist AND providing "references" to substantiate that what they're saying is factual) and what's written on the Nehlen page, are you are just too full of yourself to admit that you're wrong? QPhysics137 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@QPhysics137: You're making less and less sense. Anyways, you've been told what you need to do and told what not to do. I don't have anything more to say here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: "You're making less and less sense." I'm sorry if you're not capable of following along. Let me try to use smaller words for you.
If I write, "Person A is a B" on a sign, or even in a newspaper article, it is an expression of opinion. However, if I write, "Person A is a B and here are several sources to prove me right." then I am making a statement of fact. If a statement of fact is fallacious, it can be libelous under certain conditions. If "Person A" is a public figure such as a celebrity or politician, there is the further burden of proving that the statement if both fallacious AND was made maliciously. If those "several sources" that I cite don't actually back me up...they say Person A is a X or Y or that he hangs around with Bs...then that means I've made a statement of fact that was maliciously skewed from what the alleged references said. That IS libel.
The funny thing is that if they hadn't tried to post references that weren't actually corroborating, it would have just been a statement of opinion. QPhysics137 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you realize this, but even if you happen to convince NeilN that you're right, administrators are mostly just janitors, and the only thing that going to make a difference in the article is convincing people on the talk page and/or the currently open WP:BLPN thread. GMG^talk 21:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: As an admin, I have a duty to remove libelous material. However QPhysics137 is not right as the references show the label is not a "provably false factual connotation". Again, I want to stress that I have no opinion if the label should be in or out of the article, just that it is not libel. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

As an editor you do. Same obligation I have as a member of the community. And as an admin, your opinion on content isn't uniquely preferred in any way over anyone else's, which is why this discussion should be taking place elsewhere if it needs to take place at all. GMG^talk 22:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry

Hi Neil, a few days back you warned Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry for editing warring. I'm afraid the behavior or this user is problametic. This user despite warnings continuously removing well sourced material from a BLP (Abdul Quddus Bizenjo) and instead adding some dubious unreliable sources to support claims. --Saqib (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: I don't see any obvious links to blogs, etc., so you'll have to explain what sources are unreliable and why. Editorializing like "In the irony of the situation..." is problematic, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If you look closer at thisversion you will see the user has added some original research as well. He removed some well-sourced passages which are supported via solid RS. Unreliable source such as hamariweb.com. --Saqib (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:

I have not removed any well sourced material from BLP (Abdul Quddus Bizenjo) , no dubious material from unreliable source is included . I have included the reasons below for removing material. The article is biased to shape the certain opinion posed by ruling party PML-N instead of neutral information. For example:

• He secured 544 votes in a constituency where there were 57,666 registered voters.Geo News noted Bizenjo was elected to Balochistan Assembly by getting least number of votes in the electoral history of Pakistan

This sentence reflects that he obtained very low number of votes, still he became C.M. , this is position maintained by Ouster Prime Minister’s daughter Maryam Nawaz. He had same number of votes when PML-N nominated him for deputy speaker? As matter or fact, the turn out in Balouchistan was very low , and this constituency had several threats, he still contested the elections strengthening federation.

• Bizenjo was named as a potential candidate to overtake Jamali as the succeeding Speaker however he could not.

This shows that he was nominated as speaker , instead the fact is he wanted to be become speaker and Rahila Durrani was nominated , this is major reason why he resigned.

• Dawn in its editorial termed the election of Bizenjo for the office of chief ministership as "Undemocratic poll", noting how Bizenjo - who received 544 votes in the election - being the weakest candidate for the slot of chief ministership could become the "best" candidate

Wikipedia is an information page, what is point of highlighting an editorial view of news paper in information page of Bizenjo. Clearly, the information is tilted to create a biased towards PML-N narrative that a conspiracy is going against them, and as thing are part of grand plan. Wikipedia pages shouldn’t be used for narrative building.

• The Express Tribune in its editorial noted that in a significant move, PML-N "stood dislodged from the government of the province" after governing it for four and half year.

Yet again, the similar narrative is shaped, the page is meant to contain information about Bizenjo or narrative of how PML-N wasn’t able to maintain it’s government in Balouchistan? What this stuff had to do with Chief minister ship section of the page?

• PML-N, which was the largest single party in the assembly with 21 members
• including the votes of dissident MPAs of PML-N, a party considered to be the arch rival of PML-Q

As matter or fact PML-N won only one seat of national assembly in Balouchistan, i.e. NA-271 Kharan Washuk Panjgur by General (R) Abdul Qadir baloch and 9 provisional assembly seats. 21 members were made by including independent members . As matter or fact , Sana Ullah Zehri wasn’t able to run government due to lack of his interest, and , other players in province broke independent groups and collations. Give it a colour of PML-N narrative is unfair commentary on wikipedia page.

‘’’Is the page meant for Bizenjo and should contain information about him or should contain information about editorials of balouchistan politics and PML-N’s politics in Balouchistan? The existing content violates basics of fairness. I Hope you will do judge the decision based on facts.’’’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk • contribs)

@Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry: TL;DR.. Please do not remove the properly sourced material and most important thing do not add unreliable sources. A few days back, you were adding some dubious material on a BLP using some unreliable sources and you admitted your mistake on your talk page [46]. --Saqib (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry and Saqib: This discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page which is empty. Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry, you cannot add unattributed editorializing like "In the irony of the situation..." to articles. I hope this is clear to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry: Lets continue on the article talk page. --Saqib (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: Dear Saqib, we have to determine that wikipedia page about politicians are meant to contain information about politician or to slander his reputation? The editorials ,

[47]

[48]

are misused to demage reputation of politician since he left the ruling party PML-N in Pakistan. The wikipedia should contain information about Abdul Quddus Bizenjo not political narrative against him. I ::::will improve the reference from hamariweb.com, but this doesn't mean the page bear political agenda against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk • contribs)

@Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry: I think you are misjuding. There is no libelous, defamatory, or obscene material in the article which can damage the reputation of the said politician. --Saqib (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Neil, I'm afraid, but the user continuously removing sourced stuff. --Saqib (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib and Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry: Restored to stable version before today's edit war and fully protected for four days. If edit warring resumes after protection expires and no substantial discussion has taken place on the article's talk age then I will look at blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I urge Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry to discuss the changes on the article's talk page, one by one. --Saqib (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok , lets agree to common content on the article's talk page. Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

telepathy & mental disorders

Can you give better explanation than "nonsense" why removed "paranormal/pseudosience" class article additions?

IF there is such communication channel (telepathy) then it sooner or later it generate spreading virus. Analogy like computer virus but mental (telepathic) one. And if there is no shields (~firewall) against it spreading so everybody that have such skill come sick. And if there exist effective shields (firewall) that block such channel then people loose information that they have such channel.

Correct or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.65.93.106 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Expanded: This is poorly written, unsourced and rooted in pseudoscience. Wikipedia is not the place for your pet theories. Maybe try reddit? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Machine translation? Bishonen | talk 15:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Stay away from machines! They emit invisible brain-controlling waves that make you do things that make little rational sense (like spending hours and hours performing volunteer duties on a website for no pay). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ehyosakigo

User:Ehyosakigo is not tagged like User:Truehistoricaldata, can you tag this account? Raymond3023 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Raymond3023:  Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

D/S appeal

Do you think it is the right time to appeal the sanctions that you had imposed for 6 months? 3 months have elapsed, but there have been no concerns raised about my editing nor there have been any reports. I can provide precise details of the circumstances, and why these sanctions are no longer necessary. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Raymond3023. How are the restrictions preventing you from doing what you want to do? What is going to change about your editing if the sanctions are lifted? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I am starting with providing precise details of the circumstances that were reasons behind the sanctions. Hoping that it will make it easier for you to remove them.

• "Not remove any WP:G5 tags from WP:ARBIPA articles": I have never even disputed any G5 on Wikipedia since then. It shows that it was not my habit to remove G5 tags, but only removed them from some particular pages that I had watchlisted.
• "Abide by WP:1RR on WP:ARBIPA topics (IPs and unconfirmed editors excepted)": There has been no report or concerns about my "edit warring" since the beginning. This was suggested by Ms Sarah Welch and I have described the incidents.
• "Ensure the sources he's using fully... if challenged by an experienced editor": Same like above point.
• "Take care not to misrepresent the validity or reliability of a source": Almost same like explanation for 2nd restriction. Your finding of this diff was also involved, but didn't took me any time to realise this misunderstanding and I also said "Forbes is an RS and I just checked that this is written by staff". My edits got accepted.

On WP:AE, when I was appealing the topic ban, I was aware of the ongoing SPI which was so conclusive that MSW was going to be blocked anyway and when you are dealing with disruptive socks you have to remember that, "If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it." This is also 1st point of WP:CGTW. That's why I didn't focused on arguing the false claims made by Ms Sarah Welch there, although I can do it this now also because unrelated users had also raised serious concerns with their editing per ANI.

Vastu Shastra: MSW in AE cited own claims as evidence. So far the story is that MSW wanted to remove history section,[49] but the existing version has dedicated a section to history.[50] I made most efforts there. This is where MSW claimed that I don't provide page numbers on talk page[51], an odd complaint that I have not seen anywhere else. Google books are digitized and they show page numbers, I had stated direct quotes and other users (about 4 others) could verify the text, only MSW couldn't which seemed to be nothing but deliberate obfuscation on MSW's part.

Bhimbetka rock shelters: Again, cites own claims as evidence. D4iNa4 and Doug Weller also agreed on MSW's contributions as "a sock who was frequently misrepresenting sources,"[52] and "sock misrepresented the text".[53]

Kalki: Again, cites own claims as evidence. Edit warring[54] and misrepresentation of sources was always apparent from MSW here,[55] and usage of sources that make no mention of "Kalki".[56]

That's the evaluation of the "circumstances" that contributed to sanctions. I believe you won't dispute this evaluation and at least not entirely. The main issue concerned the removal of G5 tag from 2006 Bhiwandi lynching because I had misunderstanding about taking responsibility of G5. After getting topic ban removed it didn't took me any time to create 1996 Dausa blast and 1996 Lajpat Nagar blast. No one has raised any issue with the creation or edits related to these articles.

• "How are the restrictions preventing you from doing what you want to do? What is going to change about your editing if the sanctions are lifted?": I will be able to revert those users again, who are here only for edit warring or they frequently show their failure to adhere WP:BRD. Sometimes you really have to revert a user 2 times in a short period. Having 1RR on you probably avoids you from reverting more than once even in 48 or 72 hours, because WP:GAMING is prohibited. Incidents related to Hookah show a user socked and successfully got his preferred version protected.[57] An involved admin (Ohnoitsjamie) had to revert to a version[58] that supported my POV, but it doesn't means Ohnoitsjamie was allowed unless the version involved BLP violation or vandalism. Ohnoitsjamie made that edit in good faith and won't ever get admonished for this given the running SPI at the time. I can cite more examples, but this incident is clearly enough to show that how 1RR is not helping.

Sources are sometimes so superficial that they look reliable but after you have spent some time judging them, you find them unreliable or borderline reliable. This happened on Talk:Hookah, and also Talk:Faith healing. While Faith healing is not covered by WP:ARBIPA, but still is covered by AC/DS, still I was following these ARBIPA restrictions like they also cover Faith healing, because if I had been ever reported for violating any of the WP:ARBIPA sanctions or separately reported for AC/DS related to Faith healing by taking ARBIPA sanctions as precedent, any of the dozens of users who opposed my position on Faith healing would be saying "Raymond also disputes reliability of reliable sources on faith healing[][][][] and edit wars[][][][], given his WP:ARBIPA sanctions, please ban him from CAM too." This is why, I couldn't really question the reliability of superficial sources. I had started the RfC[59] and it ended up supporting my position.[60] If I was able to question reliability of sources provided by users who were not adhering WP:PSCI, I am sure the support count would be higher and oppose count would be smaller.

You had also asked me to "show how careful ... with sources in other areas",[61] I can cite more examples but this crucial RfC proves that I am careful with sources in other areas as well. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Let me know what have you thought. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Raymond3023: I am willing to lift the other restrictions but not the prohibition on removing any WP:G5 tags from WP:ARBIPA articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem with G5 restriction. I had realised that I had to significantly edit the article, fix its mistakes, rewrite, than removing G5. Be it ARBIPA or any article, such practice should be applied everywhere than just reverting legitimate G5 tag. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Raymond3023: Done. Your participation in the Hookah ANI thread wasn't great but I weighed that against the fact that a large part of the evidence during your last appeal was provided by a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:154.126.210.238

This user is back making erroneous edits to Rugby World Cup articles. I think a permaban may be in order. – PeeJay 20:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Blocked for six months (we don't permablock IP addresses). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers for the speedy action. – PeeJay 20:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please help

The following two comments need your attention - they are clearly PAs. I chose to ignore the first one, hoping that it wasn't me in his sites, but then came this one, which is undeniably false and pure ill-will. It's just not right...I've done nothing to deserve such treatment from User:Objective3000. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Posted here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This was not in any manner "ill-will" or false. That, in itself, is a PA, casting aspersions, and comes after over a dozen aspersions over the last year. But, I ask for no warning. I'm used to it. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Provide the diffs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hah:) You just came to an admin's page to falsely accused me of "pure ill-will" minutes ago, just above. "Pure ill-will." I've never wished harm on my worst enemy. And I have provided lists of attacks that you've made in the past. You just deny they are attacks. Is no one allowed to respond to your attacks? I'm going to sleep. Have a good night. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, right. And you add more aspersions thinking your comments are justified. Sweet dreams...are not made of this... ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And on a lighter note, I'm just laughing away here at the thought of having to give Jimbo a discretionary sanctions notice. [62] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Do it, do it!!! But be sure to add the after it. *LOL* ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, please review the most recent PA against me by User:BullRangifer[63]. It was not only unkind, it was based on a false assumption and it was bullying: ..."you can still retain your honor and credibility by admitting you are wrong". Lorty, it has been decades since the last time I was pinned down and forced to cry "uncle”...(by my 3 yo grandson 😊). BR also makes false statements which do tend to chip away at one's credibility if they happen upon the page and are not familiar with the discussion. His most recent rant was over his own misunderstanding of my explanation for why Politifact ruled Foley's statement "mostly false". I agreed with Politifact’s explanation but disagreed that it should have been included in the Nunes memo section of Trump-Russia dossier because of the way it was presented. Please look into this as it wasn't that long ago when he was called out for similar behavior which led to a block. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A misunderstanding of your explanation? Why didn't you just say so, instead of doubling down and repeatedly evading? I'd be happy to apologize IF it was a misunderstanding, but that requires a response from you. You can't evade and then cry foul. Talk to me! It's really easy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, for the last year or so, you have made belittling comments about many other editors on a regular basis. (Not surprising that some react in the same manner, correctly or incorrectly.) This includes adding “sigh” or “geez” in edit comments and/or TP edits. This includes innumerable suggestions that other editors, with whom you disagree, should leave discussions. This includes innumerable accusations of aspersions. Today you suggested that I have difficulty with reading and suggested that I read slower (sic). And, if you can’t succeed at chasing people off pages, you make complaints at one of the many admin TP pages of which you have befriended (without notification of the targets). Look, I am saying this here instead of at one of the drama boards as my nature is to try talking tête-à-tête. What I am saying is that your pattern of behavior ain’t working. If you spent more time trying to justify whatever cases you wish to make, instead of making accusations, suggesting other editors leave discussions, and making snarky comments; you might actually have some success in making changes. You contribute to many, many articles outside of the political arena. That’s great and is working. But, you hardly ever gain acceptance for your requested changes in the DS articles. That’s not because other folk are all part of some conspiracy. It’s because you are unable to gain consensus. Perhaps I shouldn’t say this – but, you appear to be following the Hidden Tempo playbook. It didn’t work. It doesn’t work. It won’t work. And, don’t ask me for diffs. My attempt is not a sanction, but improvement of the environment that will, one would hope, improve the project. Besides, I have a life and don’t feel like assembling more diffs that are even allowed. O3000 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

No, O3000 - you should not have said it, especially after Neil advised you just yesterday "to be civil and not cast aspersions", yet here you are on his TP doing exactly what he asked you not to do. It's a pretty sad day when a simple *sigh* or a *geez* in an edit summary is considered "belittling" - it may be to me, perhaps, for having to repeatedly defend against your accusations and misrepresentations. You have also read things into my comments that simply aren't there, or else you take them completely out of context. I have done my best to exercise patience, and have never been uncivil toward you or anyone else. The same cannot be said about you or BR, and it has gone on for far too long. I've grown weary of your relentless accusations that I'm casting aspersions when the opposite is true, as you just demonstrated above - and here's another small sampling: Feb 24 Feb 25, Feb 25, Feb 28. It has to stop. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)        

Astme, why is it always others' fault that they have trouble understanding you? Maybe your thinking is muddled because it's not based on RS, but you have learned to not produce the unreliable sources which back up your fringe political views. That creates misunderstandings of your own creation. That's sad.

Why does drama always follow you? Why do you have little success with getting changes on American politics articles, especially success at protecting Trump from any RS mention of his self-inflicted wounds? Why do you make outlandish claims, the latest that you know better than PolitiFact because of some mysterious "other" sources you refuse to provide?

Why do your interpretations of NPOV and other policies differ so much from others' that they just tune you out when you keep waving vague policy flags that essentially mean that you DONTLIKEIT?

You really should consider that maybe you are the problem, and not everyone else around you. There is a reason you keep running into these problems, and then you forum shop your whimperings and accusations of "aspersions", that someone said something that wasn't nice to you (by speaking truth to your disruptions), to various admins, and you enlist help from fellow travelers, who, like yourself, carry water for Trump, unreliable sources, and conspiracy theories.

You keep saying you're tired of the opposition and that you will stop your engagement on some of these topics, but you end up returning to do battle and create more fringe advocacy drama. Since no admin has had the insight (it's not their fault, because they really are too busy to analyze your civil disruptive behavior) to topic ban you (civil disruption is too soft a target for diffs), maybe you should do what some people do, and ask to be blocked/banned, etc, but just ask for a topic ban from American politics and DS articles. You can do good on uncontroversial subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Neil, I won't allow myself to be baited by the lack of collegiality or casting of aspersions by O3000 and BullRangifer, especially considering I came here for your help. You recently warned O3000 for casting aspesions after he falsely labeled me a "disruptive editor with far right views". The comment BullRangifer made above is equally as contentious: who, like yourself, carry water for Trump, unreliable sources, and conspiracy theories. I don't think it can get any more polemic than what both have demonstrated here. Their biases are rather obvious in their attempts to make me appear biased, and their pile-on boomerang strategy has only served to further incriminate themselves. I provided the diffs that demonstrate their disruptive behavior. Their aspersions are a reflection of their biased opposition to my attempts to help make some of our most controversial political articles compliant with NPOV. Neil, even if you decide to dismiss their treatment of me, I hope you don't dismiss their disrespect for your TP and failure to heed your warnings about casting aspersions. ArbCom has been very clear about that issue: Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions. There are also 10 separate instances of blocks/warnings in the Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log. As for the aspersions against my behavior and credibility in any political article, the following diffs will speak for me: Aug 14 2017 Feb 25, 2018, March 3, 2018, March 3, 2018, March 27, 2018, April 12, 2018. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, haven't you noticed that NeilN is wisely staying out of this? This reminds me of when I was a little kid and someone would tease me or treat me unfairly. I'd run home and cry about the injustice. My parents wisely (but I thought unfairly) didn't then accuse my accusers of "casting aspersions", thus solidifying me in a pattern of always thinking I was faultless and could continue to run for backup to outside third parties, like my parents, and in your case, to admins. They would even give me a spanking for the part of the incident for which I was not faultless. They would ask: "Why did they do or say that to you?" They realized I was likely part of the cause of the problem, and not so innocent as I portrayed myself to be.

That's what you've been doing. So far you have been rewarded for this behavior, but I don't think NeilN wants to continue to be an accessory by aiding and abetting your tendentious behavior. It's not helping. You keeping getting "misunderstood" by many, not just me and O3000, and it's always everyone else's fault, never yours. You are faultless. Many others are calling this BS, and so am I. You don't like that? Tough luck. Welcome to the club of imperfect people. I'm a charter member.

Now why not stop this nonsense, filling up Neil's page, and just do what you should have done all along. This isn't a mere difference of opinion. You are questioning a very RS and our content. You should face up to your responsibility on the talk page. You keep evading it. You made a false claim, then said that PolitiFact is wrong, because you seem to have some mysterious sources which back your reason for considering them wrong. Is that a misunderstanding of your statements on my part? If so, PLEASE explain it to ME. I'll totally apologize. I'm easy to deal with. Talk to ME, not to NeilN. Explain how I misunderstood you AND provide those mysterious sources which prove that PolitiFact is wrong(???), and you, Trump, Putin, InfoWars, Breitbart, Daily Caller, RT, and Sputnik are right.

NeilN isn't likely to want to side with someone with your fringey and tendentious background, when you attack PolitiFact, and numerous mainstream editors who depend on RS find fault with you and your approach. It's much more likely that you are wrong, just like your unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

More likely just bored with this -- as am I. O3000 (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The aspersions, name calling, and Neil's silence speak volumes. It isn't about Neil "siding" with anyone, it's about your behavior. If Neil chooses to ignore the diffs I've provided and reward your behavior by saying nothing, that is his choice...right or wrong. The diffs and this discussion remain... ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

My "silence" only speaks to the fact I've been away on business for a couple days. I will catch up and might comment after I get some sleep. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest in keeping this going. De-escalation is a good thing and I don't see any useful purpose for all this drama on Neil's talk page. We should just edit. I've responded and explained my position. So far the issue of her evading a proper response at the talk page is being dealt with there, and should not continue here. I have responded there and, in spite of the unreasonableness of her odd position (she's the only one who disagrees with a consensus and went back to an old thread and tried to revive it), I still created and added a whole new paragraph to the article, just for her. It's not really necessary, but it does make good use of another RS. The issue is finished, as far as I'm concerned. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, more of the same groundless aspersions. You just don't get it. You were so convinced that Neil was ignoring this discussion - taunting me about it - and then implied that he was the kind of admin who would actually take sides. BR, that is disrespectful of the process...worse yet, it is chronic bad behavior which is why I sought Neil's help. I know he will be evaluating my behavior the same as he will yours and others. I and others have been trying to adhere to NOTNEWS and RECENTISM - but you refuse to give breaking news a chance to incubate - and because of that you accuse me of being Trump's waterboy, not to mention the many other hurtful things you've said about/to me while refusing to recognize your own bad behavior. No editor should have to be subjected to such treatment, or such a hostile editing environment. I presented the facts, supported what I said with diffs, and will respect whatever decision Neil makes. As I said earlier, right or wrong, the diffs and this discussion remain.^{Atsme📞📧} 19:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Arif80s...

...despite being topic banned contributing to AfD. [64]. --Saqib (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: Black Kite gave them an appropriate warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

1RR

Neil, please pay attention. I did this edit on April 8, then I restored the content (considered as second revert) FOUR DAYS LATER. 1RR is only for edits made within 24 hours.--יניב הורון (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked after multiple chances to self-revert. יניב הורון, you need to pay attention to what editors are telling you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

my talk page

hi NeilN.User:Rzvas removes somebody else comment in my talk page without my permission(before that person being block) and when i ask for explain he/she just say he/she don't have to ask my permission for editing my talk page.so i have a question from you.is he/she break any law or not?plz help me to understand better this situation if you can! thank you for your time. Shahin (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been told about it by an admin. You need to stop this WP:FORUMSHOPPING and drop WP:STICK right here. Capitals00 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

my dear friend,i'm just asking another admin for an opinion,it's my right to ask a question from admin to help me.i don't think i'm doing something wrong by asking just a question.Shahin (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Posted here to keep discussion in one place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

0RR proposal

Hi Neil,

I made a proposal on my TP. Please see and let me know what you think. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A note

You may wish to see BK's warning at User talk:Arif80s#Topic ban and this subseq. thread.To me, this looks like skirting around the edges of the T-Ban.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Page protection?

May I please ask why you protected TJ ? 107.85.81.44 (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably because it was a gentler way to stop you from making pointless edits than blocking you. But if you keep posting defamation, I'll block you. Acroterion (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Issues on the Gender page

the Gender page has had false information on it about there being more then two genders. please return to page to the correct information of there being only two genders, while clarifying the more than two genders concept as theoretical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristopherprime (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kristopherprime: You might want to read articles like Gender identity, Third gender, Fa'afafine, and Hijra (South Asia) instead of relying on your own personal opinion and experience to determine what is "theoretical". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Protection on pages

Hey. Thank you for your block on User:62.7.176.53. He was detected by Geolocate from the UK. However, a new edit from another IP address from there reverting the Template:2017–18 Premier League table back. I wonder if the page should be protected from IP addresses like those. I do not want to engaged in another war and I have thesis to be done. Thank you. – Flix11 (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Flix11: Semied four days. Good luck with your thesis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Since you are ...

Hello NeilN, since you are something like a wikipedia-veteran-2005 I'd like to read your opion about this (especially see last post there & the links). Because the area it highly sensitive I try to be most careful. But what happens to the project when people stop editing because the do not dare to do it? Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ｔｏｍ: That's not exactly what's happening here. You made a bunch of changes a couple days ago, some were rejected, and then you wrote, "I do not dare to do it after all the changes I have already made." People should stop editing if it's clear to them that their changes will be reverted. A discussion should be had - which you've ably started on the talk page and participated in - to see what changes have consensus. You've provided a lot of sources and general suggestions but what I don't see are specific suggestions in the form of add "text to be added" sourced to [link to source]. It's always helpful when editors can see concrete changes instead of "we should make changes and use these sources". Redo ping at Ｔｏｍ --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Hello NeilN, you already know, that I am not a "wikipedia-newbie" since I work in this project for more then 10 years. I'm afraid there is some misunderstanding. Adding things to some article is one (important) part of wikipedia. In this case I had exactly one rejection. In the Port Arthur case it looks this - eliminated from my work has been this which is no problem to me since it was not a completed work. Now ... again ... it is not about adding something ... it is about deletions which have to be done in the articles. Just the same misunderstanding I can see in Talk:Martin_Bryant#Discussion. Because I know exactly that wikipedians are most distrusting when content is announced to be deleted I try to discuss before. For the same the reason I hesitate to delete texts. Having announced it so broadly I hope that nobody will have a reason to claim later. But nothing is really safe in this project - believe me I know this business ... presumably ... (yes) I have some problems with the local technology and special guidelines in en:WP ;-) --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Some misunderstandings were clarified. Just for the records [65] --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted again

As you told me in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, I'm informing you that User:Njorent has reverted the edits in Criminal Minds (season 13) again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criminal_Minds_(season_13)&oldid=prev&diff=837229882 Flordeneu (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Flordeneu: Thanks. I've blocked them indefinitely for operating a compromised account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard

You probably should have blocked me. I was behaving like an arse. I'm glad you didn't because I'm somehow stupidly proud of a nearly 10 year old clean block log. Thanks for that. -- Begoon 02:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac comment

WP:civil isn't the pillar it once was

NeilN, I'm not sure how to handle this comment by @Legacypac: [[66]]. It is simply untrue and again uncivil. First, my complaint that lead to the editors block was for the uncivil comment made by Legacypac when reversing my good faith edit to the article [[67]]. I made no request to block only a request to warn LP to knock it off. The claim of block after edit warring is false since the sequence was, RfC added new material to the article (not long standing as LP claimed). The RfC closed with a comment that the topic should be included but consensus didn't support the specific text. I made a changes to reduce WP:OVERCITE and remove a section that was previously questioned (again, all within the scope of the RfC close) LP reverted with the comment in question and no talk page discussion. LP's only subsequent contribution to the discussion was the warning post (the subject of my post here). LP's summary of the relevant ANI is wrong as @JamesBWatson: did make it clear that the uncivil behavior was the problem and later was the reason for the block (see my 2nd link). I felt that 1 week was overly harsh but that wasn't my call. I disagreed with several of LP's comments during the request to lift discussion but it was over before I could add my two cents and my feelings about the harsh block. I would have hoped the block would have been seen as a warning to knock it off but the comment above suggests otherwise (note that other than that comment LP didn't join in the talk discussion related to the edits LP reversed). I'm requesting that you remove the comment from the discussion and make it clear to LP to knock it off. Thanks Springee (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC) @Seraphimblade:, @Dlohcierekim: as admins involved in the unblock discussion Springee (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That comment is uncivil?? You've gotta be kidding. Then this comment must also be uncivil.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel like I'm surrounded by mean kindergarteners. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

All topics covered by discretionary sanctions would be easier to manage if editors would resist the urge to keep poking at each other. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, this is yet more of the petty bickering (both Legacypac's unneeded sniping and Springee's overreaction to it). To be quite honest, I'm trying to think of a reason that Springee and Legacypac shouldn't both be topic banned from the subject, and I'm not coming up with much. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, maybe an interaction ban stipulating they can only comment on content using non-inflammatory terms and not each other, strictly enforced. Springee is helpful with shutting down HughD socks operating in the area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Springee needs to back WAY off and stop making my editing his concern. I'm not in any way shape or form harrassing this editor, but they are spilling a lot of ink whining about me. AtUser:NeilN's post to the NRA page - my edit summary was a comment on the substance and effect of the edit, not the editor. Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose since their problems seem to be primarily with one another, that could work. But it would be with the understanding that "strictly enforced" would mean just that, and violations will result in either a full on topic ban or a block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Precedent at AE

Your comments at AE seem to indicate a bad precedent for the topic area. If I understand you correctly, then mildly uncivil comments plus a behavioral history that meets a certain threshold is grounds for a topic ban. Then surely a comment like this should have been grounds for a sanction. "Shameless, POV driven, weaselly..." The disruption was minimal, and AYW's edits eventually found consensus for inclusion. Why would you issue a topic ban for that? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you're ignoring the fact that it's not the comment in isolation but the preceding history. A scenario: Two editors, making the same identical unacceptable comment. The first edits constantly on a wide variety of topics and generally stays out of trouble. The second edits occasionally, focusing on the same topic where they've had problems before. I will treat the two situations differently because I'm looking at the ratio of non-disruptive edits. It's like when I'm looking at personal attacks in non-DS areas. A experienced editor with little history of trouble making personal attacks can be chalked up to having a bad day and will get a warning. A new editor going around to talk pages making attacks will get indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

^{Atsme📞📧} 18:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN I am not ignoring the history. I realize AYW has a history of sanctions and blocks. But so do many others in that topic area (including the editor who wrote the comment I linked in the diff above). My point is, everyone has moments of mild incivility like that, and I never like to see any long term editors sanctioned. It is essential that different POVs are included while editing our controversial topics. You're essentially topic banning an editor for calling someone a POV pusher and violating a bad discretionary sanction (one that eventually gained consensus). This stuff happens all the time, and most people ignore it. I could bring you 100s of diffs of similar behavior in AmPol, but I don't want to see anyone sanctioned. I kindly ask you to reconsider your topic ban. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: 1) You should be posting at the AE board, not here. 2) If others are exhibiting the same behavior as Anythingyouwant then please do the work and present your case at the AE board. Frankly, I see your "different POV" argument as an excuse for bad behavior. Their POV is not forcing them to come back after a months long absence to start attacking other editors. Bottom line: Act like an adult, realize you cannot display poor impulse control in this area, and be prepared to accept the consequences if you are not ready to do that. 3) Anythingyouwant's own posts during the request helped to solidify my thoughts on this matter. Saying their last sanction "was simply for an allegedly inaccurate edit summary" only shows they are completely unaware (willfully or not) of their disruption and wikilawyering in this area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If my comments had no effect on you here, they would have no effect on you at AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: They could've swayed other admins towards taking a different action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Asdisis once more

141.138.35.187 FkpCascais (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, would you stop accusing me of being a sock? Thanks in advance. NeilN, I'm just pointing to a consensus that was reached by 11 editors unanimously on a RfC on Novak Djokovic page. Fkp participated in that RfC. He knew about the consensus and he still tried to go against it on Rade Serbedzija page. I think that I'm allowed to point other editors to that consensus since Fkp obviously had no intention of that. Thanks. 89.164.132.71 (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Asdisis, please ask for a review of your block or otherwise create an account and stop using multiple IPs. FkpCascais (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, if you suspect socking you'll have to open a WP:SPI and provide evidence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

When it is usefull to him, he openly admits it is him, while when it isnt, he plays the card being another editor who is absolutelly familiarised with every single story Asdisis had here... OK, thanks... I will ask for help somewhere else with someone with balls... Regards... FkpCascais (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think he edits a lot but only as IP coincidentally ever since his account was blocked? Yes, he is very eloquent and apparently polite, but is a complete IDONTHEARYOU with clear mission to defend Croatian interests at any cost (as he claimed himself at Asdisis account). Later, in Serbs of Croatia talk page he openly admited he would continue exploring the possibility of changing IPs each time when caught and that he will ignore absolutelly the blocking policies. I understand this case may seem you borring specially because is a never-ending case, so I will bring this to higher instances so a better mechanism to defend Wikipedia can be created. FkpCascais (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

When exactly it would be useful to admit I'm a sock? It's obvious that you want to push your edit on Rade Serbedzija page against previous RfC and against the discussion on talk page. NeilN, maybe you aren't familiar but on Serbs of Croatia page Fkp also tried to ignore the consensus established by RfC. It got him reported and he got a serious warning against such behavior. Now he's again doing that. 89.164.132.71 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, would you please tell Fkp to stop edit warring on Rade Serbedzija article. He has no consensus for his edit on talk page. 89.164.132.71 (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me. Please, just stop. I'm the least important here as an IP (although it shouldn't be so). How can you possibly explain that you now want to push an edit against which you so strongly advocated against on Novak Djokovic RfC? You don't even have a consensus on the talk page, let alone a RfC where editors from previous RfC would participate. If you want your edit, open another RfC, but don't be trying to block me and wear out other editors to push your edit (as you tried on Serbs of Croatia article). 89.164.132.71 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, a little history here. Fkp was against including ethnicity in Novak Djokovic page (not just in the lead but in the whole article). I was advocating for that (since it is allowed on Tesla page, so I tried to apply the same principle on Novak Djokovic page). There was a RfC. Eleven editors unanimously decided that ethnicity shouldn't be stated in the lead. Now Fkp is trying to introduce ethnicity in the lead, and I'm trying to apply the consensus from that RfC, although initially I didn't agree with it. Bdw, I'm seeing him going around doing edits like this [68]. Since I knew how much trouble is to deal with him, I didn't want to engage him on Branimir Stulic article. However it seems to me that he goes around articles and removes "Croatia" from them and adding "Serbian" to others. Ironically, if we have in mind that he is accusing me of nationalistic POV pushing. 89.164.132.71 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

OMGitsToast Deletion

I wasn't trying to "promote my YouTube channel" I was trying to give background information on it but obviously that's impossible to do on this website. I clearly was trying to give the history of the channel's growth not to just try and get people to click on my channel. (OMGitsToast (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC))

@OMGitsToast: No, sorry, you can't do that here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

White Helmets article

Thank you for addressing the situation with User:SamHolt6. If this article cannot be cleaned up to remove the heavy, heavy bias, it at least needs an NPOV tag. People reading the article need to know that statements made therein are not settled and there are other valid points of view. I have not edited Wikipedia all that much, so if you have some way to lock a NPOV tag so that it can't be removed, that would very much help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SettinItRight (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi SettinItRight. Administrators aren't going to "lock" an editor's preferred content or tags. You'll need to join the discussion at Talk:White_Helmets_(Syrian_Civil_War)#Article_biased_towards_White_Helmets_and_its_supporters --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

An IP you blocked due to LTA

Just a heads up, they seem to be at it again ([69]). –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@FlyingAce: Thanks, blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

IP addresses stalking me on wikipedia

Hello NeilN, there seems to be dynamic IP addresses mentioning my name and stalking me. What should I do? Uknowofwiki (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Uknowofwiki: What are the IP addresses? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: 41.66.203.193, 201.1.194.105, 188.26.145.90, 105.158.46.208, 91.129.102.157 I think they maybe IP addresses that the blocked user Duqsene is using. I did have a disagreement with the User Duqsene but that is all I can think of.Uknowofwiki (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Uknowofwiki: Posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: It seems this multi-IP sockpuppetter has opened an SPI case [70] after failing to get other Users (LeGabrie and Turtlewong) from opening an SPI case, what should I do? Uknowofwiki (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Move My Article

Pleas move my artile Draft:Shirin Shila to the that page name I created and you move that to draft. I requested that give me sometime to edit it. When I update it. I see that my article was gone. You are really a unhelpful editor. If you are a helpful, please move it again to main article page (Shirin Shila. I will update it with more section and sources. Help me. I can't move it.

-Nayeem Hossain (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Nayeem Hossain

@Nayeem Hossain: (talk page watcher) Hello. That is not ready for article space. It needs significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see it as meeting notability standards at all. Actually, NeilN did not move it anyway. He simple deleted the redirect. You can update it where it sits and then it can be moved to article space when reviewed by the AfC reviewers. Once it has significant coverage from reliable sources unconnected with the subject, click the button for it to be reviewed. It's at Draft:Shirin Shila. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nayeem Hossain: Rather than edit warring and move warring you might want to actually listen to what other editors like Dlohcierekim are saying. If you need some time to create a proper article or stub, create it as a draft so that other editors will not tag it as being deficient in some way. From your move warring, I see you figured out how to move the draft. I've removed the draft notice from the top of the article. More concerning is that you added text copied from another website into the article. Future edit/move warring might get you blocked, committing copyright violations definitely will. I've added a note to your talk page to reinforce this warning. Please heed it and please realize that other editors are trying to help rather than obstruct you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Now at AfD-- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirin Shila. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Njorent

User:Njorent has created a new account, User:Bicam3ralMind, after the old one was blocked as compromised by his brother - and he says he'll keep the new one secure. Would you be OK with lifting the unblock so the new account can be used? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I believe Huon took care of it. Thanks for checking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

User:JogiAsad topic ban

In WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Possible_issues_at_AfD, User:JogiAsad was topic banned from all deletion discussions (known on en.wiki as "XfD"). I assume the intent was to include WP:DRV in that ban, but the explicit use of XfD and lack of the usual, widely construed leaves that somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps you could clarify that in an amendment to your closing statement? In case you're wondering, this question came up because of this edit. It seemed like a blockable offense, but given that it's not clear what the TBAN was supposed to cover, I've held off on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for pointing that out. I've posted a clarification on each editor's talk page and on the editing restrictions page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia

Hi, I attempted to add an addition on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia) a few days ago, to challenge the narrative about the use of the word 'islamophobia' and added this to the top of the page;

START

The word 'Islamophobia' is a made-up control word used to shut down criticism of Islam by inferring that there is something wrong with you. A phobia is an irrational fear or hatred. Women, Jews, gays and non-believers have good reason to reject and fear Islam which has a track record of intolerance and actual violence, and threats of violence to these groups and to anyone who challenges or criticises it.

One can reject all religion but the word 'religionophobe' is never used to try and inferr that there is something wrong with you. Opposition and rejection of Islam is entirely, and demonstrably, rational. Indeed, given the irrationality of Islam, opposition is actually a defence of rationality.

youtube commentator Pat Condell has published two videos debunking the word 'Islamophobia', the first is a 6 min youtube video titled 'Ha Ha Islamophobia' and the second is another 6 min youtube video titled 'American Islamophobia'.

Below is an example of the way the word 'Islamophobia' is used to pretend that it is actually a real word;

END

Within minutes my edit was deleted, with an accusation made that I was being disruptive.

Can you tell me why my addition was removed? I have no intention of being disruptive. Is an alternative opinion about the word 'Islamophobia' not allowed?

rgds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.87.201 (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sticking your personal anti-Muslim opinion in the article and ending it off with implying existing article content is somehow feigned is not allowed, yes. It will also earn you a quick block if you continue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply with the explanation. So where on the page can I add my contribution (without the line 'Below is an example of the way the word 'Islamophobia' is used to pretend that it is actually a real word;')?

BTW, my contribution is about challenging the use of the word 'Islamophobia', it is not an 'anti-Muslim opinion', I have nothing against Muslims and challenging the use of the word 'Islamophobia' does not make me anti-Muslim. There is a big difference between being anti-Muslim and being anti-Islam. (I am anti-religion and reject all religion especially Islam which I consider to be an intolerant, violent and supremacist ideology.)

rgds

The answer to your question is nowhere. Wikipedia is not the place to hold forth on your personal opinions. You'll see the article has a section on Islamophobia#Debate_on_the_term_and_its_limitations with content sourced to notable academics. So if you want your contribution added, first get it published in a respected journal or other source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and the link. Of course my opinion is my personal opinion. All opinions are personal, whether you are a 'notable academic' or just an ordinary person. The problem with Wikipedia only allowing opinion from 'notable academics' is that the policy is selective, biased and elitist.

I was foolishly taken in by this introduction on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction) which reads; "How you can contribute Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold!"

I simply wanted to challenge the narrative and the use of the word 'islamophobia'. Even notable academics cannot agree to an exact definition of 'islamophobia' which suggests to me that the word is a phoney word (reference to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#Debate_on_the_term_and_its_limitations and the sentence; "The exact definition of Islamophobia continues to be discussed with academics such as Chris Allen saying that it lacks a clear definition").

rgds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.87.201 (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you omitted the following two sentences from the paragraph you quoted: "If you wish to add new facts, please try to provide references so they may be verified, or suggest them on the article's discussion page. Changes to controversial topics and Wikipedia's main pages should usually be discussed first." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. rgds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.87.201 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For rising to the occasion at AE. SPECIFICO talk 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Barnstars like this are poor taste. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's see you walk a mile in Admin's shoes, Ernie. You can nominate yourself any time and give it a try. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No way - I wouldn't last 15 minutes as an admin. You'd be the first one I would block ;). Mr Ernie (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If I became an admin, I’d immediately block myself as per Groucho Marx: I don't care to belong to any club that will accept me as a member. O3000 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that if Anythingyouwant can edit productively in other areas for six months then I'm very likely to grant their appeal if they ask. I suspect the sentiments expressed above and elsewhere will then be reversed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, just to make Ernie feel better -- NeilN knows I've been critical of him for giving now-departed editors too easy a ride in the past. So I see him and a few other admins having become more familiar with the terrain and more secure in their actions. And that is certainly worth a free barnstar imo. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess that makes me feel a little bit better. Well NeilN, enjoy your new barnstars! Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For being a great administrator. BilCat (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(I've never been accused of having good taste, and this is to make certain I never am! :) - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This is in bad taste.

You're welcome. 😂 SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Somerville NJ High School athletics

No objection to your edits. The football info is accurate, which was my concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nova9047 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Copied to here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Once more, Chernobog95

Hi NeilN,

As you probably have noticed by the title, I have found Chernobog95 evading his/her block once more, apparently he/she is using one of the previous IPs he/she has used [[71]].

Here’s the only diff (yes, this time I remembered)

• The edit the IP made is on a North Korea-related page [[72]], something Chernobog95, as well as the previous IP I reported earlier this month, had a tendency of editing prior to his/her block [[73]] [[74]].

• The sane edit also reveals that the IP is using “mobile edit” and “mobile web edit” tags on the edit, the same tags used on Chernobog95’s edits.

• The geolocation reveals that this IP edited in the same area as the previous IP’s geolocation (Zagreb, Croatia) [[75]] [[76]].

• If you are still skeptical and think this is just an isolated incident with a random IP that is constantly changing, then I also have proof that disapproves the skepticism. On the global contributions chart, it shows that this same IP was used to edit a page on the Korean Wikipedia [[77]]; this page contains content discussing about the Hwasong-15 a North Korean ICBM, further proving one of my earlier points, but one a different Wikipedia.

• Finally, this is the exactly the same IP you had previously blocked back in January for being a sock puppet of Chernobog95, as shown it the respective block log for this IP [[78]].

I maybe sounding like a tattletale, but an extension to Chernobog95’s current block maybe needed because of repeated offenses. A range block (if that exists) may also be needed to keep him/her from editing under other IPs within the area.

I hope this is enough to convince you otherwise. SamaranEmerald (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@SamaranEmerald: IP re-blocked for six months, master indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Kachwaha article editing

Could you please explain to me what is disruptive about rewriting a misleading (almost completely incorrect) article. The Kachwaha article that I'm trying to edit is simply garbage. Read:

• https://www.britannica.com/place/Amer-India#ref260483
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhundhar#History
• https://factmuseum.com/pdf/Sikhs-and-Rajputs/pdf/Annals-and-antiquities-of-Rajasthan-by-James-Tod-vol-3.pdf
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O0oPIo9TXKcC&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q&f=false
• http://www.indianrajputs.com/history/kachwaha.php

Even the most elementary research will show you that the article needs to be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humblewikicontributor (talk • contribs) 05:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Humblewikicontributor: You "rewrote" the article by copying whole passages from a blog. That blog might have copied content from elsewhere including Wikipedia but what you copied has no cites. You also added a bunch of people, some probably living, with no sources stating they belong to the caste. Use the talk page to discuss your sources and changes (but don't copy the entirety of your preferred version there). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I was copying it into the edit box, to get some material and then clicked publish instead of preview. I AM rewriting the article. Would you allow me to edit if I finished it in about a week with proper research and citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humblewikicontributor (talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Humblewikicontributor: Yes, but please be aware that other editors might not agree on the reliability of your sources and that all caste claims about living people need to have an inline cite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A namesake

Hi Neil, It looks like the new user Kautilya2018 is going to be editing the same kind of pages as me. Can we ask him to change his user name so that it won't end up confusing all the other users? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

See this exchange for a sample. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kautily3: Asked them to change their username here. If they decline, I will post to WP:RFCN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Anti-Vandalism Toddstar for diligently cleaning up vandalism related to the Todd Howard wikiraid. Thanks for all your help! gupdoo3  3oodpug 21:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gupdoo3: Thanks to you too. You picked up on vandalism that may have been obscured by another editor's revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	thank you for keeping the wikiraid at bay! Sappygecko (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I think this edit by Axxxion is a violation of his extended topic ban on Syrian Civil War. Furthermore, I suspect some kind of coordination because Axxxion complains about this my edit, but the edit was immediately reverted by another contributor [79] with offensive edit summary. Please note that this second contributor did not edit anything else for a long time [80]. I am not saying this 2nd account necessarily belongs to Axxion, but some kind of coordination is very likely. My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I've notified and warned the second contributor. I'll wait for Axxxion to respond before deciding on a course of action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of violations, MVBW has made a blatant 1RR violation at a SCW article: [81][82]. And it's not like he's unaware of the 1RR restriction ([83]). These reverts in themselves are disruptive. They include bold OR unsourced statements like "which has further alienated Russia on the international stage and harmed its foreign relations policy abroad." There's also lots of WP:PUFFERY (see: intense controversy) and misrepresentation of sources (i.e. Russia committing war crimes and deliberately attacking civilians). This is really tendentious and obvious POV pushing. Something must be done. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: will you be able to look into this matter? Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: I've been dealing with other things but I will let you know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN. The response by Axxion does not look good: he tells something about "settle personal scores" (by whom?) and that he believes "something has to be done administratively about Wishes′ unhindered rampage". Again, I have on idea what "rampage" he is talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As about 1RR, this is an entirely different question, and I explained this on my talk page. Sorry that I untentionally violated 1RR and my 2nd edit was already reverted by someone else (I would be happy to self-revert if I could). I did not check the previous edit history of the page and therefore did not realize that my 2nd edit [84] was revert. I will not repeat this edit on the page ever again - agree that was not the best edit (I did not check Russian language source used for referencing). My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You've edited this topic area for quite some time and have warned and have been warned about 1RR a countless number of times. And it's not only the 1RR violation that's disruptive, it's what you're edit warring into the article that's doubly disruptive, especially when there's an ongoing discussion on the TP of that article. The repeated insertion of PUFFED words, WP:OR statements, unsourced accusations of deliberate attacks of civilians, and etc. is very disruptive. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes, you'll refrain from editing that article for a week? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, I would be happy to do just that. I made only two edits on the page. This is like mine field. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, here is a typical "disruption only" account created specifically to violate 1RR rule on a single page. That might be someone's sock, but it probably just should be blocked. My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: It would be a lot easier for admins to take quick action if you and the other editors working in this area notified editors of general sanctions when they start to disrupt. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 72h

NeilN - I have been blocked [85], I'm not contesting it since it was my mistake. My question is, Am I allowed to add and discuss talk pages as an IP? (I have no access to my account for few more days) or the block applies to the talk pages as well? Please respond here, I'll check this later. Thanks 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:7535:CCA0:C86A:F3C4 (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi GizzyCatBella. No, the block applies to you as a person, whether you use your registered account or IPs. You need to stop editing Wikipedia altogether for 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. PS. Please also note, because you missed that, I didn't accept others concerns by thanking [86] I thank them for their comments. Other users restored the content [87], and I followed that. Block was justifyed (I'm ok with that) becasue of my 24h mistake but not because I acted wrongly by reverting against concensus. I would like to let you know about it. Thanks anyway 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:7535:CCA0:C86A:F3C4 (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to keep troubling you, but please take quick glance at this if you have a minute [88]Icewhiz perfectly knows that this is my comment, he filed complaint against me that resulted in block[89] despite that he added the false note that I'm a single purpose account to discredit my critique and win the dispute and the vote. Just letting you know how dirty tactics that are being applied here. Thanks, I'll take a break now.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:7535:CCA0:C86A:F3C4 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked your IP range as it seems you are unclear about what being blocked means. [90] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Neil, I was disoriented and didn't realize that maintaining the conversation with the blocking administrator was a violation of rules. My bad, I'm still learning. Anyways, I regained access to my account finally, just to let you know. Cheers.GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

EruditeScholar violation of topic ban

NeilN, User:Eruditescholar received a topic ban on adding ethnicity related categories to BLP's last March after being warned on a number of occasions. I just noticed that the user has picked up the habit of adding uncited ethnicity categories once more. See here, here, here and here, all of which occurred in the last month.--TM 00:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Namiba: Blocked 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ella Anderson

See the history of the page. I'm not sure if the number the IP put in is her actual number or not—I doubt it—but as a precaution, would it hurt to revision delete those edits, including my revert showing the difference? Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amaury: Done. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Notifying

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Jameson Blake

Klgd98 (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Hello someone reported me by the article Jameson Blake. I just want to take back the redirect to its account. Help thanks.

Hi Klgd98. You'll need to post on Talk:Jameson Blake and discuss how the subject meets our notability standards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Neil - not sure what Klgd98 is saying "take back the redirect", but I just restored the redirect he keeps reverting - hopefully that's what he meant after receiving your warning: Jameson Blake ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: They want the redirect removed ("taken back") and the article restored. Not sure if they're really capable of understanding what everyone is telling them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks so much for the fix on my sandbox. You rock. AnaSoc (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Clarification question

You mentioned on Trump-Russia dossier that "Consensus-required also applies to removing long-standing material" here. Does that mean you need to obtain consensus before removing longstanding material or that if someone removes long standing material and it gets challenged via revision you should not reinstate it without consensus? If it is the former I had not heard that before, the latter was how I understood it. PackMecEng (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi PackMecEng. If someone removes long-standing material and someone restores it then it should not be removed again without consensus. The goal of that restriction is to promote article stability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay got it, that is what I thought but wanted to be sure before I did a stupid. Thanks for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

DS and removal of longstanding article content

Hi NeilN. In this diff [91] you appear to be saying that it is a DS violation to remove article text after it's been in the article for an unspecified period of time that makes it the standing version. This is not the way the DS has been interpreted on the AP articles. The understanding among active editors has been that the removal of established content is treated as a new edit rather than a revert, and that it can be immediately challenge by reinsertion, after which a repeat removal would be the DS violation. Is this consistent with your understanding? If so, I think your comment at Trump Dossier could be misunderstood to mean that any removal of content is a DS violation -- a meaning that is not operational and could shut down all work on those articles. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I wrote, "Consensus-required also applies to removing long-standing material." The consensus-required provision states, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Initial removal of material is not a DS violation but if it was re-added, removing it again without getting consensus is. So your understanding is correct. I think I was the admin who firmed up this understanding a couple years ago. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I recall that conversation but not your role in it. It could just be my understanding of the current context, but I suspect somebody who's not familiar with the earlier discussion might misinterpret the current short form. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Return to editing

Hi NeilN,

I've decided to give editing on here one more chance. But this time, I will be keeping in mind WP:CALM and WP:BATTLE so that what happened before will not happen again. Thank you for encouraging me to return from your response to my last message on your page. Cheers.

--Rogue1 14:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@RoguePilot: Welcome back. If you ever do start to feel yourself getting irritated, take a break and do something else you like doing better. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

2 questions

1. How can we tell which admin imposed DS 1RR-Consensus required restrictions on an article?
2. Can a challenged edit (addition) be removed simply because an editor doesn't like it or must there be a valid reason?

Thanks in advance ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: 1) Search this for the article name. 2) This is a lot more complicated question. Who decides if a reason is "valid"? Is the editor participating on the talk page? Do they have a history of tendentious editing? Do they have support for their removal from other editors? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Coupla things:

1. Drmies restored this edit.
2. Soibangla reverted it. Violated DS.
3. I added relevant material to the 3rd sentence of the lede. (NOTE: Last week I began a discussion about long-standing material currently in the lead's Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier#Lead - 3rd paragraph but what I added is not related to that discussion and can stand on its own without concluding the proposed changes.)
4. Soibangla reverted it under the following edit summary: (this does not belong in this key paragraph of the lede, which remains under discussion for consensus, and the edit is highly disruptive to reaching that consensus, and it certainly doesn't deserve this degree of detail here).
5. Soibangla's taunting behavior on the TP is not conducive to a collegial environment.

Please advise. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: The edit summary seems reasonable. It refers to the lead and there's a discussion about the lead. Another editor has also questioned about your addition being in the lead. Soibangla's "HAHAHA!" seems to be representative of the reaction to Phmoreno's topic opening statement. I'd expect the same reaction if someone opened with, "Lewinky was a Republican plant to entrap Clinton" based on a misreading of a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

What about the DS vio where he reverted Drmies restore without getting consensus first (different edit from mine)? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thx, Neil - appears to have been a technical glitch which isn't the first time with him, but it doesn't appear to happen too often. See my first comment on his TP when he reverted whole blocks of text - I thought he was a vandal at first. He still wasn't able to adequately describe what happened. Meh...not a biggy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

PaulG524 desperately wants more attention

You might revoke talk page access and lengthen the block as a preventative measure. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: He already knows the answer. If he keeps it up then it'll be an indef with TPA revoked. A talk page watcher admin who feels like being cluelessly lectured to might do the deed anyways. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"Kicked the page to recalculate the age"

I keep wondering whether a script could be written to purge the page of any BLP on their birthday, to update the age template. —C.Fred (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred: That's a good idea. The bot/script would have to query Wikidata in order not to scan every page. Worth taking to WP:BOTREQ? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it's been proposed before. If a Wikidata query can make the overhead manageable, I'd think it's technically feasible. I'll put together a proposal idea tonight. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Mike Cernovich

I hope you had a good weekend. Is this an NLT vio? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Amdmustafa

Neil, could you take a look at this user's edits on Madurai Airport. According to them discussing on talk page to resolve disputes implies restoring their version of the edit. I did request for a full protection of the article, but I think that may not be required. I am in the midst of something right now and have little time to create a report at ANEW. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user is out of control [92]. They received an official notification about DS in American politics, but continue willingly making violations [93] and assaulting other contributors [94]. Should they be reported to WP:AE? I am not familiar with previous editing by this contributor, but their current behavior probably deserves an indefinite block. My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I cop to reverting a reinstatement of disputed material although I think the policy arguments are pretty one-sided in favor of trimming and attributing the claim, at minimum. It was more than 24 hours (purely by accident) but it was definitely a re-trimming of something another editor had restored to its fuller form.

I don't cop to "assaulting" other users. The comment on SPECIFICO's talk page was simply retaliation in response to a pointless series of unprovoked personal snipes culminating in "I will pray for you on Sunday", that served no other purpose than to express SPECIFICO's views that I am a bad editor. And as per usual with this user and User:BullRangifer, they were dressed up as encyclopedia-related comments in an effort to provoke an angry response while still providing a (flimsy) pretext for insulting me.

As for the competence accusations against Bull, I really don't know. Is that a PA? I didn't say anything about Bull, I talked about the arguments he was making. Was I wrong in some way? Am I not supposed to say another editor's comments or editing lack competence? Factchecker_atyourservice 15:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: Enough. Any more and you're looking at a topic ban or block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

May I sit an make idiotic personal attacks on my talk page the same way User:BullRangifer continues to snidely and stupidly insist that I read "junk sources" (such as Infowars and Russia Today) in comments unequivocally directed at me?

Is that what I deserve for trying to cite real grown-up sources only to be shouted at dishonestly, with no effort to even pretend the accusation was honest?

Why don't I see any topic ban threats or block threats on Bull's page? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: You can bring up that diff at your appeal if you're blocked/topic banned to show how you're being unfairly treated. I suspect it won't gain much traction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is it that you are taking the initiative to threaten me but not Bull?

I tried to talk about New York Times, I got insulted endlessly about Infowars. I tried to talk about it on Jimbo page, I got insulted more about Infowars. I came back weeks later with endless sourcing showing that all the top mainstream RS's present the view I was talking about, I get even more insults about Infowars. I complain about it, I get an admin saying he's going to block me without even forcing the other user to apply for me to be blocked, yet when I point out Bull's behavior, your response is ANI is thataway. Even though you explicitly admit you have the power to do these things.

Oh did I mention he's been doing this for well over a year in a naked effort to insult and drive away editors he doesn't like?

For pure humor value, take a look at the diff of Bull removing New York Times commentary a year ago because he didn't like it. Hey, obviously the opinions on journalistic integrity by the executive editor of the New York Times must be UNDUE, right? Yeah he's a fringe nutjob, what does the executive editor of the New York Times know about journalistic integrity? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Holy crap! Admin User:Neutrality reverted you, not me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker, I know you were told to stay off of BR's talk page. Yet you keep pinging him. Seems like that kind of defeats the purpose. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe if he didn't make new personal attacks against me multiple times a day? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So it's your opinion that any time he makes any generic comment about problem editors, he is actually making a specific personal attack on you? Making it OK for you to attack him by name via ping? I'm just trying to understand your thinking here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the recent stuff there is not much doubt who they are referring to. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: don't be obtuse. You're not helping anything. You didn't want to talk about real sources, you didn't want to talk about article content, you explicitly said you refused to work with me, now all of a sudden you're here to participate in admin action against me? Please. Go home. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I really do wish you would have done anything to referee that content dispute, find a way to achieve consensus on reflecting what sources have said about the public evidence while still reflecting that Mueller's investigation is underway and hasn't revealed its own evidence. That is why it's so galling to me now that you're showing up in helpful-kinda-involved-admin sort of way regarding the alleged need to block me, after you abdicated being an involved admin on this content dispute that goes right to the core of WP:V presentation of the dossier's main accusation. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: Perhaps you should take on board that two different helpful-kinda-involved-admins have raised this type of issue with you in the last week alone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're diligently performing your duties like reminding me of other people's right to insult me, and protecting those same people from insults by proactively threatening to block me for responding. After all, discretionary sanctions have very high standards of conduct for certain users and not others.

Meanwhile, the real work, the important business of ignoring RS fact sourcing for the last 15 months, continues. I mean it's only been a year+ straight that the news agencies have been reporting no public evidence of collusion, surely that's not as important as reflecting the latest uncorroborated anti-Trump news report that other news agencies have specifically noted was uncorroborated and which appears to have prompted Mueller's office to release a statement warning about false reports first thing the next business day. Obviously the latter is of searing importance and must be reflected NOWNOWNOW but the former not so much, eh?

Just as importantly, an editor who tries to talk about such things must be tag-teamed with abuse and vitriolic essays nonsensically depicting another editor's fantasies about him. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where would that be? WP:3O? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker, you need to stop making every mention of editors who use or consume unreliable sources about you.

If you are not specifically named, then don't take it personally. It's not an attack, and it's not about you, so don't make it an excuse to "retaliate" (your word) for a perceived (it's in your head) slight.

Unfortunately for you, and like it or not (and I sometimes sense it causes you discomfort), you are a fellow traveler here with editors who unwaveringly defend Trump, and some of them have mentioned and used unreliable sources like Daily Caller, Townhall, Washington Examiner, ZeroHedge, etc. That's not some idle speculation on my part. One even keeps a link library with such sources.

So stop calling every mention a "personal attack" against you, because it isn't. Stop responding, and stop retaliating. I'm not out to get you. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This is BS belied by the fact that even after I posted on the dossier talk page about sources like NYT/WaPo, you still berated me directly on Jimbo's talk page with a summary version of your attack essay which exploded into being just a few days after I first posted about sourcing problems at the Trump dossier page.

Admittedly, your fringe views and efforts to dump pointless hostility on editors with whom you disagree have obviously evolved over time, although there is obvious similarity to your old userbox in which you fantasized that the people you disagreed with were "partisan POV pushers and, predominantly right-wing, paid political whitewashers (the Koch brothers control many articles)", which, when I confronted you about it, you cited a ThinkProgress press release about "whitewashing Wikipedia", talked about how "right-wingers" were "backed by the big money corporate interests in the USA" went on with various items of partisan nonsense ("Trump reports confidential information directly to Putin . . . Putin and Trump have plenty of editors working here. Everything happening now is understandable if one sees it as a massive and desperate cover-up operation. Read the dossier and the bricks fall into place.").

A year later your essay reflects a slightly different approach to partisan insult: just shout INFOWARS RUSSIA TODAY when somebody tries to talk about sourcing or POVs you don't like, and eventually they'll get sick of it and go away.

Shout it right in their face even when they are quite obviously talking about high quality RS's! Shout it on Jimbo's talk page to let them know you're referring to them, then if the editor claims you're making false claims about what they read, you turn around and claim that them being mad about it shows that "they self-identify with some of the traits and behaviors mentioned in relation to our policies, they decide to take it personally", which you then claim shows that the totally innocent little essay, which doesn't intentionally refer to the other editor (since that would violate WP:NPA!) but it just soooo happens to prove the point the essay was never intended to make in the first place! Yes, it's all in the other person's head and you can just accuse them of "identifying with such people" when in fact what's happening is that you're shouting INFOWARS at people trying to talk about New York Times and WaPo.

And of course further comments on your talk page about "editors who consume junk sources in real life" does little to dispel the appearance you're not talking about me, nor does your little exchange with SPECIFICO which were in obvious reference to me. I'm sure other such examples abound.

At bottom, this is just a stupid little straw man to berate and shut people up so you don't have to talk about high-quality sourcing you don't like. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the result of your failure to AGF. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no basis for assuming good faith when I post on Jimbo talk page asking a question and you crap all over it with your moronic INFOWARS nonsense.

In any case the essay itself literally tells people their "personal POV is based on unreliable sources" if they disagree with the focus of the Trump dossier article, which is dumb because that article has ignored mainstream fact coverage like it was that article's job. So besides the fact that you specifically referenced the essay in response to me, besides being specifically targeted, it's also an obvious personal attack against anybody who disagrees with you on a Trump article. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: On Jimbo's talk page, you framed the debate one way and BullRangifer framed the debate another way. No one is going to be able to control the terms of the debate unchallenged on such a high profile page. Jimbo did not participate so, move on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Attributing an experienced editor's good-faith reasoned discussion of his edits to "I don't like it" is a personal attack. It is an undocumented and unsupportable accusion that the editor is knowingly undermining the pillars at the expense of our common purpose° here. This is very disappointing. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Useless

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You should uninvolve yourself in this Factchecker_atyourservice 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: "framed the debate one way"? Knowingly lied through his teeth is more like it. Anticipating your response, I refuse to strike this comment. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I formally request that you either delete the whole talk section above or none of it, rather than simply deleting my comment. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I've closed the above discussion and my closing statement is fairly clear. I've been patient with your attempts to modify the closed discussion and subsequent revert but that patience is evaporating. Move on before you are blocked. This is a formal warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you...

...I sincerely appreciate your patience in letting the issues play-out via article TP discussion, and not resorting to a hair-trigger reaction...on either side. I empathize with your position in these highly controversial articles, but I do believe that because of your patience, progress is being made and editors are settling down to discuss things in a collegial manner. Your efforts have not gone unnoticed. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

New section

[95], [96]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: No idea. I laughed at this, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I always wonder if those "Koch"-name inspired editors are from Kansas.

As for your link, Neil. Boom! Copying and keeping that one! LOL. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparently User:SPECIFICO and I are operating that now-blocked editor as a sock. [97][98] -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: An editing restriction has now been levied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent block

Hi NeilN. I have never done this but regarding your last block of IP 101.178.163.208, you blocked this IP for 48 hours for edit warring after this post in WP:AN/3, yet I was wondering if you can make it into an indefinite block because apart from the fact that he/she edit-warred and vandalized other articles that were not listed on AN/3 I know for a fact that the IP will continue to edit war and vandalize as soon as his/her block is over. (N0n3up (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC))

@N0n3up: We don't block IPs indefinitely. I noticed Materialscientist did a long block but was not sure if the same issues persisted. Also, can you please provide some diffs of vandalism? I told the IP not to call good-faith edits vandalism so I'm wondering if you might need the same reminder. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I was speaking out of the fact that the IP once got blocked for one week for block-evasion. And if you check the talk page, you'll see that it's full of admonitions and warnings by other editors and admins, and the IP usually responds with personal attacks as you can see. Again, I didn't want to make this comment on other editors because that's usually not me, but I think there are things that needed to be addressed, and yes I can provide differences of vandalism. (N0n3up (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC))

Unprotect 12 Rules for Life?

You EP'd 12 Rules for Life because of DE, but all the disruptive editors are now blocked. wumbolo ^^^ 21:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: All the known socks are blocked. I think we can let the protection expire according to schedule. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Cynefin

Hi Neil, would you consider placing Cynefin framework under 30/500 protection as you did at Dave Snowden? There has been long-term disruption at both articles, almost certainly from the same people. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks! SarahSV ^(talk) 03:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A user's twitter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Regarding this, the only reason I knew his Twitter and Facebook was because he apparently linked it to some IP here, and the IP posted it on my talk page, which you can see in the recent diffs. (I don't want to link it here because then I'm linking his Twitter, but you can find it, it's recent.)The Facebook is either linked to the Twitter or uses the same handle and profile pic. And the only reason I mentioned them was because of the appearance of possible source canvassing and off wiki communication, which I was only mentioning to illustrate that he's not being totally straightforward when he claims it's other users who are ideologically blinkered.

Innocent enough mistake but please make sure this is not used as an excuse to run checkuser on my account—because in the above diff, he clearly is suggesting I am trying to hack his account which kind of makes it sound like he is gearing up to request a check user. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I also pinged him to make sure he saw the explanation, I don't think that violates the restriction because it's talking about an issue where he obviously suspects this mass hack was related to me. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like outing. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice, SPECIFICO, and BullRangifer: Everyone seriously needs to get a grip here. Some troll gets a list of logins (trivial to do), writes some script that probably tests logging in with common passwords, and some editors think it's personally directed at them or their group. All of them need to realize that this a common hacking technique and most systems won't warn you that a failed login was using your user id (how many times have you fat fingered a password resulting in a failed login?). The only question that should be asked is if the WMF has the proper anti-automated login safeguards in place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

But there's no jjustification mentioning BRs real life accounts and IP INFO. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Immediately before seeing this I had just emailed NeilN to request a revdel. I foolishly exposed my Twitter account to a friendly editor, and then a not-so-friendly IP found it and shared it to Factchecker. It should soon be history. There was no form of backchannel contact or other off-wiki coordination/canvassing/whatever. I just tweeted a good quote from that friendly editor and let them know. That was the only time I've ever done that.

When I was notified of the attempt to login, I had no idea what was going on, but as soon as I saw that this was affecting myriad editors, I realized it wasn't really directed at me. I never thought of running a checkuser, and what could I use it for? Nothing. I have no interest in such things.

BTW, I KNOW I'm biased and have strong POV, so any mention of the biases of others is only that. It's not some sort of denial that I too have biases. I'm very conscious of them and seek to limit their effect on my actual editing. That's the best any of us can do. That's why I like to work with editors who have POV that are opposed to mine. When we can collaborate, the resulting content is much better. We each fill in the gaps caused by our own blind spots and can correct each other. Instead of seeking to block the opposing view, we seek to find a proper way to include it using good sources. This has worked well for me and Wikipedia for many years. Unfortunately, not many editors can work in that manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think somebody may have already done something to the diff but I wasn't sure so I didn't link it. The statement about the appearance of off-Wiki WP discussion and promotion was based on a number of statements and hashtags on the pages which I won't repeat because googling them would locate the page. @SPECIFICO: I didn't mention anything specific or link the post

@NeilN: I only mentioned it because it said a new device (not merely a failed attempt) and because I have never ever received such a message before on WP since notifications began. Factchecker_atyourservice 05:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Not the least bit convincing. SPECIFICO talk 12:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And if this came before the panel at AE it would certainly be considered a violation of FC's ban. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dr Geet Sureshbhai Thakkar using user page for pseudo article

Hi Neil, was wondering if you could help me, I’ve had Dr Geet Sureshbhai Thakkar (talk · contribs) on my radar since last month, amongst other COI editing they were using their talk page as a pseudo article. I warned them and the editing stopped, but they just popped up again and added a lot more stuff to it. I’d suggest draftifying but there’s still the COI issue and I doubt it would pass WP:NOTE. I haven’t come across this before & don’t know where to take this, was hoping you could offer some advice? (apologies but you were the first admin whose talk page showed up on my watch list) ... Thanks,   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks! ... Thanks,   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi CJinoz. Any admin should be able to help in this situation. Just look for one who's currently active. I've draftified the page and warned the editor about advertising. If they persist in making similar promo edits to mainspace, let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Will do, thanks again :) ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  14:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI - on their talk page this time (+ other mainspace edits) ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  08:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@CJinoz: Left a note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Syria discretionary sanctions?

Violations go to WP:AE or somewhere else? Iirc, these are somewhat different from the other discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Violations of WP:1RR are reported to WP:ANEW. Please make sure the editor was notified properly (see here) and broke restrictions after being notified before reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not a 1RR violation. It's this kind of crap, where he accuses other editors of "supporting terrorism". I see that you warned him here, that he's got blocked for edit warring on related pages [99], that he created some attack page which had to be deleted, and that he added some kind of "defamatory content".

Basically way past the WP:NOTHERE line AND in a topic covered by discretionary sanctions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a huge waste of Admin time and attention to give little baby steps discipline to obviously disruptive accounts. They all end up getting blocked or banned, but only after 6-12 months of disruption that weakens articles, bleeds editing talent from WP and produces no offsetting benefit whatsoever. This kind of stuff should be blocked on sight. If a 3 day block doesn't do the trick, the next one should be the hammer. What's the harm of a brief wake-up block to test whether they even care about WP? If they do, they'll self-correct afterward. If not, bye-bye. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: In these cases, post to WP:AN. It's not arbcom enforcement as these sanctions are authorized by the community. I've topic banned the editor for three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

LED protected page

Hi. I've been adding more 'history' to the led page and noted two things I wanted to ask about. There is some discrepancy in the history and the side bar invented by... which I don't want to touch for fear of starting some edit war. I assume the locking has to do with credit questions? Or commercial. How should I approach this? The early stuff (until the mid 1950s) are discoveries in electroluminescence, but not the invention of the LED per se.???

Otherwise, the more I fill in the history the more apparent it becomes that much of it (early stuff) should be put in the page on luminescence and linked. Does that ring true? Mwasheim (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mwasheim. The page was protected because someone out there has been constantly changing IP addresses to do edits like this. Nothing to do with actual content so you're free to edit whatever you want. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Semi-protection is needed here. The vandalism started back up again very shortly after you previously semi-protected the page for 1 year. Thanks. 188.191.101.253 (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Another year. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This vandalism is made by a sock named "Nate Speed". Given the 1-3 years of abuse, a LTA page for Nate Speed socks could be helpful, but then... 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:D9DD:4510:8E63:C964 (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Would restoring my edit be a DS violation?

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#Synth_of_"possible_confirmations_of_collusion"

Given that...

• the individual who removed the edit apparently did so reflexively/capriciously for no reason beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT and proceeded to provide an irrelevant POV about his objections to the article in general, and

• another individual provided a similarly specious objection; and

• I have in good faith solicited additional comments from others but received none

can I reasonably conclude that the edit was removed inappropriately, and restore it (as amended in the talkquote) without fear of running afoul of a DS violation?

Cheers soibangla (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Soibangla: You're saying because YOUDONTLIKE their arguments, you should able to ignore them? No. You made a proposal four hours ago. Wait to see the responses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although the edit was removed in the first place because IDONTLIKEIT, and it would be nice if there were immediate remedies available for that, rather than having to go through a protracted defense on TP. It seems to be a subtle form of harassment/vandalism/trolling to me. Oh, well. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Were you around for the epic battles for the heart and soul of Donald Trump (i.e., the lead sentence and lead photo)? If not, you haven't seen protracted discussions. Hey, maybe it's time to update that photo... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, maybe it's time to update that photo Whenever anyone says that, an angel dies. O3000 (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that is grounds for a recall... PackMecEng (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	A belated thank you for keeping an eye on things while I took some time away to sort some things out. Your watchful eye on my talk page was very much appreciated. Best regards. CassiantoTalk 22:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto, you're very welcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

*Treker & Failed log in attempt

I see that you were involve with blocking *Treker. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:*Treker&oldid=prev&diff=839462324 One of his outgoing attacks was on me]. Also, while I was logged in, I was notified that I had some else attempt and failing to log into my WP account that same day. How can this be reported and check on like sock puppetry? Spshu (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Spshu: It has nothing to do with *Treker. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_help-_who_tried_to_break_into_my_account? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump dossier talk

Grutzi, neutral observer. The Factchecker ID is going from bad to worse on Dossier talk, hatting hither and yon and now it's decided @Drmies: and me are trolls maybe @Volunteer Marek: too, or I forget he may have called him some other name. How very distressing. This is just way way beyond OK, after all your patient warnings. I'm also increasingly concerned this ID is either a juvenile or otherwise not a fully competent user who should be encouraged to continue interacting on these pages. Do we really need to go through AE to calm things down? That article was working through lots of tough issues with reasonable collaboration before recent problems. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

All the reverting and goading by the other side doesn't defuse the situation. Each time he has attempted to add well-sourced content, his edits were reverted, and when he tries to discuss it on the TP it's a frustrating uphill battle. There does appear to be a patterned behavior at Trump-related articles when editors show-up with opposing views; i.e., their edits are reverted, then they are baited/goaded, reverted, baited/goaded again, frustrated by the reverting editors when their questions aren't answered, then the pile-on comes, and when they can't take it anymore and start YELLING with interspersed profanities, it's ho-hi-ho...off to AE we go. There are times when the goad herders may also need to be held accountable. j/s ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please, please consider the possibility that your POV is coloring your view of the situation. FAC has been tossing gross personal attacks on numerous pages to the point it looks like they are actually attempting to get banned. Seriously, FAC just called Drmies a troll. We need opposing views. I suggest you concentrate on explaining to FAC that battleground behavior will result in a block -- which will not help your cause. O3000 (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

All editors might want to consider using WP:DRN, working with an experienced, independent moderator (backed by admins who will levy sanctions) with the power to remove barbs and insults and the ability to call out editors who avoid answering questions or say their questions haven't been answered when really they don't like the answer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent idea, NeilN. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Neil, thanks, but we are talking about highly active discussions already attended by multiple admins and editors with 5 and 6 digit edit counts. Hard to see DRN being of use. Besides, by the time any agreement could be forged there, eight new, related news stories will have popped up and discussions will have continued at article talk. O3000 (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree. This only highlights why we lose so many capable editors from these American Politics articles month after month. If our volunteer Admins are not comfortable preventing exactly the kind of disruption that is so obviously ban-worthy, it's obvious why ordinary editors shy away. This is exactly the problem DS are intended to remedy. In fact, Admins could block for this kind of behavior even aside from DS. It's not working. Admins are not fulfilling the role that Arbcom delegated to them. This isn't to say that any single Admin, a volunteer, is obligated to do this or that their personal choice is invalid. The irony is, of course, that Arbcom backs up Admins who are tough enforcers when appeals or "clarifications" are brought to them. SPECIFICO talk 12:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be careful what you wish for, SPECIFICO. If admins were freer with topic bans and blocks, a few more would be coming your way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You are free to discuss anything you wish with me NeilN. I doubt you could back that up with anything that holds water. And so you, in your Admin frock, have just cast WP:ASPERSIONS just like a common user to get this snide rise out of me. Not your best moment. If you think there's any comparison between my contributions to this project and Factcheckers, you are free to document it and expose just how willing you are to go off half-cocked. And "a few more"? I don't recall any bans or blocks for years now. Not since a bunch of now site-banned users trolled me as a newbie and I didn't understand how your internet really works. But bottom line is your deflection only further illustrates your disinclination to execute the powers vested in you. SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Neil's correct in his assessment, so is Atsme. You've been just as bad as the editor you're pointing fingers at. Surely you already know this and are now just deflecting, yourself...right? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SPECIFICO: Most recently: Only one editor (you) had to have their entire statement removed at AYW's ARCA request and your squirrels/nuts comment did not go unnoticed either. You may think these incidents don't "hold water" but editors who have been previously sanctioned have held the same attitude. Admins are well aware that some editors on both sides are constantly poking at each other, hoping to cause a reaction. Some do it more civilly, saying they have clean hands and are editing neutrally, but the purpose is fairly clear. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, that's another unsupportable aspersion that's supposed to imply exactly what? My comment was removed by a clerk because I cited AE and Arbcom threads without copying the hyperlinks to those threads. This is documented on the clerk's talk page where I respectfully inquired and he respectfully answered my concern. I chose not to appeal his action or to make any issue of it because soon after I posted that, @Mastcell: made the same points but included the hyperlinks. So your point here is what? That failure to include hyperlinks is somehow the equivalent of the longstanding behavior of Factchecker? Or what? You seem to be unable to disengage your personal disappointment that I and other users, seeing your apparent desire to patrol and be involved in this difficult Politics area, find your performance lacking. But as I said at the outset -- we're all volunteers here and nobody has any claim on you to exercise any authority that's beyond your time commitment, your personal temperament, or your personal understanding. You could simply have stated your disinclination to act on this without launching a series of disparaging remarks that appear to show either lack of knowledge or lack of concern as to the facts and details of which you speak. And really, Neil, a silly comment about squirrels or any of 100 other commiseration on a colleague's talk page is hardly worth mentioning alongside the longstanding disruption and POV pushing by a dozen editors on articles you appear to patrol but with no evident improvement to show for your efforts. You can do much much better than this. I know. I've seen you do better in the past. Throwing out half truths, unsupported disparagement, and false equivalences is not what we expect of Admins on this site. I suggest you take a breather from this topic area and reflect. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

A perfect example of the first axiom of adminship. And I'm pretty happy that you and certain other editors find my performance lacking. If you didn't, I suspect I'd be dealing with accusations of bias and favoritism much more frequently and with good reason. Shaking your head and expressing concern isn't going to do much here. Editors posting about a behavioral issue will almost always frame the situation in the best/worst light possible. I look beyond the surface and often find there's more to the situation. FCAYS is no shrinking violet and in this case they gave just as good as they got. If they're sanctioned for that, then I'd expect the next request from the "opposite side" would be to look at Drmies' edit. It's not about your past contributions; it's how you're contributing to the topic area now. If there are issues, then your past history is considered when determining an appropriate sanction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Neil, this has nothing to do with bias, favoritism, MelanieN's law, or whatever other irrelevant excuse you make to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions here. I came here with a simple concern about Factchecker. I made no demand you do anything in particular. I just poked to see whether you were prepared to do something about this ID's long pattern of behavior so that we could all avoid an otherwise inevitable trip to AE.

So if this made no sense or if you simply didn't feel like doing anything today, you could simply have said as munch in one sentence like "no thanks". Or you could have ignored my message entirely. OK. But instead you launched into a string of false and misleading disparagement of me that keeps on getting bigger with each time you post and it doesn't look like you're done with it yet. And so instead of this thread being a simple and straightforward request and reply, you have decided to turn it into this long convoluted and personal exchange.

I want to be sure I'm understanding what you mean when you say It's not about your past contributions; it's how you're contributing to the topic area now. If there are issues, then your past history is considered when determining an appropriate sanction. -- What are you referring to? Are you doubling down on the false and disparaging personal smear you made against me when you wrote If admins were freer with topic bans and blocks, a few more would be coming your way? If there is some other meaning, please clarify it, because it looks like each time you've posted in this thread you've gone off the deep end, with whataboutism, deflection, half-truth, and disparagement. You dig yourself in deeper instead of focusing on any appropriate or constructive response. SPECIFICO talk 07:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have much patience for admin cases so I wouldn't be filing any counter-actions. I also think a large number of requests for admin sanctions regarding user conduct relate more to butthurtness over content disputes than anything truly warranting intervention.

I would like to go back on Wikibreak. My hope was to walk away from the dossier article some time back. I had expected the stuff I wrote to be hacked up, rewritten, and caveated but not rejected outright. Given the extraordinary loose practices regarding selection of sources and material that are prevalent at the article, and the tolerance for any kind of loose paraphrasing that makes claims sound more sensational than their sourcing does, I don't see what argument can be made that none of the fact sourcing or sourced POVs I wrote up belongs in the article—the sourcing is, frankly, vastly better than what is typical for the article, and the writing more neutral.

Nonetheless, I don't want to argue about it for months and endure the abuse (and I do mean abuse, not pushback on content arguments, e.g. creating a sock to taunt me "BTW congrats in advance on your topic ban"). It's bad enough to have to deal with the weird gaslighting nonsense that User:SPECIFICO seems to favor, without also having to deal with what I can only describe as a Friday night drunk admin tantrum from Drmies, whose only purpose is to tell me off—the idea apparently being to "improve the article" by encouraging me to go away. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Everybody is half-right. Because, everyone is at fault. Think I’ll go find something to edit. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• That editor called me a troll, but I called them a partisan hack, with some reason, I think. Hey, everybody in this thread besides Specifico and NeilN, what are you all doing here? Are y'all trying to turn every single page into Talk:Trump? Leave them alone. You don't have an inherent right to comment here, and all of you are dragging this tripe all over the project (I wonder what's on my talk page today...). Let them talk. Sure it concerns you, but that doesn't mean you get to interrupt. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Pssst...Drmies...scroll up to the section Please help. Where were you then ? What about the many other times I've been piled-on by the same few editors? With all due respect - you also called him an enormously myopic whiner in that same paragraph. The discussion was hatted as it should have been. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

What a bullshit chastisement. I don't give a fig about any of this in relation to Trump, I'm betting Atsme doesn't, either. I'm also betting that, like me, Atsme only cares about NPOV at all articles, not just at those with article subjects we happen to like or agree with politically. Which is exactly how I've been approaching every edit I make at politically-related articles and their associated talk pages. I know that at least two of you haven't demonstrated same on more than one occasion. That you would even suggest Trump partisanship is inspiration for us commenting here - when nothing in our comments suggests that in the slightest - only highlights your own bias. Shame on you. We've been harassed and goaded and reverted endlessly for bogus reasons at a number of these in-common articles. Of course we have a right to voice our thoughts here. The attempt to silence is noted. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: This is the second time you've come up on my radar screen in the last couple of days, after a long period of not noticing you at all. Perhaps you're a little freer with your aggressive comments because you haven't been blocked in a whole year, but if you keep it up, I can fix that. If you don't have anything helpful to say, as here, go somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm intrigued. What have I said or done that's blockable, something that's disruptive where blocking is appropriate per policy and would not be punitive? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, which part of "you all" did not understand? I meant all of you, not just the Trump supporters or whatever. Before you get on that high horse again, maybe you should consider your blood pressure, and your own bias: you simply read what you want to read. I have on more than one occasion told all of you (YOU TRUMP EDITORS, FOR FUCK'S SAKE, ALL OF YOU) that you are making this a nasty place to work, but your nonsense is worse than that of others. Atsme, "please help"? You really think I want to help you all with your ("y'all's"--let me throw in the explicit plural in case Winkelvi gets all self-righteous again) self-created problems? I will jump in for the benefit of the project, not to support this or that editor. "Piled on"--I don't know if you were or not, this is not a schoolyard. I bet you that the moment you dial it down and become less omnipresent, you will find yourself in calmer waters. Goes for a bunch of you. As far as "with all respect", yes I called him that, and I think he's not the only one: there's way too many of you whining all over the place, and there's some on both sides (I'm playing my Trump card, of course), but there are some that are worse than others, and some that are more myopic than others. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

And therein lies part of the problem: negatively labeling and lumping editors into the category "Trump editors". If that's not problematic and indicative of bias, I don't know what is. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This speech does you no credit. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, I took my BP pills, so I'm good to go. Just wanted to point out that whenever an article is imbalanced and riddled with obvious NPOV issues, any reviewer/copyeditor worth their salt is going to try to fix it, no matter the topic. Unfortunately, quite a few qualified editors will not edit political articles because they can be highly controversial when NPOV and OWN are part of the equation and feel it's a lost cause, per this example. We shouldn't blame attempts to fix such articles on the editors who are trying to fix them. Of course such editors appear to have a POV; for Pete's sake, the reason they're editing the article in the first place is because of the POV issues that already exist - and that's how editors are incorrectly labeled as pro-whatever when it is clearly not deserved. I also understand that measures need to be taken to stop disruptive editors, but as a member of WP:WikiProject Editor Retention, I'm also trying to do what I can in that department while at the same time being one of the editors occupying the same foxholes as the editors in question. I don't want to see any editor blocked or TB as the result of baiting/goading/total frustration. What I'd rather see is an attempt by all to get along but that counts for both sides of a dispute, regardless of the topic. I truly believe that if both sides received the same warnings from our trusted admins, they will try harder at peaceful collaboration. I believe NeilN has been among the fairest of admins I've encountered...I may not have agreed with him 100% of the time, but I believe he does his best to be fair. Drmies, I also appreciate your concern about allowing an editor to have a one-on-one discussion with an admin without interference - that's all I've ever wished for but have not experienced to this day - and not once did another admin step in to encourage a one on one discussion - which is why I pointed you to the one above. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's time for a lesson about NPOV from MastCell and Drmies.

I get the feeling that the following statement (from above) is a special pleading by Atsme that she, and other editors who share her pro-Trump POV on Trump-Russia subjects, are all somehow innocent and only "appear to have a POV" (and thus any POV issues), and that they are "incorrectly" and "undeservedly" labeled as pro-Trump:

• "Of course such editors appear to have a POV; for Pete's sake, the reason they're editing the article in the first place is because of the POV issues that already exist - and that's how editors are incorrectly labeled as pro-whatever when it is clearly not deserved."

Frankly, I don't know of any editors on political articles who don't have a POV which must be reined in, and some do it better than others. (IMO, anyone who doesn't have a political POV is a very uninformed person who is just existing.) Anyone who claims innocence has lost credibility. Our job as editors is to keep our POV from influencing our editing, and that may not always be easy. We all have blind spots, so editors who hold opposing POV need each other. (FYI, I know exactly where I stand on the left side of the political spectrum. I'm not some "neutral" dummy.)

Remember that NPOV states that content should be written "as far as possible, without editorial bias". Note that word "editorial". It's important. Our sources, and thus content, may have a bias, and editors should faithfully document what a source says with its bias. We document biases here. It is "editorial" bias which is forbidden.

MastCell and Drmies recently had a very instructive discussion with Atsme and Emir of Wikipedia on MastCell's talk page. (I trust they'll correct me if I get this wrong.) There they explained in detail how what appears to be an anti-Trump bias at Wikipedia is not such, but just a faithful, NPOV, documentation of Trump's words and actions. I'll pick out a few choice quotes, and I hope others will read the whole thread, because it was excellent:

• MastCell: "I'm going to put this out there for you to consider: it may be that there is no way to describe some of the things Trump does without sounding, as you put it, "disparaging". He bragged to a reporter about sexually assaulting women with impunity. How do you propose we say that without sounding "negative" or "disparaging"? He defended a violent neo-Nazi mob as containing "some very fine people", and drew a moral equivalence between them and anti-Nazi protesters. How do we say that in a way that meets your definition of neutrality? He publicly begged the Russian government to hack and release the emails of his political opponent. And stereotyped Mexican immigrants as "rapists and murderers". He mocked a disabled reporter and the family of a US Army officer killed in combat. He's routinely dishonest, and promotes easily disprovable falsehoods, to a degree that is unprecedented even by modern political standards. None of these things are my opinion. All of them are facts reported by numerous reliable sources. If someone's words and actions frequently reflect negatively on them, that is not evidence that Wikipedia has a bias. Nor is it evidence that the mainstream media, or reliable sources, have a bias. I wish you (and others) would stop treating it as such."[100] (My emphasis)

• Emir of Wikipedia: "... or did you just want to write that big paragraph attacking Trump?"[101]

• MastCell: "See, this is the kind of reflexive, unthinking silliness that I was trying to put my finger on. I'm not "attacking" Trump. I'm listing a number of things he's done—undisputedly, really, actually done—and asking Atsme how she would propose we cover those in what she considers a "neutral" fashion. I think that's a useful exercise, because it gets at the distinction between biased editing and accurate descriptions of a person's (negatively perceived) actions. If you choose to view it in starker battleground terms—as me "attacking" Donald Trump—then that's your prerogative, I guess."[102] (My emphasis)

• Drmies: "See, Emir of Wikipedia, that's the thing--that big fat paragraph contains nothing but factual statements. You want to call that negative, you can--but that's not MastCell being negative. It's kind of like someone complaining about the weather report because it reports rain, rain, rain, when it's raining, raining, raining."[103]

• Atsme: (long comment)

• MastCell: "As for being "anti-whatever", the problem (as I've tried to touch on above) is that you seem to consider anything that reflects negatively on Donald Trump to constitute "anti-[Trump] fodder" and to argue to downplay it on those grounds."[104]

• (Here MastCell accurately describes what seems to be Atsme's mission at Wikipedia, at least in regard to Trump and Russia, but likely not for other subjects. I say "seems to be", because all we can go by is her actions, not what she says. She claims to edit in an NPOV manner, but her actions say otherwise.)

My point is that MastCell and Drmies are both VERY right. An NPOV description of many of Trump's statements and actions will seem to be anti-Trump, when in fact that is the only NPOV way to portray them.

When editors with a pro-Trump POV censor, or otherwise try to tweak (or even worse to delete) such content, they seem to invariably violate NPOV, and their discussions to further those aims are long and disruptive. That's not good, especially since they feel they are editing in an NPOV manner. They portray themselves as innocent, while putting all the blame on editors who are skeptical of Trump, claiming they are "anti-Trump", as is done above. Well, these pro-Trump editors have mistaken notions about NPOV. An NPOV description will often portray Trump in a negative light. It will, and should, seem anti-Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Weird, same seems to apply if you change the label you are applying to people to anti-Trump editors. #TheResistance PackMecEng (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, in principle it can, if RS allowed that, but they don't for Trump. With his words and actions, they just aren't on his side, and an NPOV manner of describing his words and actions will usually appear to be anti-Trump. MastCell and Drmies are right. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue I was kind of joking about with that is not about media bias (real or perceived). It is about applying labels to people, in this case pro vs anti Trump. That is a major problem, and leads to issue with collaboration. It is easy to discount the "other" as always pushing a POV or wrong. Just a side note, I am not trying to imply anyone here is one camp or the other or that anyone here is doing that. It is a more broad overview of issues editors may have in this area. PackMecEng (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng, thanks for making that point. It's a valid one. What's sad is that we can't recognize each other's various pro- anti- POV without seeing it as bad. The polarization in American society reaches into Wikipedia. That's really sad. For me there is no problem with this when it doesn't prevent collaborative editing. When it does, then difficulties arise. Fortunately I can occasionally find pro-Trump editors who can still edit collaboratively with me. They succeed in doing what can be difficult for any editor, and that is to keep their personal POV from violating PAG. That is possible. I'm always conscious of this, and when (not "if") I fail, please alert me. I'll thank you for it. What are friends for? Right? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite frankly, BR, your obsessive behavior and relentless attempts to discredit me have become quite worrisome. It is also representative of your patterned behavior at Trump-related articles - cherrypicking whatever supports your POV, and censoring the rest. How many TP are you planning to post my discussion with MastCell and Drmies? Well, Drmies...what was that you were saying about an editor being able to discuss things with an admin one on one? BR is now hawking my edits and making his presence known on articles he never edits...like he did today at this fish article. This is the kind of baiting behavior that editors who are far less patient than I end up responding to, resulting in a TB, block or worse. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Neil, Drmies, I for one will make an unqualified apology for anything that I’ve contributed to this morass that wastes admin time. And for what mud I might contribute in the future. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: It's fine. Drmies might prefer one-on-one conversations is some situations; I always almost prefer having any editor contributing if they have something to say. A blunt "You're not helping here" usually stops any editor from going too far off-base. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Playback singer by a sock

Hi, I know you do not like me much but here I want to ask you what should be done on Playback singer article because an editor previously blocked by you has again come out of hiding and started removing sources and images which I added. He is also warned by User:Black Kite|Black Kite but he is not stopping. Previously he was using his socks but now he is all out himself.Kishfan (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Its olay the matter is resolved now. Thanking in anticipation.Kishfan (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kishfan: I don't know you so liking you/not liking you isn't really in the picture. What I don't like is calling edits vandalism when they aren't. Anyways, as you've said, the matter is resolved for now with a protect and block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

ARCA sanction appeal

Hi NeilN, I have been directed to inform you that Anythingyouwant's arbitration enforcement sanction appeal at ARCA is unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Note

Hey NeilN! I noticed that you blocked User:Paramount2003 at User talk:Paramount2003, but I wasn't sure what the reason was and I didn't see a link to an investigation. I'm probably just fogged about the whole issue, and I'm not necessarily defending User:Paramount2003. Also, what was wrong with the Crayola edits? I'd love to know so that I can figure out how to better identify vandalism. Consider this a very friendly note.  :) - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 15:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi ZfJames. I actually blocked before the SPI report was made because I instantly recognized the behavior. The SPI report is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caidin-Johnson. Not all socks will have a link back to a report. To find if a report exists, go to the talk page and click on the "What links here" link in the Tools section on the left side of your screen. You'll be sent to a page like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks! I appreciate the information! - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 16:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Shame tags

As suggested I'll take myself out for a time from editing the page under discussion, but could the Admins also say something to users Icewhiz and François Robere, since the Admin report was raised they managed to add two more tags to the Collaboration in German-occupied Poland article here [105] and [106]. This is getting out of hand, you don't just go in and place tags and question every thing you don't like. --E-960 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch

Talk:Dana Loesch could use your eyes, if you're so inclined. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Re this, I never accused anyone of meatpuppetry, and I already made that clear on the talk page. This appears to have just been a bunch of folks discussing the article on Twitter and that leading to an influx of like-minded editors. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Someone added the recruitment tag to the top of the article. By the way, I noticed the DS alert kerfuffle on ViriiK's talk page. Any editor acting in good faith and with good judgment can put the informational discretionary sanction notice (e.g., {{Ds/talk notice|gc|long}}) to article talk pages as long as there are no automatic restrictions mandated by Arbcom in the topic area. Most editors don't do this because they think it's an admin function but it is an option available to everyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:Some people seem to be having last word syndrome on the conversation you closed up. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 21:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The recruit tag was put up here Regarding the DS template, when I saw it and noticed that he was not an admin, so naturally I thought it was ridiculous. So I'm still old school on this which I was relying on my knowledge regarding WP:BLPREMOVE because I recognized that the sources for the material I knew to be extremely poor given Tapper's role. I'm reading the arbcom decision was written back in 2014~ so I'm still catching up to some stuff. I did notice this part here so I believe I was correct given that arbcom principle. ViriiK (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hi, Neil. I don't know if there's anything that can really be done now, but would you be willing to look into this? Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Efficiently blocked by DoRD --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

He efficiently drew my attention, so I really can't take all the credit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

May I trouble you...

to look at this AE request, which has received no response in 12 hours? Vanamonde (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93. I did look at the request a few hours ago. The problem is, as you've noted, the notification was done 15 months ago and Arbcom has made it quite clear that awareness criteria are not to be disregarded so we can't use common sense here (you have to wonder why community-authorized discretionary sanctions have more sensible awareness criteria). I've asked the editor to respond at the AE request and will issue a non-DS warning if the response isn't satisfactory. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)