User talk:NeilN

Today's featured picture The acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus) is a bird in the woodpecker family, Picidae. It is found across Central America, as well as the western United States and parts of Colombia. A medium-sized bird, it has a length of around 20 cm and is mostly black, and adult males have a red cap starting at the forehead and females a black area between the forehead and the cap. As their name implies, acorn woodpeckers are heavily dependent on acorns for food, which they store in small holes that they drill into trees, known as "granaries" or "storage trees". This acorn woodpecker was photographed in the grounds of California State University, Chico, United States. Photograph credit: Frank Schulenburg Recently featured: Heungseon Daewongun Symphony No. 9 Phoenicolacerta troodica

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

All I wanted was a list of the accounts who were making the changes for an upcoming court case. Thanks for your help. Bon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon Martin (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bon Martin: Please see your talk page. Your next edit needs to clarify what you mean here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like IBAN violation

This edit [1] appears to be an egregious violation of the IBAN you recently imposed to protect @BullRangifer:. @Awilley: also appeared on that thread. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I'll look into this later but you may want to be careful with capitalizing BullRangifer properly (fixed that) as I saw the crossed out name and went, "now what's happened?" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Wouldn't want to cross anyone out! SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought we were supposed to report these things at AE? Or since this was your restriction NeilN it's ok to report it here? Can you clarify which avenue is the best? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: AE or the talk page of any uninvolved admin willing to look at enforcement requests. As to what is the best, it depends. I will try to process clear cut article editing violations quickly. Civility and IBAN violations might take up to a couple days so you might get a faster response at AE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Article protection

Hi, the protection of the article Jews was mistakenly removed (the article has already been vandalized since then), can you restore it? Thanks Infantom (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Infantom: Done. The semi had to come off when the full was applied by Dlohcierekim. I often forget to reapply the semi after the full expires as well. Be nice if there was a bot who tracked these situations and dropped a note on the admin's talk page four hours before the full's expiry time. Hint, hint MusikAnimal :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you also restore indefinite move protection, how it was before the recent protection/unprotection (page log). --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual dark web

Hi. Intellectual dark web is another post-1932 AP article that could use some uninvolved admin attention. (I hope you don't mind me sending you these sorts of heads-up from time to time.) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: I get you want the page deleted but your tag bombing a three paragraph article is disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

During a pending AfD in which Guy is in the minority, I might add. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

VPP discussion

First, I apparently edited that after you closed it. That was inadvertent - when I started the edit it wasn't closed, and it didn't indicate any edit conflict. Should I revert that?

Second, I do not understand the justification for the close. While related, the question I'm asking there is manifestly not the same as the debate over the edit I made. For instance, if it were decided that WP:SYNC should apply, and if the lead of AR-15 style rifle were changed to remove content related to mass shootings, then that would be the content of the Colt article's section too. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: I've expand the archive box at VPP and replied at the article talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Unwatched

i unwatched the article, i am right out of patience with the handful of people determined to include the self-serving claims of srlf-published "thinkers", but there are so few sources it's virtually impossible to actually fix. i will leave it a month at least, i think, to see if more sources emerge. most of the editors there appear to focus mainly on pllitics, which i try to avoid. thanks for your comments. Guy (Help!) 05:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

My submission was deleted by another user - and so were my questions on talkpage

I submitted a factual and well referenced editorial on the EBSCO Information page titled "Controversy" (concerning negative press received over allegations of obscene content in school databases) and it was deleted in its entirety by another user who replaced it with a very truncated and biased version (omitting many factual citations and quotes). When I wrote to the user on the talk page, he did not respond to me, and later I found that my talk page conversation had been deleted without any further comments. Is this common practice on Wikipedia? Maxiedean (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Maxiedean: No, I don't know why Natureium did that. I've restored your talk page posts after a bit of cleanup. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with this and the cleanup, NeilN. GermanJoe (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP violations

Hello. A user you blocked last month for BLP violations and warned about not doing so again has done so, see here. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, Cullen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy to help. That editor was on a wrongheaded mission. I sympathize but obviously we need the highest quality sources for such allegations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit war at Candace Owens

Hi Neil, I am in an edit war over at Candace Owens over content added by User:Snooganssnoogans. I brought it up at BLP but never got a response. I tried to engage about not including an article written by someone who posted an article on her website (see archive https://archive.is/7Z7Qc) indicating that it has nothing to do with her opinion but I nave been repeatedly reverted and berated. He seems to have a modus operandi of simultaneously reverting, adding content, and rearranging at the same time so as to make it difficult to see what he is doing. Most of his recent edits seem to be one-sided as well although I don't want to venture into the mess until I get the first issue resolved. If you had time to take a look, I would appreciate it. Thanks!Patapsco913 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Neil, this is the story: Buzzfeed News[2] (a RS) reported that Owens (who is now a diehard Trump supporter) founded a website in 2015 that frequently posted anti-conservative and anti-Trump content. Owens herself undeniably authored anti-conservative content[3] and it's undeniable that anti-Trump content appeared on the website.[4] The Hill[5] (a RS) ran a story about Owens' website, citing Buzzfeed News. Patapsco claims that the reporter behind the Buzzfeed News is unreliable and can't be trusted to get his facts right because a Vox article supposedly criticized him for poor research - this is an absurd misreading of the Vox article[6]. Furthermore, it's irrelevant given that the facts of the Buzzfeed News source have been verified beyond doubt. Update: After repeatedly mass-removing and edit-warring away perfectly fine content, Patapsco is now saying there is "no problem" with the content that he was edit-warring over[7]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 style rifle

Hi there, I have a question regarding that article. A week ago I made a revision to the lead that I thought addressed the concerns some editors raised on the talk page (that the word "many" in "many mass shootings" was too vague). That led to some back and forth reversions, after which Oshwah locked the article. The lock expired a few days ago and nothing happened until today, when the lead was changed back to a version from before the 11th, and my attempts to restore it were reverted.

I think we have talk page consensus my edit was good, see here. There are five editors in favor (counting Mr rnddude who wanted something added to the body, which I tried to do today but was reverted) and three against. Maybe more importantly, the arguments put forward by the three opposed are very concise: "Clearly to much detail for the lead" and not "neutral tone" and were hardly expanded on. For arguments in favor, there is the fact that this does in fact summarize the body (where all the shootings in question are listed and have been for a while), is not long, is more specific than "many", and is reliably sourced.

Could you please advise me how to proceed in a situation where I think there is a consensus, but the opposed editors revert my attempts to follow it? I'm honestly trying to be constructive and improve the article by trying to address the concerns people raised. But it seems to me, based on my experience with these articles, that there is a strong reaction from some editors any time any edit is made that clarifies the role these guns play in crimes and mass shootings. Thanks. (By the way I also asked Oshwah for help with this, but they seem to be inactive for the last few days.) Waleswatcher (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: Is this still an issue? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes! It's now here, unfortunately.

Can I ask a (related) question? If a user is topic-banned, can edits they made prior to the ban be reverted without justification? And do their opinions in talk page discussions/RfCs (opinions posted prior to the ban) count? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: No, if an editor is topic banned their edits made before their ban cannot be reverted without justification and their prior opinions cannot be discounted. If you see such silliness happening, especially reverting without justifying, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Waleswatcher (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf

His/Her edits are so biased on various topics. He/She allows for biased sourcing on ideas he/she endorses and deletes even literal transcripts of sources that is not in dispute. At some point, someone needs to stop his/her vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:8247:1D00:5159:AE4A:7AE3:5D0A (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Multiple editors have called him/her out even on Cathy Newman's talk page but he/she won't even allow again QUOTES OR UNDISPUTED FACTS into the page. Would not be shock if Sangdeboeuf is Cathy Newman.

You're actions are detestable. Rather than being a fair arbiter of what's going on, your solution was disregarding likely the 75 percent of views for the whims of your own biases. Smh. What is wikipedia coming to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.81 (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Any further block evasion will result in longer blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Would not be shock if Sangdeboeuf is Cathy Newman. I must say it would come as quite a shock to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: If this person starts to edit war again after their block expires, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This may be another sock of the same user, based on related edits to Nellie Bowles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Pinging Doug Weller also. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Could be, looks like they may be using a proxy server but I'm not quite technical enough to be sure. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi from HouseOfChange

I have had quite a few arguments with KalHolmann in the past, at an article (Joy Ann Reid) where we often disagree on content etc. But my experience over a month or 2 is that he/she is a diligent, wiki-loving editor who values our great Wikipedia project. If you got a different impression, I just want to share my some-months-worth opinion with you: that KalHolmann is a sincere editor trying to benefit Wikipedia, even if he/she might not know about policies like Canvassing. It will be good for Wikipedia, IMO, if we can keep KaiHolmann working with us to add content and improve articles. Thanks for listening! HouseOfChange (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Flag of Syria

Hello, I would like to notify you that I will stop participating in that page. I replied to the talk page but I think I will stop. I will not edit the article itself. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Attar-Aram syria. You don't have to stop editing the article. You just have to be aware that there are revert restrictions placed on it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello NeilN, I need your help. The discussion is not going anywhere, the Anti Assad party is not presenting any reliable sources but just keep on reverting and maintaining a POV tone in article where the opposition governments are designated with their official designations, while the Syrian government is called Assad government. I, on the other hand, have provided a reliable source for the use of the flag by the republic of Syria and not by just a regime but all I got was: why do we need to have change our old consensus.

I do not care for Assad, he is not democratically elected, but to call the Syrian government an Assad government while calling the opposition ones with their official names is a gross POV statement. So, where can I get help? is there some kind of noticeboard where I can ask an admin to take a look and weigh all the arguments and decide if the article is compliant with Wiki policies or is it going to be endless arguments based on opinions and reverting ? Cause I dont have the power nor will to do the latter and that why I dont have many pages related to modern period in my watch list.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: There's an open RFC on this issue, right? What is needed is more editors to participate there. AlAboud83, you have been referring to a "consensus of 2013". Please provide a link to that consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

here: [[8]] and here [[9]].Alhanuty (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlAboud83: Neither discussion can be viewed as coming to a consensus and neither discussion was about content reverted in this edit. Please be significantly more careful when claiming consensus exists. Claiming consensus as the reason for your edit when no such consensus exists will get you sanctioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

these discussions led to the current form of the article,which has been in place since 2013,and it follows the Libyan Precedent,but if you say that it is not a consensus,then okay,but it has been uncontested for years since 2013,for me,i won't oppose a change to it,only if the Syrian Interim Government and Syrian National Coalition fully lose ground.As for the word Assad Government,i followed the Libyan Precedent which called the Great Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah simply as the Gaddafi Government.that is allAlhanuty (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

False, One sided Description on the beginning of a Wikipedia Page of a Person

The description which says "Founder of Islam" at the start of the page of Muhammad is clearly misinformed and ignorant, not only is it false to the originality but is also offensive to 1.6 billion Muslims living in 2018. It is very surprising how this Wikipedia contribution would start the very first lines of "Prophet Muhammad" page by labeling him a "Founder of Islam" such a statement is inflammatory, discriminatory and Islamophobic. The fact that Wikipedia would source a non-Muslim viewpoint on describing Muhammad before the 100s of Muslim expert and historical experts shows Wikipedia edit of "Founder of Islam" is done to misinform people and have a political view. Political leaning are not Wikipedia way so it is better to have a neutral view which is not leaning on any sides. Labeling Muhammad a "founder of Islam" is an ignorant statement that is not present in most "historical accounts of Islam, Muslims, non-muslims, news and literature sources views from experts. The 2 sources no. 2 and 3 are also from a far right, Islamophobic view which has a political leaning to call Muhammad a "Founder of Islam". Even if you describe from so called "historical view" which is misinformed and ignorant should come in "Criticism of Muhammad" section and theological perspective should come first as that is the original source not some one sided opinion from a book from 2012 or 2009 which has a political leaning and a false description of Muhammad. The statement "Founder of Islam" should be removed as it is false and makes Wikipedia information to seem unreliable, misinformed, uneducated and political in its information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRightlyGuided (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Please clarify: what do you think is wrong with the phrase "founder of Islam"? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

They're contending that God is the founder of Islam, not Muhammad, is my guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have much else to say beyond what I've said before. The article covers the subject from a documented historical perspective, not a theological perspective. If you are looking for a place where beliefs (any beliefs) trump documented history, Wikipedia isn't it. BTW, this is also the reason why why don't label Jesus the "son of God" in Wikipedia's voice. This is also the reason why we don't state adherents of x religion are going to hell if they don't repent/recant/convert/whatever. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolving dispute on Communism

Hello, so I'm curious how I can end this dispute about whether Communism should be considered Totalitarian and Authoritarian or not, there has been no new comment on the talk page since 12 May, I was long thinking of starting an RfC to solve this, but the users claimed that this is somehow merely a point of view and as such it violates the NPOV rule, the glossary states the following:

"Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow the Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research policies."

This is what discouraged me from doing, I would like to ask you first how can I resolve this dispute? Also did I just misinterpret this rule or does this really mean that I can't start an RfC because placing Communism in those categories somehow violate NPOV? Lastly, does placing Communism in the Totalitarian and Authoritarian categories actually violate NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pedro8790: You can start a RFC but you'll have a lot better luck if you can get non-trivial material about communism and totalitarianism and authoritarianism included in the article. Editors like to see that reliably sourced material, not user opinion, supports inclusion of the category. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Just for curiosity, why would I have less luck with an RFC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pedro8790: WP:CATV: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If you start a RFC about categories when it isn't clear from verifiable information in the article why the categories you are proposing were placed then other editors are unlikely to support your position. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

requesting move

I have read though the policy thanks but I'm not withdrawing though still— Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 style rifle Part 2

Could you take a look at this? The discussion has turned into a debate over whether or not consensus has been established and would benefit from an uninvolved admin's input. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There is also a dispute over what is the "stable" version that we should revert to if there is no consensus. This altered a version that was stable for six days (admittedly, for the first four the article was locked). Waleswatcher (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The talk page is a mess, but if you look at it you'll see there is actual progress being made on agreeing on a consensus version. The version you just reverted is new, and got the go-ahead from User:Mr rnddude here. If the votes from before remained stable that would be 5-3 in favor of this new version. But if you think it's necessary, I can start a new talk page section with a discussion of this language. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Waleswatcher. Because the proposed wording is new, editors should get a chance to weigh in to see if the wording has stronger consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you point me to a wiki policy where I can read about that to understand it better? Per WP:BRD, I thought when you revert you give a specific reason, and then the original proposer can go to the talk page to discuss that reason. The reason can't be "no consensus" for a new edit, since it hasn't been discussed yet. (Of course in this particular case it was discussed and one of the previously opposed editors supported it.) Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: From what I read on the talk page, the focus of the dispute is "Six of the 10 deadliest mass shootings" vs. "It has been used in [many] mass shootings in the United States" and that dispute is continuing. Oshwah protected one version about a week ago, edit warring continued after protection expired, so I've now protected the other wrong version. I do have to raise my eyebrows a bit at some of your past edit summaries given the article's protection history and the fact that consensus isn't a vote. "Restored version that has been in place for the last week.", "Restoring edit as per talk page consensus"? Have you and the other editors considered using WP:DRN? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

When I made that edit (with the summary claiming consensus) there were 5 editors in favor versus 3 against. Then there was a dispute over whether that constituted a consensus. I thought it did, both given the majority and because the arguments in favor were much more detailed, and also because the material that was added addressed a concern originally raised by some of the opposed editors (that "many" is too vague). After some back and forth a few more votes came in and it got muddled. This new edit addressed a concern Mr rnddude raised, and they changed their vote to supporting it. Anyway this is probably too much detail. Let's see what happens on the talk page now, if we can't achieve consensus I'll come back to you. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Just as a side note, if you include Mr rnddude it is 5 in favor and 4 opposed, the 4th vote was by thewolfchild here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

<edit conflict> When I made that edit (with the summary claiming consensus) there were 5 editors in favor versus 3 against, and another editor had concluded there was a consensus. I agreed, both given the majority and because the arguments in favor were much more detailed, and also because the material that was added addressed a concern originally raised by some of the opposed editors (that "many" is too vague). But there was no consensus over what counts as consensus (dear god...). This new edit addressed a concern Mr rnddude raised, and as a result they changed their vote to supporting it. Anyway this is probably too much detail. Let's see what happens on the talk page now, if we still disagree I'll probably come back to you. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

...there was no consensus over what counts as consensus This seems to be the heart of the dispute and should be assessed by an uninvolved editor. Aside from WP:DRN, we could open an RfC or simply request a close for the current discussion. Maybe give it a few more days to settle down before moving forward.

I've found that in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter which version of a sentence is in place while it's being discussed. Arguing over this will distract from the relevant content discussion and prolong the process. The consensus version will eventually be decided and implemented regardless of what is in place at the moment. –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Asked and Answered

On User_Talk:Philip Cross, you said that the question "How many people are operating the "Philip Cross" account?" had been answered, threatening immediate blocks if the question is asked again. Accordingly I am not repeating the question; I am asking that you please direct me to the answer, which I cannot find. 81.2.68.136 (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

76.112.108.138

76.112.108.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

You might want to revoke their talkpage access. Thanks. 24.205.75.247 (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark Callahan ‎

Thank you for blocking the disruptive IP. I'm not sure if I should post this on the noticeboard for transparency or something but per this edit [10] where they say "On Monday, Legal action will be taken against all parties involved" should anything be done? Should the foundation be emailed? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Probably a waste of time, in my opinion. I've revoked talk page access as the IP above suggested. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I had that page on a private list of pages to consider AfD-ing, but the current consensus seems to be leaning towards keeping American political candidates who have "won" a primary and have the normal amount of news coverage to that effect, so there's no real point to do so right now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sock returns

Yourmistake has returned again for same edits, using a sleeper account named Lathaj8 (talk · contribs). Need to run a checkuser to see if there is more accounts.--Let There Be Sunshine 08:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Socking?

This editor seems to be a sock of this IP, except that the account has been around for a while. I'm not too happy pulling the trigger until I know what's going on; do you know who the master may be, and why the sleeper (if such) may not have been caught? Vanamonde (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhinand1234. I blocked the sock yesterday based on behavioral evidence outlined here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see. Well, I don't want to preempt the SPI, and as a CU was run I don't know that I can block under WP:DUCK anyhow. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

hi ur the one who is undo *ing all the edits done in parvatii nair's wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lathaj8 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Civility, personal attack? DS Talk:Donald Trump

Hi NeilN. Could you review the text I redacted here, please[11]? It seems like a bright-line violation of WP:NPA to me, after lots of lesser in-your-face sophistry and disparagement of a lesser order. Thanks. No need to respond. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)NeilN, please see the following at SPECIFICO's talk page: [12] and this at Scjessey's talk page [13]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see it as a PA...some may even consider it a compliment...but I'm thinking if the editor who was asked felt uncomfortable with the question, Winkelvi| would have struck or explained...but you removed it within 10 min of it being posted. "Make haste slowly" ~ Kikkoman. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether it’s technically a PA or not, I’d say it’s in bad form and unhelpful itself. And, I’m not convinced that, say, Europeans are any less knowledgeable about how American think than Americans from one region or social, cultural or economic background are knowledgeable about Americans outside of their circles. O3000 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for Europeans, but I have a pretty decent grip on a Dutch/African/South American perspective based on my residency and intimate knowledge of life among a population of less than 12k nearly 1.5 decades ago to its current growth of about 18k - it is just as mixed there as it is in the US. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

And how were your weekends? Get a chance to step away from the computer and go out and experience some of that great land of yours? I don't see the need for redaction. One editor made a throwaway personal observation, another showed irritation at the observation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been pretty good, got a lot of my cleaning done. How about you? PackMecEng (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like it to be the weekend again, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

For your efforts...

	The Herculean Award
	Neutralizing disruption is like decapitating the Lernaean Hydra
	Heracles cried out, and the Hydra laughed... Where there was once one head, two more appeared. And then a giant crab came to assist the Hydra.
	Atsme📞📧 21:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: revert

NeilN, my explanation for the revert is here: [14]. Stable version was under discussion per MelanieN's similar revert[15]. MelanieN is an involved editor and she closed the discussion early. Her close is improper because she is involved even though she closed against her own text. Andrevan@ 15:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello NeilN. Please review the past several days history of this. I think you got it backwards. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan and SPECIFICO: That material was introduced in the last week. It is not stable by any means. MelanieN correctly recognized this here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, could you explain to me where the "stability" time metric is defined or interpreted? I was under the impression that the right to dispute or revert an edit expires after a number of days and other edits have passed, where days might be as low as 2 days. Andrevan@ 15:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You and SPECIFICO are tag-team edit warring. I'm leaning hard to an AE report which I very rarely file since I truly do believe in giving everyone a long rope..but by doing so you're about to hang yourselves.--MONGO 15:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Neil, I invite you to strike MONGO's text threatening to report me for "tag team edit warring" as non-content-based or productive discussion, but regardless. My procedural revert was on the same basis as MelanieN. MelanieN treated the version with text as the stable version, per her earlier revert. Please provide diffs of the 4-6 week time discussion for my review if you don't mind. Andrevan@ 15:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: You are seriously asking for MONGO's comment to be struck after all the comments you've made this past week on various boards and talk pages? No. And I remind you that these are discretionary sanctions, placed at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. I've used four to six weeks since 2016. Here is the latest discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Why not take some of the energy you're putting into arguing about which is the WP:WRONG revision and put it into finding a compromise? ~Awilley (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you'll find, while I did accuse various groups of POV-pushing and being paid shills, both serious violations of policy, I never said anything like what MONGO just wrote. It should go without saying that SPECIFICO and I have scarcely interacted, as I'm sure many of the anti-Trump editors have been keeping their distance for fear that I am not their friend. And, really, I'm not their friend! My goal is to prevent subversion of Wikipedia's policy and process, where referenced material about a WP:PUBLICFIGURE will not be whitewashed for political reasons. For example, Mark Bassett is being allowed to participate despite his COI (Redacted). Regardless, if the version with the text was not the stable version, that means Melanie's procedural revert because the material was under discussion, was out of process. Also, while the discussion you've linked to in April uses your 4-6 week timeframe, am I correct in understanding that this timeframe is your own rule of thumb and not based on any policy, ruling or precedent? Anyway, WP:WRONGVERSION is not the meat of the problem here. The problem is that uninvolved admins need to step in and take a more active role in weeding out abuse of policy, WP:GAME and POV pushing. Andrevan@ 16:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Be careful what you ask for. ~Awilley (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You really should strike that. It's a threat with implied WP:ASPERSIONS, and it does not reflect the temperament we expect of Admins. I'm sure you didn't intend it, but I assure you that it has the effect of enabling disruptive editors and personalization of diputes. Period, full stop. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Awilley's comment is similar to one I made to you a few weeks ago that you also objected to. I fully support it, given the past edits. You need to seriously realize that boomerangs can and do occur and that "ban editors on both sides" is not a rare suggestion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Yes, four to six weeks is my own rule of thumb. Since I am one of the main admins (if not the main admin) watching over the day-to-day activity in this area, and I've posted about four to six weeks often enough, regulars are familiar with it. As far as I'm aware, no other admin active in the area is using a different definition. As for POV-pushing, that's a pretty standard accusation hurled by both sides. My goal here is to keep the worst violations and violators in check and to address clear-cut editing restriction violations. Anything else should go to WP:AE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't dispute your 4-6 weeks. I do however believe that there is more going on here than simple POV pushing. User:Mr. Daniel Plainview was just blocked. Have there been equivalent blocked socks pushing to include the disputed biographical material on Mr. Trump? Andrevan@ 16:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The only other recent one I recall is ValarianB. But I would not classify them as a right wing POV pusher. PackMecEng (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I don't know what you're asking. There's at least one anti-Trump sockmaster whose accounts were blocked on a fairly regular basis. Their name escapes me right now - MelanieN might recall. They were pretty insistent on tying Trump to Nazism using various sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh Kingshowman, how could I forget them?! PackMecEng (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

<ec> Kingshowman (talk · contribs)? BTW, I had a notion that Explorium might be related based on the swamp business. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Who was blocked in October 2016 before the election, correct? And I hope after he was blocked there was some skepticism applied to his edits, sources, comments, and so on. Let's do that now with respect to Plainview and his goal of removing information from the article about Trump's racial attitudes, lying about his academic career, etc. Andrevan@ 17:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There were two CheckUsers involved in the block of Mr. Daniel Plainview. The tag on their userpage says who the master is. Kingshowman is a notorious sockmaster. Kingshowman and Hidden Tempo are not in the least bit related.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Bbb, I am not saying they are related. I am making an analogy. When Kingshowman was blocked, I'm sure those Nazi POV pushing editors got a lot of scrutiny. Andrevan@ 17:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you violate OUTING with this edit above?..or are you simply digging?--MONGO 17:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I Googled the username and the word "Trump." Andrevan@ 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Why? Why post where the person works? I mean if its even the same person?--MONGO 17:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

His comments are gross violations of our policy. He refers to RS cited statements as "rumor." He does not participate in threaded discussion, he simply weighs in and votes on different discussions without addressing any arguments. (Redacted) Andrevan@ 17:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

His comments are gross violations of our policies". Has anyone aside from you made similar determinations? You then state "I don't know if it is him", but proceed to say they have a COI?--MONGO 17:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, please redact and oversight my possible outing of a user's real name Google search results if necessary. That would be a policy violation that I should have done via email to Neil and not talk page. Andrevan@ 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was outing, Andrevan, whether you correctly identified the person or not, so it has been suppressed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've topic banned Andrevan from Donald Trump for three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fair - I just stepped over the line. However, I think you should consider pursuing topic bans for several other users as well. Don't just take it from me -- Wikipedia policy is being run roughshod on these articles. Andrevan@ 17:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

As a follow-up FYI re: outing attempts, Andrevan was at the WikiInAction Reddit page yesterday looking for help on how to out an editor. He was chastised, rightly so, because of his admin status. [16] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The comment has now been deleted, but I have a photo snip of it. The content was: "I have solid evidence but I can't share it because of privacy rules about outing/doxing people. How do I get access to the Runet? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I refrain from looking and linking to that site because it's about as useless and toxic as the old Wikipedia Review. But I may be biased as I'm "one of the most corrupt, broken administrators on the website" (link helpfully given to me by one of my "fans"). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I hear you on both sites. I only ran across Reddit by accident a few weeks ago. In spite of it's reputation, Andrevan certainly felt it the right place to go in order to get tips on how to out a Wikipedia editor who has disagreed with him and he suspects is a Russian agent (hence, his request for how to get into Runet to do more sleuthing. And it didn't go unnoticed at the discussion thread that Andrevan is both an admin and a bureaucrat. Just saying. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Neil. I’m shocked to see someone like Andrevan pursuing the outing of an editor. His battlefield, us-vs.-them mentality is bad enough, but deliberate outing is an absolute no-no that usually leads to blocks or worse - as he surely knows given his length of service and his multiple positions of trust. Adding “I’m not sure if it’s really him” makes it even worse IMO. This appears to be an extension of his suspicion that any user who disagrees with him may have corrupt reasons for doing so. Although he has stopped talking out loud about Russian agents, he did hint, several times, that he was going to follow up his suspicions with investigation.

User:SPECIFICO, I answered your question about the "4 to 6 weeks" guideline, and the more general principles at work, at the article talk page [17]. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but my recollection was that we'd discussed this when the discussion started a few days ago and that the Wharton version was considered status quo. Now, I could be remembering wrong and it may have been ambiguous but it was clearly -- in an article where the wait is only an hour or two for folks to respond to pings, and with an active group of editors on the article just about daily -- it was clearly not recent edit that was immediately challenged by revert. And so I felt that NeilN (who may not have been following all the details as closely as the involved editors) did not handle it well and could have used his words instead of leading to a situation that clearly has not ended well for anyone or for the future of these Politics pages on WP. I appreciate your follow-up. I think we agree this is not worth more discussion at this point. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO, for raising the issue. I glossed over those couple of sentences as they were tangential to the issue being discussed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't positive myself at first.--MONGO 18:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Now Andrevan is at Jimbo's talk page [18] asking him to do "a bunch of drive-by banning/blocking" of editors Andrevan feels are pro-Trump infiltrators who administrators are ignoring. Can't someone do something to save this guy from himself? Holy cannoli. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Winkelvi: It's an "appeal to Jimbo" which the community traditionally allows. If it gets too far off base, I'll step in if another admin doesn't beat me to it. Thankfully there's been less drama than I feared. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN -- revert??? Anything here I could help with or need to know ? I got auto-pinged for my tag above, something about COI and something I cannot see here. I was unusually inactive from 23 to 29th and had a bunch of catchup on the 29th at the Trump BLP... is this related to something felt wrong among them ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Andrevan linked to a newspaper article which contained a name that was the same as yours and alleged that it was you. The posts have been suppressed per WP:OUTING. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, seems nothing needed from me then and no distress from me over whatever. Having googled my own name I know mostly it shows ones in legal trouble, and clumps of Bassetts around Southampton, the New York/Canada border, south Virginia, and Australia from previous centuries of Bassett convicts. Not seeing how recent hits form a COI logic but eh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC).

FloridaArmy

I cannot post on their talk page but following their response to your query, is this now a matter for ANI? They're not learning, not really collaborating, they've made some howlers in terms of factual errors etc. I don't know if CIR really stretches this far, and NOTHERE is even more of a stretch, but something needs to be done somewhere because this is becoming a timesink involving a lot of experienced contributors.

I dom't mind initiating an incident report but I probably should not notify them of it, so someone else would have to do that. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Yes, it's a matter for ANI as I doubt the appropriate block for edit warring will address the issues editors have raised. Editors cannot ban required notifications from being posted but if you don't want to do it, include a note in your ANI report asking for someone else to do the notification. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned you at WP:ANI here. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Your threats

NeilN, you have again raised the threat you made against me several weeks ago on this page.

Aside from any useful or appropriate meaning you may have attempted but failed to convey, your threat insinuated WP:ASERSIONS and it referred to an unspecified past sanction on me. When I asked you to clarify your meaning and intent, you declined to reply. I'd thought you'd dropped it and that the issue was dead.

Apparently not. So I'm going to ask you again, what past sanction were you referring to when you threatened me several weeks ago? I will not assume what you may reply and so I will not comment further until I fully understand your meaning and intention. Thanks, and thanks for your volunteer efforts at WP. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I don't think you understand or are unable to accept that your own editing is sometimes seen as problematic. Asking for "tough enforcement" could very well get you caught up in that net as well. The AE request brought against you a couple weeks ago which resulted in logged reminder should have made you aware of that. "Be careful what you wish for" is something all editors should heed when they press for stricter enforcement, because that enforcement probably won't be directed at only one side. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN -- Pardon me if I was not clear. I was asking you what you were referring to several weeks ago when you said I should be careful I do not get "a few more" sanctions. I was not asking about what you meant today. Here is the link [19] I was and am still asking, what were you referring to when you said "a few more?" A few more than what others? -- What were you referring to. If it was unclear to me, I'm sure it was unclear to other readers who were on your page. I am still requesting a reply to that. Thanks SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Are you objecting to the word "more"? If so, consider it stricken. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, a number of issues are raised by your response, as I'm sure you are aware. All of the hundreds of readers of your talk page came away with the impression that I've been sanctioned in American Politics, an impression that is false and damaging to my future collaboration on this project. Second, your having declined to reach that straightforward statement -- still without explicitly acknowledging the WP:ASPERSION that endures in those readers' minds, was at best a very grudging way to take ownership of your error. Let's leave it at those two.

Your reference to the recent AE thread brought by the very problematic editor who's been stalking me for many years, is similarly unclear. What I acknowledged, and what the panel there accepted, was that in the increasingly banter-filled and familiar tone of the AP articles, I had at times been curt, sarcastic, or dismissive in a way that could be offensive to some editors. That was what the diffs showed and that's what I acknowledged and pledged to curtail. And I have kept that pledge. It's therefore very disappointing to see you, after the previous misrepresentation you now appear to be acknowledging, refer to that warning as if it related to other forms of disruptive behavior that were not in evidence and which would, if indeed they had been in evidence, have led to a sanction on me.

The inescapable conclusion I draw from your behavior toward me is that for whatever reason, you just react badly to me and assume that I'm generally perpetrating all sorts of violations. Obviously that is problematic when you express those feelings in the context of your Admin role. As I've said we're volunteers here so I have no concern as to how you go about your Admin business. If I were an Admin and patrolling the Politics articles, I would make it my business to have a much more thorough and detailed understanding of the history of the articles, editors, and interactions than you appear to bring to the role. But whether you approach it that way is not for anyone else to say.

In light of your behavior toward me I think you should either stay away from me or seriously reflect upon and reform your approach as manifest in the recent incidents. For my part, I will stop seeking your advice or assistance in your Admin capacity so any pressure or embarrassment that I may have caused you will not recur. No need to reply, I am not trying to engage further, just making clear my valid concern. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A note that I will not be changing how I admin in this area. In fact, you did receive mild editing restriction from me in American Politics last year. [20] You are free to seek assistance elsewhere, of course. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Gee, NeilN. I thought I really went out of my way on several occasions to acknowledge that you are a volunteer and you are helping out to the best of your abilities and inclinations as you see fit. I really think I made it clear I did not posture myself as someone who has any right to tell you how to volunteer, except as it violates site norms with respect to me, my participation and my reputation in this community.

By the same token I did not bring up the sanction you levied on me last year. But since you raised it, I'd hope that with the benefit of hindsight you will one day understand 1. That the edits in question (by an editor who's received multiple sanctions in this area before and after that incident) were immediately reviewed and resulted in a block by another Admin. Your opinion therefore that my pointing out his misbehavior -- in a post from me that was at worst an IAR expression of frustration that Admins are not taking a more active role patrolling these articles -- was kind of negated by the diligent work of the Admin who recognized the DS violation on its face. 2. That I could have made a fuss and appealed (as so many sanctioned editors do) and railed against you and everyone else in the vicinity and held you up as a __fill-in-the-blank__ whatever. But I have always accepted community actions as good-faith best efforts. 3. That the status quo in these American Politics articles, in which it's become the norm to go through ANI-like drama and deflection and coalition warfare at AE, is not working as Arbcom intended. The inability of WP to muster enough Admins to actively patrol and enforce AP2 on these articles has cost us many good editors and continues to discourage others who come here only to research good sources and write well-formed articles. The fact is that if spontaneous blocks were handed out for obvious violations the area would immediately see self-control and self-selected improvements in behavior.

So my conclusion remains the same, and again I am not seeking to engage with you and do not think any reply would be fruitful. But let's stay away from one another. If you see something about me you absolutely can't stomach in the future, please let it lie and one of your many colleagues or the AE panel will handle it, I'm sure. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And again, I will not be changing how I admin in this area. That includes taking admin actions where you are involved like I did today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Talatastan

I am deeply concerned that you've went as far as to extend my ban until November 18th of this year, and didn't even notify me of it. I have been banned for the full 72 hours and I request that the ban be lifted as soon as possible, let alone an explanation. I have agreed that I'll distance myself from the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the time being, and only will make positive contributions when appropriate. Yet again, despite my hiatus from editing the arab israeli palestinian articles, I still believe that categorizing palestine as an observer along with the 194 states or as part of the 195 states based on facts on the ground, not bias towards any of the SWLR (states with limited recognition)

talatastan (talk) 2:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Talatastan: You were blocked for 72 hours for violating WP:ARBPIA3. That block has now expired. I have no idea where you're getting "November 18th" from. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Sockpuppet logged into wrong account?[21]. Not sure how they confused the topic area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:E0B6:FBB2:27A1:90F2 (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I contacted a checkuser and cleared up the matter. All's good. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Cathy Newman

Could you add protection on Cathy Newman page. Uncontroversial facts of interview are being vandalized by User:Sangdeboeuf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:8247:1D00:9963:B1DC:2CD4:5535 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it which probably not what you want. You'll need to go to the article talk page as Sangdeboeuf (who is no vandal) requested. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You and i both know he/she is a vandal. Really he/she is disputing that that portion is not the most talked about? That's how even Bill Maher introduced Peterson. That literally is the clip that all the article talk about, has been the topic of discussion. We both know that's "sky is blue" type of truth. And the lines included were literally a description of the interview exchange. He/she is concerned not that the content is true but that the lines added inherently (due to the truth behind the words alone) cast his/her views in a negative light. We all know this is true. This is why he/she resorts to specious arguments that it's not "well-sourced." Everyone knows that's not true as evidenced by the talk page. we all KNOW that Sangdeboeuf is abusing the system. If that's not vandalism I don't know what is. Do you really think Sangdeboeuf even cares about the "most commented" language or the rest of the lines that kinda of shows people like Sangdeboeuf are fascist bigots. Hmm. Not very hard is. It's so ironic that Peterson's words exemply the very problem on Newman's page. Harassment/and detest for basic facts because it inconveniences fascists like Sangeboeuf. Keep it up. I noticed an admin already changed it. At some point, Wikipedia lost its mission goals of accuracy and truth. I've seen so many editors detract conservative news outlets for being just that while citing profusely to sources like vox and salon. Is this what Wikipedia really is now? Think about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.16.119 (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You will have to go to the talk page to make your case without the personal attacks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned

See this ANI about the Miss Kyrgyzstan report at AN3. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thon Maker semi

Hi NeilN. Any chance of semi protection at Thon Maker? Lots of random vandalism recently. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Two years and a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could you please block this vandal? Thanks--יניב הורון (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

יניב הורון, unless they're spewing hate speech I am unlikely to block an editor who has no warnings. I gave them a level 3 warning. Admin stalkers who are meaner less soft-headed than me may want to block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. 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. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: template

Just trying to codify the policy you're already acting under. Please revert me if I'm doing it wrong. Andrevan@ 21:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Also please revert my change if you think it's a topic ban violation. That is not my intent. I am only trying to clarify the existing consensus policy so it is clear to everyone. Andrevan@ 22:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Long-time stalker

I'm afraid that I'm being stalked by an editor that has been blocked since November 10, 2016 by the name of JuanRiley. Even after being blocked this editor began creeping up on the talk page of his blocked account, then eventually mine twice one in May 15 and this one being recent as of today. And if you look at these IP's they all begin with "75.161." and they all come from New Mexico [22][23][24]. This is really worrisome because apart that he was a troublesome editor, more than anyone I or anyone had dealt with, the fact that this editor has always been stalking my edits and talk page to a personal level even after being blocked is really frightening. (N0n3up (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC))

Quick note on the AE

Extended content

Just want to raise one important point, the text that was removed by user François Robere in those three edits was not under discussion, he just removed it with no consensus. The text that Ealdgyth referes to is under a heated debate (and she correctly framed the debate, that it is regarding what constitutes a reliable source). But, this is crucial, this is not the text that François Robere removed. So, this is a separate issue that is being debate, but not what François Robere violated, or anyone else for that matter. François Robere just went in and removed completely different text and did not initiate a discussion (only later) and had no consensus/has no consensus. --E-960 (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Also, one quick note. At the moment this disputed text which Ealdgyth addressed, contains no self-published references (this was one, and actually I was the editor who removed it after getting consensus that it was indeed a blog [25]), however the debate moved to questions such as: is the Treblinka Muzeum and the Institute of National Remembrance, etc. reliable sources, and should the statement be removed or significantly re-worded if other reliable sources are found. However, again this is not the text that François Robere blanked-out. --E-960 (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC) This is the sentence under discussion Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#RfC: Jewish Baiting Techniques that Ealdgyth referes to "One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for help; if they agreed to, the household was reported to the Germans, who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family or arrested those willing to help Jews." as having the heated debate about reliable sources. However, these are the statements [26] and [27], which François Robere removed or changed — not under discussion when the edits were made, and in completely different sections of the article, and that's the violation of the rule, which as you can see causes more chaos because user François Robere continues to make BULK changes without starting a discussion and gaining CONSENSUS, and also making it impossible for editors to sift through the information. --E-960 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC) @E-960: You've made eighteen straight posts here for a "quick note" that probably should be at AE. Please make your points there and use Show preview. --NeilN talk to me 17:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry, got a bit carried away, will move the text to AE. --E-960 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to include this point since it was removed from the AE page after I posted it. But, I think it's a very important point, and apologies if I'm saying to much:

Extended content

NeilN and Sandstein, I'd like to highlight one point, that this AE is about user François Robere removing text without initiating a discussion first and gaining a consensus, as now required by the new discretionary sanctions rule. Personally, I like this new rule because it prevents editors from introducing new text or just blanking old text. Thus, allowing editors to refocus, and improve the current content through discussion one by one (though it is messy, difficult and unpleasant at times), but when François Robere just swipes huge chunks of text unannounced it creates more chaos, and for example in the case of the Martin Winstone text (which he removed), a simple word fix by an editor (who is staying out of this AE) resolved the problem. Also, through compromise (from both sides) we were able to get some of the questionable items removed such as Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Edit request (removed unrelated statement), Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Reversal? (adjusted wording), and Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Extended Discussion (removed blog). So, as Volunteer Marek noted, perhaps we should enforce the rules in place to prevent further chaos from breaking out. Other users keep repeating this point to François Robere — yet it is not being acknowledged — as in these comments form the talk page: "yes, disputed, but without gaining a prior consensus" and "you should have brought up the issue on the talk page instead of being recklessly bold, especially given that this page is the subject of active sanctions and is otherwise controversial in this discussion" I'm concerned that in a few days François Robere will blank more text, get reverted and then user Icewhiz will report that editor to AE for alleged violation of the discretionary sanctions for reverting user François Robere's edits. Removing the side issue of reliable sources, this is a clear cut case, where major changes were made without François Robere adhering to the new discretionary sanctions. --E-960 (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

--E-960 (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The AE case

Assuming this AE case is concluded with article restrictions rather personal ones, which seems likely from how the discussion is going:

1. Could these restrictions be applied to the entire topic area, and if so - how?
2. The case was started as a complaint on "edit warring" (or something of the sort), which is a "general" policy issue, and has shifted to a discussion on sourcing and misrepresentation of sources, which is a question of personal integrity. Regardless of what you decide on other aspects of the case, I would appreciate if you could clarify your comment on my "sometimes problematic editing in this area" by stating that it was not meant to suggest any dishonesty or lack of integrity on my part; or, alternatively, that the new article restrictions result from several editors' behaviors and do not reflect on me personally.

Thank you in advance. François Robere (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: I'm still deciding if personal restrictions are needed. You'll have to convince an admin or the community to impose the forthcoming article restrictions on the entire topic area. I won't impose such blanket restrictions. If restrictions are imposed on you, I will make it clear what they've been imposed for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen

Are you going to warn the other party in this edit war or did you somehow miss my factual comments?--OxfordLaw (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw: One editor who reverted you was previously notified, the other was not. I've rectified that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. BTW I added an official source (spokesman of the Arab coalition) in regards to the Houthi casualties which my "opponent" insists should be "unknown" despite numerous sources proving otherwise and given exact numbers as well as 100's of videos showing Houthi rebels being droned/killed. I hope that my source will not be removed while the Al-Jazeera source has been left intact. So I would kindly ask you to take a look at those 3 Wikipedia pages below in case my opponent tries to remove my addition or other users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015–present)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi–Yemeni_border_conflict_(2015–present)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen

Thank you in advance.

--OxfordLaw (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@OxfordLaw: I can't, as admins are prohibited from taking a side in content disputes involving matters they have taken admin action on per WP:INVOLVED. See WP:DRR for possible other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Understood. However have in mind that I am a Westerner (thus not a direct party in this conflict let alone the ongoing Arab-Iranian proxy conflict) but I have noticed evident bias in regards to Iranian regime sponsored rebel groups (I consider them terrorist groups as most people in the West due, same goes for "rebel groups" sponsored by Arab regimes) and the Yemen pages are a perfect example of this where Iranian state TV propaganda channels such as PressTV and Houthi media (renowned for their many lies as proven by Western analysts) are used as holy grails whose content cannot be countered.--OxfordLaw (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

ABF

NeilN, I hate snitching, but I've had it with SPECIFICO's relentless assumption of bad faith and personal disparagement against me and a few other editors. Please review the thread at Talk:Donald Trump#Forbes 400 tapes, again. and check whether she has straddled the tolerance limit following your recent warnings. Yes, I wrote some pretty strong rebuttal of her baiting, as I'm trying pretty hard to focus on improving the article; sanction me if you must. Thanks. — JFG ^talk 23:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

PS: This thread on SPECIFICO's talk page may be worthy of your attention as well. She basically attacks me behind my back (no ping), in an unrelated discussion with another editor about article improvement process. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

And PPS how many times have I said that I never question your good faith, JFG? And where are your diffs, JFG -- a propos of disparagement. Folks do disagree on content and process. That's not disparagement. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You never question my good faith, and you write THIS in a discussion with an admin about your own behavior?

I'd be pleased to discuss JFG's behavior with you privately but I don't think I should reply in public view.

You call that good faith??? Sorry, you have exceeded the limits of MY good faith towards you. And God knows I tried. — JFG ^talk 23:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley and TonyBallioni: Courtesy ping, as I just quoted a recent discussion you were involved in. — JFG ^talk 23:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

JFG I regret that you are so upset about this but really, saying I would discuss something is not a condemnation or an accusation. I have stated my concerns about much of your editing to you directly and none of it has to do with "bad faith". I feel I may as well state that my concern has to do with your command of English, which sometimes results in you making what you may think are innocuous copy edits but which introduce subtle but significant changes of meaning in the article text. And the second concern, also not an accusation, is that I think you are not sufficiently familiar with American society, government, law, and civic process to fully understand the significance or meaning conveyed by mainstream RS references in all cases. Those are concerns that we do discuss on WP and they are not personal attacks or disparagement. I would make a huge mess of articles in hundreds of topic areas if I attempted to edit complex issues or determine due weight of sources. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Taking this a step at a time, this was the content discussed in the RFC. Excerpting Brustopher's close, "So there is very clearly a very strong consensus that something about the Forbes tapes be included." (emphasis mine) and "While there's an obvious consensus to include these allegations, thought should be given to phrasing when including them in the article (perhaps citing the year the events were alleged to have occured?)." Both yours and Aquillion's versions include the allegations. [28] Your version has the stronger "deceived" language but omits why the deception purportedly took place. Neither version really addresses Brustopher's phrasing point. Wording should be worked out on the talk page if editors really want to hew closely to the close. SPECIFICO's hyperbolic comment was unhelpful. And SPECIFICO, considering I took you to task two days ago about your "reverting to longstanding stable content" edit summary, I do not think you should be concerning yourself with JFG's command of English here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I think it would be helpful in the future, and possibly better express your benign intent, if you could refrain from snarky or sarcastic twists of phrase when addressing editors in contexts such as these. You may recall that I was called to task for being curt and snarky at AE and I recognized there and acknowledged that such interaction, particularly in charged environments where we can't see one another's pleasant faces, is untoward and counterproductive. At any rate, JFG's command of English is not at issue in this case, and I only raised it because he is upset to be criticized and I think it's easier to understand, if no more pleasant, to know the objective basis of such criticism. It is not "personal" and it relates to issues that we do recognize can arise from time to time. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I agree with your comments on the proper implementation of the RfC close, and I have been working diligently with Aquillion to devise a consensus wording that addresses his concerns, mine and those of the closer. I expect this case to be resolved shortly. @SPECIFICO: In a thread where I complain about what I perceive as disparagement on your part, you reply by questioning my competence to write English or and to understand American politics. I hope the irony of your comments is not lost on you. — JFG ^talk 01:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You made it an issue when you obliquely questioned their competence with regards to editing in this area because of their command of English (or lack thereof, presumably). If that's a concern, then an editor not knowing what "reverting to longstanding stable content" means is more of a concern. And JFG reported you here not because you criticized them, but rather how you criticized them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Are we going to get a meaningful answer by SPECIFICO? — JFG ^talk 19:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I expect we can move on. Based on the above comments, I've said what I wanted to say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: ADMINCOND

I appreciate that Neil, but there is no evidence of poor conduct outside of this topic area. I have agreed to stay away from this topic area. ADMINCOND is not the case that Beeblebrox made -- he specifically alleged misuse of admin tools, especially to do with blocking and unblocking. Andrevan@ 02:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I suggest you carefully re-read their statements as a number of them specify "poor behavior" and "poor judgment". Arbcom will also take into account the filings from other editors and they comment on your behavior (within the topic area). Finally, look at the accepting arbs' comments. They all reference your accusations (a behavioral issue). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I admit that in the week-long period of activity I had behavioral issues and a lapse of good judgment and fair treatment of the users I was arguing with. Have I said otherwise? Beeblebrox made a statement that I had a pattern of misconduct. Andrevan@ 03:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: If Arbcom feels that evidence or more evidence is required from Beeblebrox they (or their clerks) will direct Beeblebrox to provide it or strike the unsupported statements. Asking for a case to be totally withdrawn is a non-starter when no arb has said it's frivolous. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

AE and deletion of pages

Regarding your comment "[i]f you want the deletion to be done under discretionary sanctions then open a request at WP:AE"[29], where has Arbitration Committee authorised deletion of pages as an AE action? You can assume that my question is about topic that falls under WP:ARBAPDS, if that matters. Politrukki (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project" (emphasis mine). It's rare, but it does happen (example). In the situation you reference, FCAYS would have to convince an admin that the page was fundamentally incompatible with creating a "collaborative editing environment". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess the bolded text gives some leeway.

BullRangifer, this was not about you, yet you inserted yourself into this with your email of falsehoods, straw man attacks, and threats. Please cease and desist sending me your emails. (Do you remember that the last time you emailed me you had been blocked for personal attacks against an editor and, during your block, you emailed me furthering your personal attacks against the said editor?) If you only use email to avoid scrutiny – like you apparently did per this comment, which is obviously referring to ANI discussion, after you were kindly asked to disengage from the subject – then maybe you should not use Wikipedia email at all. If Factchecker atyourservice is banned from discussing you, and you keep mentioning them publicly or in emails, I think you are gaming the system and you should stop. Politrukki (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow! So much for honoring my efforts at de-escalation. That's not gaming the system. This thread is indeed, at least partially (considering the diff you used), about my essay. Don't deny it. I don't mention (...) publicly, and only respond privately to attacks on me. This was the first time in quite a while I've been forced to address any such issues.

NeilN got the exact same email, so he can evaluate your false accusations, here made very publicly. I want to keep the peace, but you want to stir up the pot and do battle by publicly attacking me and bringing up the former controversy with (...). Maybe the iBan should apply to you as well. Everyone else seems to be respecting it and not bringing it up. I had hoped it was dead, but you started this thread by referring to it. You brought it up, not me. Not a nice response, and not good faith. Try de-escalation instead of escalation next time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

BR, you know I have tried to remain as neutral as is humanly possible in light of your "personal stash" but I will not deny that I was dismayed and somewhat hurt over your decision to cherrypick parts of my valued discussion with MastCell, and chose to present it out of context by removing my comments. MastCell explained that as long as you provided a link to the actual discussion, context is not an issue, and Drmies also explained his feelings, so out of respect for both admins I happen to hold in high regard, I simply let it go - crickets on my end, at least until now. My silence doesn't mean I agree with the polemic information on your TP, or that it is compliant with PAGs. We can collegially agree to disagree, and in this case, I disagree that your efforts have served the purpose of de-escalating anything, real or perceived. The collapsed "Personal stash" section on your TP, and the issues that have been raised as a result provide incontrovertible evidence that supports my position. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hello, I have filed for dispute resolution at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Camila_Cabello#Instruments_discussion. I included you, as you were part of the discussion. Let me know if this was not correct, and if I should have only included the two that are arguing. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Basilosauridae. I was acting as an admin, following up on an edit warring report. I will comment there as an admin if needed but won't take part in the content dispute portion. Thanks for letting me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy Adminship

Wishing NeilN a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Kpgjhpjm (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Cheers! — JFG ^talk 02:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you Kpgjhpjm and JFG. It's been interesting... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Neil's warning re 'edit war' re Douma chemical attack

Hi Neil

You have given me a warning, which I think is undeserved when the full context is taken into account. I don't know if you have read the exchanges on Talk:Douma chemical attack#Should title be "Alleged Douma chemical attack"? but, I would be grateful if you would do so. Please let me know what you think.

There has been a reluctance to take this issue seriously on the Talk page and I have had some edits reverted, in my view, without good reason. Mr X reverted my most recent edit describing my wording as WP:WEASEL, (which I don't think it was for reasons which I hope will become clear) and claiming "wording not supported by a vast majority of sources."

How it is possible to make such a calculation is unclear, but as far as the major broadcasters in the USA and the UK are concerned, this is untrue. BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Sky, CBS, MSNBC, Fox, ABC and CNN, preface references to the Douma chemical attack with words like 'alleged' or 'suspected' or use quotation marks, as do the UN and the OPCW. This suggests that my view that Wikipedia should not explicitly prejudge the outcome of the OPCW enquiry is not WP:FRINGE as has been claimed. No one has explained why the use of 'alleged' etc by the major broadcasters should be dismissed in favour of some unspecified 'vast majority'.

Wikipedia guidelines also support my argument: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch says "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial;" Wikipedia:Article titles says that expressions of doubt should generally be avoided, but that there is an exception for "articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as “allegations"."

Clearly this case is "an actual accusation of illegality" under international law, one that the major broadcasters recognise and which is under the jurisdiction of the OPCW. This is why I felt justified in using the word 'allegations' - it's recommended by the WP guidelines!

I wrote on the Talk page that there is no consensus for editors to ignore Wikipedia guidelines, to dismiss the position of the UN and the OPCW as WP:FRINGE in a matter under their jurisdiction or to fall below the ethical standards of reliable sources.

It seems to me that we are failing to maintain a standard of neutrality during an active legal case that is the norm in most societies where the rule of law prevails, regardless of how certain we may be about the outcome.

I am new to this kind of dispute, and admit to being somewhat baffled that following WP guidelines and adhering to basic norms is seen as starting an edit war

I look forward to your reply.

Best wishes

Kiwicherryblossom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwicherryblossom (talk • contribs) 03:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kiwicherryblossom: I will reiterate my warning. Until you can get consensus for your edit, stop making it. The talk page discussion indicates no other editor supports your position. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I get that, but there was a lack of responsiveness and no willingness to compromise from the other editors. I suggested several alternatives to no avail. I understand that a consensus is needed for most decisions, and out of courtesy I tried for one, but it is unclear why a consensus should be required simply to conform to WP guidelines or why I should be reported and warned for doing so.

"articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as “allegations"." That is the guideline. Why is it ok to ignore it? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kiwicherryblossom: The other editors have more than adequately responded to you. The article title describes an event. We do not have to wait for a court of law to decide whether or not it occurred. For example, List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks#2018 lists recent terror attacks. None of the article titles have "alleged" in them and I doubt many of them have been "proven in a court of law" yet. Editors going with what reliable sources state are not ignoring policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. We do have to wait for a court of law to decide what occurred, since the nature of the event (ie whether or not it was a chemical attack) is disputed. Although the OPCW cannot attribute responsibility, the outcome of its investigation will have very serious implications so it would seem to be, at the very least, irresponsible to prejudge it. In the case of the terror attacks you cited, you 'doubt whether many of them have been "proven in a court of law".' Whether that is true or not is largely irrelevant because responsibility for terrorist attacks of that kind is usually claimed by an organisation, and those who carry out the attacks rarely survive to be tried, in which case there is no question of being in contempt of court or undermining legal proceedings in any way. If an individual or organisation denies responsibility or it is denied that a criminal act has taken place, however, and there is a trial or (as in this case) a legal inquiry, the media are expected to use expressions of doubt. Wikipedia should be no exception which, presumably, is why the guideline exists.

Is this topic "an actual accusation of illegality under law"? Yes. Is it "discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law"? Yes. Therefore, it is "appropriately described" as an “allegation Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kiwicherryblossom: And you can make these arguments on the article's talk page and see if other editors agree with your interpretation of policy. You are saying you don't need consensus because the other editors are editing against policy. This could be valid in certain cases (e.g., new editors adding unsourced controversial information in a BLP). That is not the case here. The other editors have a different view on how policy applies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. I suppose I'll have to try again.Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Or just attempt the same POV push on another Syrian Civil War article ie [30]? VQuakr (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Lol.Good idea! I'm a bit too wearied and busy to pitch on the Douma Talk page again right now, but I'll be back. Now what is interesting with Saraqib is that the UN was unable to reach a conclusion, so all that remain are unsubstantiated allegations, yet still we have to pretend it has been confirmed as a chemical attack. We also must not mention Saraqib's proximity to a rebel controlled helicopter base. I fully accept that once the appropriate legal body has decided a chemical attack has taken place, we should call it a chemical attack and that once that body has attributed blame, we should do likewise, even if we have our own reservations; but I really don't understand why, when according to its own report "In the absence of any further information, the United Nations Mission was unable to draw any conclusions pertaining to this alleged incident", we are still not permitted to describe the incident as alleged. The UN says the alleged incident is an "alleged incident", but Wikipedia editors must not. In all seriousness, how on earth do you explain this? Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kiwicherryblossom: Do you want to be topic banned from making article edits that impact article titles or will you refrain from doing so voluntarily? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I have not edited any titles in respect of the Douma article since you advised me not to without consensus, and I am not aware that there was any ongoing dispute about the Saraqib chemical attack article or that it was subject to the same restrictions. Please explain. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kiwicherryblossom: All articles in this topic area fall under general sanctions. Aside from an automatic WP:1RR, you were advised, "[g]eneral sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas." Making similar edits across articles that impact article titles is disruptive when you know your reason for making these edits has been met with disagreement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The situation is completely different here, because the UN report on which the article is based specifically concludes, "the United Nations Mission was unable to draw any conclusions pertaining to this alleged incident". I can see no possible justification for not referring to this as an alleged incident, when that is the precise description provided by the source upon which the article is largely based; it is not remotely controversial to do this and the article has no talk section. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kiwicherryblossom: If you really can't see why your changes would be controversial, it really does sound like a formal topic ban is needed. But for now, you would be well advised not to make article edits that impact article titles without waiting for discussion to take place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I do find it a little difficult to understand why respecting the UN's conclusion in this case would be so controversial, but I'll do as you say. Where do I go to discuss the Saraqib chemical attack?Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kiwicherryblossom: The obvious place: Talk:Saraqib chemical attack. Note that to change the title, you will need to open a requested move discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, I was a little unsure about starting the Talk page as it has no comments so far, but yes, it is the obvious place!Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A once and future open proxy

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

Per this notation from a proxy checker service, I propose lengthening your recent 72 hour block of this IP to two months. Back in August 2017 they were previously blocked as an open proxy. I'll also file at WP:OP to see if others agree, and to see if it should be widened to a /22 per the Whois. What do you think? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Sounds good to me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Some spinach for you!

Well, it's the same idea... keep up the good work, and remember that hydration is essential :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 21:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

RT (TV network)

Hi Neil. There's been some simmering disruption at Talk:RT (TV network) that's come to a head today and I don't know how to handle it. Gunnermanz doesn't seem to understand what is/is not appropriate conduct on article talk pages, and for whatever reason I've been unable to get through to them. Are you willing to take a look? I can line up a full report if you wish. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Posted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this warrants some sort of admin response. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

LP, more personal comments/attacks.

NeilN, I understand Legacypac does useful work screening new articles but the editor really needs to cut down the personal comments/attacks. Recently LP repeated the exact comment for which JamesBWatson blocked him a few weeks back (link to comment and JBW's thoughts [[31]]). JBW's block was lifted because editors felt it was it was felt to be too harsh for a "single" comment. However, it's clear the behavior hasn't stopped. Calling an editor a "troll" is well beyond the limits of civil.[[32]] Do you have any suggestions? I understand that firearms articles can be contentious. Comments such as these make it much worse. Thanks. Springee (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with firearms and 100% to do with a long history of uncivil behavior by Wikielvi toward me. He does not want me to communicate with him yet he pinged me. I told him not to ping or mention me again and he immediately did exactly that immediately below my post telling him not to. He is now trolling on my talkpage even though he has banned me from his talkpage. Springee needs to mind his own business, check user history before picking who to defend, and attempt to edit more NPOV to stay out of trouble themselves. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Followup to the DF24 flaming

Just FYI, I've made this mild statement for the record (since trying to address the claims at the other party's talk page would be, eh, counterproductive). It looks like at least the most awful of the accusations are going to get REVDELed; I just got off of IRC with Oshwah.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

ANI report went to an archive.

Hi, I am not sure if you are a right person to ask, but I've just noticed that my ANI report was archived, and no actions were taken: [33]. Can you please explain if is it normal, and if it is, what does it mean?

Thanks, --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: It means that no admin was willing to make a decision one way or the other. This occasionally happens when the case is tenuous or both sides have valid points. I did not look at the report because I opposed a policy change you proposed very recently. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Policy dispute is just a content dispute, I doubt it implies a possibility of any personal conflict.

Anyway, I am a somewhat disappointed with this situation: recently, another users reported MVBW to ANI, but arbitrators recommended to try ANI first. After more violations, I decided to go to ANI, and my report is ignored. I suspect this user may interpret it as a support of their disruptive behaviour.

Do you have any ideas what should I do in this situation?--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify for confused talk page watchers, Paul is referring to an ANEW report. Paul Siebert, you can ask another admin who patrols ANEW to have a look at the report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarify

NadirAli: How the edit was not a violation? He was referring to what is going on at Kashmiris and Talk:Kashmiris, and even on talk page, GoldenRing had said that it is a topic ban violation to edit here.[34] Per topic ban he is not allowed to refer any edits related to the subject where he is topic banned.

Mar4d: How his edits were not violation? While he can edit about Chuck Yeager, his edit exactly referred to the career of Yeager that concerned his role as advisor during Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971 and the PAF Base Nur Khan base has been a major player in multiple wars between India and Pakistan.

If those edits were not violation, are they allowed to edit the concerning articles?

Also noting that I filed the reports in good faith. I didn't filed report about JosephusOfJerusalem who had violated topic ban[35] and I didn't reported Owais Khursheed who had violated 2RR, because I thought they are no more necessary. My Lord (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@My Lord: Both editors were warned appropriately. If an editor is banned from post-1932 American politics, we're likely not going to sanction them for editing United States Capitol. The topic ban area is broad but violations should go against the spirit of the ban. Pinging GoldenRing for their thoughts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course I would say that a person topic banned from India-Pakistan conflict can edit personal life section on Chuck Yeager, but stay away from the part that makes any mention or echoes his role in 1971 India-Pakistan war such as this edit did. Or discussing Kashmiri people when the whole India-Pakistan conflict concerns Kashmiris mostly.

Other than that, as you already know that sanctions have been handed out, ranging from disruptive editing to rude comments. I wanted to inquire about this edit in the same report where an editor who never interacted me ever before,[36] posted such a strong opinion and went so far that he falsified the incidents and even misrepresented this talk page edit of mine as "very aggressive". While I must notify you that I avoided replying to such a misleading comment I was at the same time thinking that someone will take action against it upon review of the report. Let me know your opinion about that as well. Thanks My Lord (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

SoundCloud rap

• SoundCloud rap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Castop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AN3 complaint

This article was recently at AN3 and I think you may have been concerned that the reported person didn't get a full hearing. Out of exasperation (or whatever) after his block expired he made this further edit, "Whoever keepers removing lil yachty can kill themselves", which got reverted (correctly) by ClueBot as vandalism. There already some articles devoted to explaining SoundCloud rap as a genre, and anybody identified out in one of those articles as a practitioner ought logically to qualify. So far I don't see clear statements about Lil Yachty, though this is up to the local editors to decide. Many rappers start their careers on SoundCloud but that doesn't appear to be defining of their genre. Any suggestions? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Now blocked for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Mixed messages

You removed the list of diffs I posted because they were out of date and out of scope. That's straightforward and I think reasonable. But Seraphimblade's comment in the admin section criticized a comment I posted to my talk page in 2017. Unless discretionary sanctions apply to my talk page isn't that out of scope, and why is my prior behavior relevant if Calton's isn't? With the suggestions to move the complaint I want to be sure I understand what's appropriate where and what's actionable and what isn't. My limited prior experience with AN/I inclines me to avoid it if at all possible. D.Creish (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@D.Creish: Discretionary sanctions apply to topic areas. Thus, if you are discussing a subject falling under one of these topic areas on your talk page then your posts can be considered for discretionary sanctions. Obviously, revert restrictions and suchlike don't apply but posts need to adhere to the foster an "acceptable and collaborative editing environment" directive. To take a blatantly obvious example, calling someone "a paid Russian troll working on behalf of that idiot Trump" isn't going to allow someone to escape sanctions just because the post was made on a user talk page instead of an article talk page. I can't say how much other admin's will dig into a reporter's past history. I can say I usually check a couple days of history if the name is unfamiliar to me (as yours is) and will rely on other participants to bring up potential boomerangs. I have to admit I'm a bit puzzled at the admin reaction to your report and will be asking for clarification. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's... reasonable and I appreciate it but don't expect thanks for denying me the emotional satisfaction of righteous indignation ☺ D.Creish (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

3RR

Special:Contributions/Dewythiel - 4 reverts I count. If you disagree please revert my block. Andrevan@ 01:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What he's not telling you is they were reverting to restore consensus which "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions." as well as the fact that he is topic-banned from the article because of it's relation to Trump and thus in reverting him violated his own topic ban. Have fun with this one. --Tarage (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

TBAN

Put a new AP2 TBAN. Didn't touch yours because I have no clue how the paperwork of converting a sub-tban into a full conflict area TBAN would work when I wasn't the one originally sanctioning. Feel free to keep yours or strike it or add any note to it (do whatever you think makes the most sense). TonyBallioni (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni. Admins are free to make any existing AE restrictions stricter. What I would have done was place the new restriction under the existing restriction, indented, and prefaced it with something like "Superseded by..." or "Converted to..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the heads up. I'll likely leave it as is, since I've already notified and logged. The restriction is clear, which is the most important bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: No problem. I can see your point about broad topic bans but one of the reasons I usually prefer a narrow topic ban is that there's less reason to appeal it. If an editor is disruptive on Trump articles and I do an AP ban and then the editor appeals with, "But why should I be banned from editing the articles of past and present mayors of Illinois?" - I don't really have an answer for that that would make me happy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I get your point as well and I wasn’t critiquing you so much as musing. My rough view in this particular case is that if the Trump ban hasn’t worked twice, well, making it broader is probably best. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobbs2090322

Neil, please add a comment to the report explaining why you believe a CU is needed. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for the comments by sysop Jytdog to be stuck out in the record of my AE case

In a recent Arbitration proceeding successfully seeking an AP topic ban against me, a number of statements were made by sysop Jytdog which grossly mischaracterized my editing history, without evidence, while giving a misleading impression of being accompanied by evidence. I seek the striking of these comments, either in whole or in part, from the record of the proceeding. I feel this is appropriate because of the persuasive force of a sysop posting a long, convincing-looking takedown with a bunch of links in a top-level administrative proceeding.

Jytdog does not appear to have looked closely or at all at the subject matters he refers to, and thus the compilation of diffs and statistics is misleading. It's one thing for an admin to make an off-the-cuff remark without diffs simply claiming someone has a pattern of abuse, but it's another when an admin posts something that looks like a comprehensive overview of an editor's conduct, purporting to offer "review with a solid foundation of context", and then claims he can't find any edits supporting a left-wing POV. This puts me in the position of having to prove a negative by coming up with a long post with a big pile of diffs contradicting the claim of right-wing POV push.

Outline of complaint
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The general premise of the claim is that I joined Wikipedia to combat left wing bias and have never done anything else. He cites as evidence for this that my very first edit was this additing of a FACT tag to a statement in Wiki voice reading that "The government fabricated evidence documented in the January 16, 2002 search warrant and affidavit issued by the FBI." This was indeed my first article-space edit, but I didn't arrive at this point because I said, I want to combat left wing bias on Wikipedia, let's go find some, here it is. Rather it was because I was reading a Wikipedia article and it told me that the FBI had fabricated evidence in referring an American citizen for prosecution on terrorism-related charges, which I found shocking and outlandish. Indeed, although Jytdog presents my original username of "Factcheck_4uwingnuts" as further evidence of an ab initio purpose of combating left-wing bias, he doesn't seem to realize that "wingnut" is usually interpreted as a reference to right-wing nuts, not left-wing nuts. Rather, the left-wing counterpart is moonbat. This is further explained by another reason I was motivated to edit WP, which was the second article I edited, Copwatch. While Jytdog correctly notes that my edits changed prose saying the guy being arrested was "apparently restrained" to prose that indicated he was "struggl[ing] to prevent the police from handcuffing him" and that the cops were "trying to force his hands together". This was simply replacing one WP editor's editorializing with another's. Neither was sourced. (Watch the video for yourself to see if you think the guy was "apparently restrained" or whether the cops were struggling to restrain him.) But going back to the tie-in to the "wingnuts" in my original name, I had seen the WP article but also an external website called copwatch.org (NSFW), which seemed to be an extreme militant right-wing anti-authority website, with a lot of virulent anti-police rhetoric that sounded like Waco type stuff, including, for whatever reason, a lot of stuff about the guy from the other article, Sherman Austin. I edited both these articles on Day 1. That was why I had "wingnuts" in my name. In any event, Jytdog then goes on to talk about my time at Sarah Palin and, while presenting diffs that look like they are supposed to be supporting evidence—but without explaining why he thinks my editing was indicative of a right-wing bias—he goes on to conclude "They seem to have come here specifically to address what they perceive as left-wing bias, from what i have seen. There may be diffs of them tamping down POV editing from the right, but I haven't seen that...." When another editor replied that the diffs he cited were mostly "exculpatory evidence", Jytdog made no effort to validate his accusations, but instead demanded evidence invalidating them(!), saying "If you have significant diffs of this person serving as a 'Factcheck 4uwingnuts' with respect to anything ring-wingish that would be somewhat exculpatory. It is hard for me to see past the glare coming from the very shiny ax that this person has carried into WP and the sparks that are flying from grinding it." Indeed, he seems to have been blinded, because if he had looked past his analysis-free tables and edit counts, or his 90-second "deep dive" of my first couple-hundred edits, he would have noticed that my next 1000 edits were spent being the most ardent anti-Sarah Palin content hawk that ever existed on WP. Indeed, I am present in about 30 talk-page archives and while I have only combed through the first 7 of those for diffs here, I'm confident they're representative of the rest: "Moratorium on article material about Palin controversies until after the election?" OH HAIL NO The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I complained about a biography being used as a uniformly promotional text (perhaps even ghostwritten) and it's hard to see how it could have any reliability at all. Could anybody help me understand this?" To his credit, Jytdog actually gave credit for this being a "good question", but then this turns to ashes when he persists in claiming he didn't see any sign of me combating right-wing bias. Indeed, in the below debates I did virtually nothing but ensure that well-sourced criticisms of Palin made it into the article: I complained about the removal of details about some sundry Palin controversies I began (or continued) an endless series of arguments in favor of including "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy material. Palin is being held out to the nation as a "reformer" who "opposed pork". The conceivably biased view of her as a reformer is handily balanced by the massive amount of Federal pork funding she sought for such a tiny town and tiny number of people. I think the Federal-dollars-per-person tally comes to about $17,000. If such an extravagant level of spending were insisted upon for all US citizens, we'd have $5 trillion worth of Bridges to Nowhere each year. To put that in perspective, the Federal budget submitted by Pres. Bush for 2009 totals just over $3 trillion and includes all expenditures by the government, including paying down interest on the national debt. Another way to put it in perspective? Obama has pursued similar amounts of Federal pork funding ... but his state contains 18 times as many people as Alaska does. It's often celebrated how much I talk(!) so here's an even lengthier disposition and rebuttal of one of the endless arguments why the "Bridge" controversy was supposedly not worth mentioning. Arguing strongly for inclusion of quotes by other Republicans calling for Palin to withdraw from the nomination ("...the choice of Palin remains deeply problematic... Palin is not ready") I argued and edited for inclusion of commentary on Palin's support for banning abortion. Nobody has included a claim that she "would ban abortion", "has tried to ban abortion", or "as VPOTUS/POTUS, would have the power to ban abortion." However, her statements on the record clearly confirm that she opposes abortion, supports banning it, and thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, thus allowing it to be banned. This is all perfectly accurate; you are arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is. The language used in the article is that she "believes abortion should be banned in nearly all cases" and this is substantiated both by direct quotations and analysis by reporters working for reliable sources. And it's quite relevant to her VPOTUS candidacy as that inherently carries the possibility of appointing Federal judges... and possibly SC justices... both of whom hold power over the issue. The likely inference is simple: she opposes abortion in nearly all cases, thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, supports the rights of states to ban abortion, and, if elected, may be put in a position to influence the judicial handling of the issue all the way up to the Supreme Court level. Hence the serious and direct relevance to the campaign. I argued extensively in support of saying Biden had made himself available to the press adequately and Palin hadn't. Biden has given 90 interviews. Palin has given 3, and they were tightly controlled. Without suggesting any specific guideline for how much press access is "adequate", I still feel pretty comfortable saying Biden's level of press access has been adequate and Palin's has definitely not. I don't really think it's relevant, though, except insofar as it may be the subject of on-the-record commentary by reliable sources. In Palin's case, her unwillingness to be interviewed has sparked protests by some of the most established and reputable news organizations in existence. Given the current scope of this article it should definitely be included in my opinion. I also called for a repeat of a failed RFC. I complained about a Palin campaign staffer who was editing her WP article, I accused users of being pro-Palin sockpuppets, I talked about NYT article which "details the way this article, in the 24 hours BEFORE Palin's candidacy was announced, was plastered with bubbly, glowing commentary of Palin sourced from her published-just-in-time-for-the-election biography". Later in a debate about AGF'ing: I mentioned the issue of good faith only the highlight that editors who appear sympathetic to Palin have repeatedly questioned the good faith of editors who appear unsympathetic to Palin. This is merely to remind everyone of the context in which these claims are being made. Speck in neighbor's eye, boulder in own, and all that. I argued at length for inclusion of mockery of Palin in "Jesus Ponies and Dinogate" controversy, defending the use of an op-ed in LA Times ("No matter how much of a liar you think that guy is, he's a critic, this is on reputable record by a publication with a factchecking department and the ability to be sued for libel, and that is the whole basis for Wikipedia's reliance on mainstream news publications.") I argued further against removal of "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy details. I went on what I called a "large scale weasel hunt regarding a bureaucratic investigation of Palin because I felt that the wording of this section is carefully chosen to distort its cited references and undermine the apparent credibility of the investigative probe while upholding Palin's actions. I argued at extreme length about source material regarding Palin's apparent blurring of the line between church and state. Why this is all troubling is not because of Palin's faith or beliefs; it's to do with the apparently special status she places on religious beliefs, religious people, and religious organizations. I further argued about source material about Palin's attempt to ban books due for religious reasons. Again, at very great length. According to Time, according to Stein, the attempt to ban books was an example of her injecting religious beliefs into her policy. Perfectly legitimate, primary-sourced, analysis/synthesis which has been published by a reliable source and is therefore fit for inclusion in appropriate format. I argued further for mentioning the above bureaucratic report which accused Palin of ethical violations. When somebody proposed a "moratorium" on any further controversies about Palin until after the election day, I strongly pushed back: Actually, it would do a lot of harm. If there's a moratorium on including material about controversies until after the election, anybody reading this article before the election (which will probably be the majority of people that ever look at this article) will be wrongly getting the impression that there are no controversies. Meanwhile, all manner of positive and supportive material would be fair game, and the article would take on a promotional tone. [emphasis added in 2018] I argued for inclusion of source material discussing Palin's husband's past association with a political party advocating Alaskan secession from the US. When somebody asked why something had been removed, I explained: Probably deleted because somebody felt it made Palin look bad. I argued for inclusion of a controversy about making rape victims pay for their own rape kits. While doing so I complained: The constant effort to turn this article into promotional campaign literature is equally annoying. I pushed back against complaints that mentioning various criticisms and accusations violated NPOV. I'm not sure anyone here is intent on including any scurrilous or merit-free allegations. I argued against someone removing RS-published criticisms of Palin simply because they quoted a political opponent of Palin. I argued at even greater length against removal of the controversy on victims paying for their own rape kits. I'm nearly positive that there was no consensus for the wholesale deletion of any mention of the rape kit controversy. Threeafterthree deleted the section all by his lonesome after not participating in (and ignoring) the ongoing discussion. I restored the deleted material and added additional material reflecting both criticism and defense of Palin with respect to the issue. This also involved a very salty complaint about how much of a shameless, POV-pushing, original-research-laden, blatantly promotional article it was thanks to a flurry of effort by at least one McCain staffer in the hours leading up to the announcement of her selection as McCain's running mate Here is another lengthy complaint about what I regarded as POV-pushing in favor of Palin. I also at some point wrote an eye-popping-angry breakdown of an argument I had had with a pro-Palin editor. Looking back on this I'm not especially proud of it, but it is evident that I was arguing at exhaustive length for inclusion of a piece of anti-Palin commentary despite arguments that the source itself was "conjectural" and supposedly thus prohibited by BLP. Again, these are just from the first 7 talk page archives in which I appear (28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36). There are something like 23 more. On the eve of the presidential election I was hashing out disputes and putting to bed any last doubts that the controversy on billing rape kits to rape victims' insurance instead of having the police department pay for them (as was previously done) was RS-documented extensively enough for detailed discussion. If there is a criticism here, it's that I was too hard on Palin. Other topics The Sarah Palin article wasn't the only one where Jytdog's superficial presentation is misleading. For example, he lists the fact that I edited the article on Fascism as evidence of trying to oppose left-wing bias, but my time at Fascism was spent arguing against editors who disputed Fascism being described as a right-wing ideology. Jytdog also cites this diff at the article on Michael Brown removing a comment claiming NOTFORUM, and racks this up with the "right wing troll" evidence because I was removing a statement complaining of "certain media outlets" attempting to "criminalize" Michael Brown. But he neglects other edits such as this similar NOTFORUM removal of some trollish comment calling Michael Brown a "drug dealer". Of course there are other edits that you might describe as "right wing", but which were emphatically legitimate, such as opposing the use of a WP-editor supplied Commons photo caption saying a police sniper had his "weapon trained in the direction of the camera at protests"—a very inflammatory phrasing not used by any RS—with the adding editor arguing on the talk page that the police sniper was "aiming at the crowd", when in reality he is sitting on a rooftop aiming up in the air and comparable RS descriptions said things like "A police sniper looks over the crowds" Jytdog cites my editing at OWS, but this was not a cleanly left/right issue. If anything it had to do with many of the same competing visions for the Democratic party, i.e. Classical Secular Liberal vs. Progressive, that are tearing it apart today. Moreover, I spent a very great deal of my time trying to compartmentalize material about a splinter group 99 Percent Declaration that grew out of a content fork arising out of the efforts of a later-indeffed sock, User:Dualus—and as interesting side note, this series of events led to my very first block. Jydog cites my POV tagging of the then-revision of "Mattress Performance (carry that weight)" as a "shameful advocacy tract rife with innuendo and unsubstantiated criminal accusations", again as part of a list of supposed efforts to "oppose left-wing bias". But this whole incident, wherein a girl essentially accused a guy of rape via an art project and attempted to hound him off campus instead of cooperating with a police investigation, was hugely controversial and generated a great deal of mainstream news commentary. Again, not a cleanly left/right issue. These seem to be the bulk of the subject areas he raises, besides the issues I addressed during the case itself, but since he doesn't present a clearly diff'd claim of POV pushing, I'm reluctant to go digging around further in my edit history looking for evidence of not being a right wing troll. In any event these comments are deeply misleading, and coming from the authority of a sysop they are very troubling, thus I think it is a reasonable request to ask they be stricken.

Sorry for the long post. Factchecker_atyourservice 23:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice:

1. Jytdog is not an admin.
2. You need to stop talking about post-1932 American Politics completely outside of a formal topic ban appeal.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I requested relief at the appeals page. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

What do I do now?

Nothing has really changed in A bicyclette's edit-warring, despite my opening the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages. Meanwhile A bicyclette continues to make edits across a vast number of pages relying on non WP:RS here: [37] and [38]; failing to follow proper procedure when he believes a source is not reliable here: [39] and [40]; claiming consensus when none has been established [41], disappointing supported by Buckshot06 here: Talk:List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1966)#Mid-2018 notwithstanding that this is the subject of an RFC. I am trying to follow policy, but I feel that I am the only one who is doing so while A bicyclette runs amok ignoring all rules and policies. I am spending all of my time on dealing with this which is a waste of my time and frankly not what I come to WP for. So please tell me, what should I do now? Mztourist (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Mark Woodruff is not a reliable source for PAVN Battlefield Reports/Statistics, since he is neither a verifiable academic, neither privy to North Vietnamese sources in the same way Merle Pribbenow or others may be, and the fact is that you are literally deleting.reverting my edits whole scale instead of just changing one or two issues. You haven't reached consensus either, and just deleted my incorporations into the edit box. Meanwhile you are reverting edits made not just by me but other users.You are not just some helpless victim here and you have an odd, very strange view that historical articles belong to you.A bicyclette (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I would ask you to take a look at the page Body count where as soon as User:Buckshot06's page block expired yesterday User:A bicyclette was in there editing the page to "Removed bad sources (AP Articles), removed NPOV narratives." Inserting his "Vietnamese Government" document despite this being under discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties, deleting the 1995 AP story with no reasons given other than his POV that it is an incorrect translation of his "Vietnamese Government" document despite this apparently being issued 20 years later, deleting Mark Woodruff despite being told he has to take it to WP:RSN here: User talk:A bicyclette#If you've got a problem with Woodruff, take it to WP:RSN. Why are WP rules and policies not being applied here? Mztourist (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mztourist: Let's see how the ANI thread plays out before figuring out next steps. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I regard the issues with Buckshot06 at ANI as being different from the issues with A bicyclette. I believe that both Buckshot06 and I are essentially hard-working, policy-observing Users who have unfortunately fallen into conflict, meanwhile A bicyclette flouts all the rules completely unchecked.Mztourist (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 rifle again

It seems to me this edit by 72bikers, which followed their earlier edit, reverted here) violates the first rule of the active arbitration remedies on that page ("Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don't make the edit.") Waleswatcher (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers: Any comment? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Neil, the discussion had stopped days ago on the 5th [42] with majority in favor and issues addressed such as this [43] addressed with ABC recognizing 2 experts on this topic. I posted my intentions in advanced yesterday with this [44]. So today I included the content as to NPOV policy as mention here on your talk page (Neutral point of view: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.")

Am I wrong in understand that this core policy can not be overruled? This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

After I noticed my edit reverted while going through my watchlist today, I replied to issues and addressed them. I trimmed 4 sentences down to just one highly reliable and highly relevant to topic[45]. Expert Dean Hazen said, "the reason mass shooters are turning to the AR-15 is due to a "copy-cat" mentality more than any feature of the rifle, it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity." and one sentence from a stated expert that support this Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder-- echoed Hazen's comments.

So here I am, as I was checking my watchlist noticed your ping and came to address. Can I answer any more questions you might have? -72bikers (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought it might be helpful to know this content in its original state has been in the "Mass shootings in the United States" article for 4 days[46]. There has been ongoing conversation there on other issues and no mention to this specific content. Until just recently today with just issues of its format, that I am now about to address. Also just recently WW today added this "Added more information for balance from 72biker's source, and a paragraph break to make the section more readable" [47]. -72bikers (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers: First, don't even try to justify possibly violating editing restrictions by saying you were following NPOV policy. Basically every single editor in every single topic area under discretionary sanctions thinks they're following NPOV. Any admin working in these areas will toss that bare assertion right out the window when looking to see if 1RR or consensus-required was violated. We'd have a free-for-all if all that was required to bypass restrictions was claiming your edit upheld NPOV. Second, consensus isn't a vote. If you legitimately think discussion has wound down, then ask an uninvolved third party to see if consensus exists if the outcome of the discussion wasn't obvious (and 5-3 isn't obvious). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers: It's not 5-3. It was 5-5 when you made your second edit (see here). Waleswatcher (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Waleswater, the second article edit was premature but 5-5 claim isn't a fair assessment. 5-5 was for the original edit and 72's update did remove the material that was the core of several of the objections. For example, this objection [[48]] may have been addressed by 72's changes. I think the edit was still too soon since it's always best in a case like this to say "here is the text" and wait for a clear "OK" but claiming 5-5 isn't really fair either. Springee (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: Springee is right here. I haven't looked at the 5-5 claim but editors are surely aware that their proposed revisions might not address objections in the minds of other editors or might draw new objections. Propose the new text on the talk page and wait for consensus to form. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree - and that is precisely what 72bikers did not do. That's why it seems to me their edit violated the "remedies" that page is subject to. Also, I could be wrong, but possibly 72bikers has some additional restrictions regarding reverts to gun-related pages? Waleswatcher (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: All restrictions placed in 2018 can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018#Gun_control. There are similar logs for prior years. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful - I didn't know where to look for that information. It doesn't seem to me 72bikers violated their personal restriction, since I wouldn't consider their first edit to be a revert. But it does seem they violated the specific page restriction I quoted up above. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure you know what I’m talking about

		The Admin's Barnstar
		If I’m going to make a big deal when an admin does something wrong, seems only fair to make at least a little deal about the other admin involved who cleaned up the mess. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block_appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Two different topics in the same day, both involving (ex-) admins. Woo. Must be something in the water. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Dave Williams (Colorado politician)

Hi NeilN. It does seem like some quaking currently going on with respect to everything related to Williams on Wikipedia. Anyway, I was just wondering if the article should be restored back to Special:diff/Marchjuly/845316402/this version until this can all be sorted out. That section heading and the second paragraph seems a bit peacocky, sel-promo and undue to me, so it might be better to figure out if that info should be incorporated and how to best do so if it should via the article talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I did think about reverting to a stable version before full protection but decided on a straight semi instead. Autoconfirmed editors can do whatever they think is needful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Socks have been blocked. Reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I imagine they'll be back, probably fairly soon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your vigilance in reverting a troll edit to my talk page. I appreciate it very much. However, I've elected to keep it there, because I don't want these trolls to be able to hide. Thanks again, though <3 Devgirl (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Devgirl: You're welcome. Let me know if they appear again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Query

Hi, you invited me to your talk page. Techtonic365 (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Techtonic365. Please explain the edit summary you used here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted back the edit made by MilborneOne as it was arbitrary and disruptive; and I don't understand why SpacemanSpiff seems to be a puppet or a bootlicker of MilborneOne to gain faith.Techtonic365 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Neil, this is likely part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JBM1971. The same POV, but now the same kind of personal attacks too. I believe that SPI is actually two separate farms that were linked purely because the POV was the same, although behavior is a bit different between the two groups, as I'd mentioned to Bbb23. I've blocked most of the socks in the category, but in this case as I got WP:INVOLVED before I reached the conclusion. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• • I just warned him for a post on his talk page: Are you insane or crooked SpacemanSpiff|SpacemanSpiff? Doug Weller talk 10:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @SpacemanSpiff and Doug Weller: I've blocked indef. The complete non-answer to my question combined with the continued attacks was enough. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I just wish I figured out who it was before I engaged at India. —SpacemanSpiff 13:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Question

I do not like submitting reports to WP:AE in part because this increases the workload for admins, and in part because every such request can be viewed as a WP:Battle by a user who submits it. So, I would like to ask your opinion if this is something worth administrative attention. This relates to editing in Eastern Europe area by this user. If not, I would rather do nothing. Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

So I have been watchlisting the page, and I feel like it is a lot of work for you to constantly revert good faith contributions as part of AE action in response to the news announcement; therefore I have fully protected the article for one day. Would like your input on whether or not it was a good move; in any case, I will probably be around this time tomorrow to revert the protection back to indefinite semi-protection. Alex Shih (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: It was a good move and one I would done myself (probably for 48 hours) had one more name change had been done. I doubt this will be the last time the article will need full protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

True, thanks for your efforts as always. I'll be around to assist. Alex Shih (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom motion

The Committee is considering a motion relating to your ARCA request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Macedonia_2:_Motion; your comments are welcome at ARCA. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Just indeffed someone you blocked recently

This guy.[49] Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC) (Love this response to a warning.[50]. Did he really think that would help?) Doug Weller talk 11:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: You libtard sheep, you. They're probably used to YouTube or reddit where that kind of response is pretty much de rigueur. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 18:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Just for your information

It's true I am an interested party, but did not fuss over the recent case, trusting that the evidence of two admins Doug Weller, and Zero0000 that Yaniv's reverting of material here contained a completely false edit summary showing he hadn't even checked the source (see also here) would lead to serious scrutiny. I can understand someone being cut a bit of slack once, perhaps even twice, but not three times. Despite the warning, the loose cannon reverting continues, unfortunately. You wrote:-

is warned to be extremely careful with their reverts. Any future violations may result in more severe sanctions than usual given the editor's past history in this area

Today at 2018 Gaza border protests another Yaniv revert called Norman Finkelstein an unreliable source. unreliable sources, not an historian

It’s hard to imagine a more reliably published specialist on the area than him. See Norman Finkelstein Gaza:An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, University of California Press 2018.

Any editor will see him cited over any number of I/P or Gaza articles, such as the Goldstone Report, Gaza War (2008–09) or Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. I/P editors of either 'side' understand that, Yaniv refuses to. It is not content dispute, but a consistent refusal to discuss anything, or consistent pretextual claims about policies like WP:RS, that wouldn't pass muster if brought to the actual RSN board, for example, where it is so obvious I don't think anyone will comment.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not writing this to obtain some judgment, simply to keep you abreast of a problem I think was not grasped adequately in the AE case. Understandably, for no one in his right mind would edit this area. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

He is a really social scientist hence not historian Nishidani want to peddle WP:SPS source which is clearly WP:UNDUE.Also personal comments about other users are quite troubling [51] calling other editors "POV warriors" is clearly WP:NPA violation --Shrike (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

A political scientist is quite another kettle of fish than a social scientist. For 'Historian': [52]; [53]; [54]; [55]. [56]; [57]; [58] etc.etc. I.e. before throwing opinions around, read widely. Perhaps I should just sigh with Kamo no Mabuchi, another great man, like Finkelstein, who cared for precision in detail and close reading:

ゆく牛の The old man trundles

おそき翁が slow-footed as a cow

うつゆふの his cramped heart frayed

さかりしこゝろ like silk spun hollow

くいもくいたる eaten out by regret.

I offer that more as an apology for distracting our admin, than a reflection on what it is like to edit with masses of irresponsible people. I didn't mean to start a conversation here, Shrike.Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I've asked יניב הורון for an explanation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Mondoweiss and Vice Media are NOT reliable sources to state facts without attribution (even with proper attribution there's a question if it's due weight to mention them in lead). I suggest you to stop harassing me and wasting the administrators' time. If you have something to say about a content dispute, use the talk pages of articles.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: And this revert? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually if you pay attention to the source, it doesn't say that Circassians are not Israeli citizens, but they "are often victims of discrimination" (which is total nonsense by the way, but at least the statement is now attributed to the activist who said it). As a matter of fact, the book says exactly the opposite. Quote from the source:

At a time when the land will probably be divided into two states for two peoples, the Circassians present the unusual case of Israeli citizens who are not Jewish but Muslim. Unlike the majority of the Israeli Palestinians who demand a political Palestinian citizenship, the Circassians define themselves as full-fledged Israelis and don’t question the Jewish ethnicity of the State of Israel. They accept their minority status and recognize the Israeli sovereignty (and its symbols); in exchange for that, they expect the State of Israel to view them as true citizens, who enjoy the same rights and have the same duties as the Jewish majority.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realize paragraph 15 says they are denied "full citizenship", which means source contradicts itself... before that, it says citizenship in Israel "doesn't really exist". The problem is that you can use the source to say two different things (that they have citizenship, and they don't have it), which proves the futility of the book itself. Reality in Israel: Circassians are FULL citizens with equal rights and obligations (they are recruited to the army just like Jews and Druze).--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: The quote that was added was in the source. Given your past history with reverts, you need to make sure your edit summaries are accurate. If there are nuances involved, explain further on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok. It was a selective use of source. But I'll try to be more careful.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No. It wasn't a selective use of source, and you still haven't, at this late date, accepted the obvious. I'll repeat it:

NeilN asks you to justify this edit, after which two admins apparently checked the source and said you were removing text in the source while asserting it was not there.

You took out this:

According to Eleonore Merza: "while the Israeli Circassians are treated quite differently from the Palestinians, they are still … often victims of discrimination".

That is precisely what the text states:

Indeed, while the Israeli Circassians are treated quite differently from the Palestinians, they are still denied full citizenship and are often victims of discrimination.

So there is not a shadow of a doubt that, with the text before your eyes, you saw that, and still went and removed it, until caught out.

Your answer above states :Actually if you pay attention to the source, it doesn't say that Circassians are not Israeli citizens, but they "are often victims of discrimination"

That is a non-answer, or rather you are dodging the gravamen, what is called a strawman argument/defense. Four people have paid attention to the source now. No one here ever asserted the text said Israeli Circassians are not Israeli citizens, which would be hallucinating notion. They simply observe that you removed a direct verifiable quote from a source while claiming it is not there. What you did was not, as this 'concessionary' admission now claims, just 'selectively' using a source: you saw a correct quotation in a highly reliable RS, disliked it, and removed it saying it wasn't there. In the old days, I/P editors were summarily banned for that because it is proof of deliberately tampering with evidence. But I not want to argue that. It's history. I will, now that a discussion has opened up between us at last (Sorry, I'm not aware of "partial reverts". 1It's not necessary to make a report at AE because of something that can be easily solved with dialogue. 17:25, 4 June 2018), examine why your cursory excision of Finkelstein was totally erratic, just as the above case illustrates, despite your repeated (at AE and on your talk page) protestations of apology for rule oversights or slipshod reverts.. An editor who persists in making many many controversial reverts with almost zero talk page presence, is operatively tying up constructive page work with attrition, and should be obliged to explain his practices in detail at some point, and I would prefer this non-punitive page to making reports, which I generally detest. Okay?Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So let's examine together the excision I protested over. unreliable sources, not an historian. What did you do? You excised this.

Media coverage of the events has been the object of controversy.

WP:Lede states that it summarizes the body of the article. You removed the lead summary with its sources to Finkelstein and Shehada/Stern-Weiner (a Gaza journalist-Human Rights Monitor and a British/Israeli writer) but left in the Media Coverage section I introduced.

• That is completely irrational. If you objected to the sources, it is totally illogical to remove the short lede text and full first reference to them, while leaving the substance of my summary of them ([59] [60] [61],[62])on the same page article. That you read the media coverage section is proven by your removal of the word ‘historian’ from that section in the same edit.
• Since I gave the full references in the lead, your removal of them created redlink problems in the media section (Cite error: The named reference NFinkelstein was invoked but never defined), which used the <ref name="" />system. The result is an garbled eyesore, with an unchallenged text standing without any indication of where it came from.

So can you explain this mess up? Nishidani (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

(2) Yaniv. I am availing myself of the neutral offices provided by this page for a simple reason: It's the only place where you have deigned to respond to queries about your edits. You stated above 'If you have something to say about a content dispute, use the talk pages of articles.' The problem is, you have reverted me on pages where you do not follow up with any discussion, while I exhaust myself in those venues. You reverted me on 2018 Gaza border protests re Finkelstein. I raised the problem on the talk page, and you remained silent. I referred the issue to the RSN board, and you remained silent. As you readily admitted several times, you are a beginner unfamiliar with the niceties of policy, and this practice, with false edit summaries, is called drive-by reverting. So, be collaborative, and reply to the query above. Nishidani (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions, "Balkans (Macedonia)"

Hi NeilN. I received from you a reminder about Disc.Sanctions [63], after a disagreement with other users about Souliotes and Arvanites (Albanians for the Albanians and others, Greeks for the Greeks and themselves). Another user/admin warned me about reverts regarding "people of Albanian descent". I have two questions:

1) The D.S. page lists "Pages relating to the Balkans (Macedonia)". What does it mean? Is it only about Macedonia (for which I don't care at all), or about all Balkans (including Greece)? If the latter, I will return with further questions.

2) If we start with the dogma "People X are of A descent", then it is impossible to improve an article about "People X" by adding text and source with a different view, and the article has a POV. I know the concept of concensus, but some users understand it as "you must have my permition".

Thanks for the answer.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Skylax30 I've answered this on your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

DS on misrepresentation of sources

Just to gauge your standard on the new sourcing and representations restrictions, please take a look at the discussion taking place on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland: Multiple sources were given that characterize the NSZ, a WWII-era paramilitary organization, as anti-Semitic (among other things) [64], yet one user keeps claiming the sources do not state, or do not emphasize that fact [65][66][67][68][69][70]. Is this at a level that would justify an ANE request for source misrepresentation? Also, is a false accusation of "cherry picking" [71] contrary to the restriction? By arguing that an editor misrepresents a source, one makes an implicit claim about what the source actually says; and if the accusation is fallacious, so is the claim about the source. François Robere (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to yourself and Icewhiz, FR, since the two of you keep pretending the sources say something they don't (in particular while they do refer to NSZ as anti-semitic, they do not say NSZ was collaborationist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Marek, why are you shadowing me? If this was any of your concern I would've pinged you. François Robere (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not "shadowing you". I have NeilN's talk page on my watchlist and I was part of the discussion you're referring to. Your failure to ping me (or the, ahem, "one user" - you didn't ping them either, in fact you went out of your way not to mention their username, which suggests you were purposefully hoping they wouldn't see you talking about them behind their back) is your fault, not mine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Because this isn't ANE. I'm asking for NeilN's opinion, not for sanctions. If this was ANE then I would notify anyone involved and they could have their day. Now, can you get off my discussion? François Robere (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to post this here, but plenty of RSes disagree with VM

1. the Nazi collaborators who killed escaping Jewish rebels and Holocaust survivors came from the Polish "blue police" and the NSZ.Philo-Semitic and Anti-Jewish Attitudes in Post-Holocaust Poland, Edwin Mellen Press, Marion Mushkat.
2. Jura also got German passes and petrol in order to facilitate the mechanised movement of NSZ forces around the Kielce region. The local Gestapo chief, Paul Fuchs, was a keen advocate of cooperation with NSZ.... The SS Hunter Battalions: The Hidden History of the Nazi Resistance Movement 1944-45, Alexander Perry Biddiscombe.
3. the 850-strong Brigade began, with German approval and under German protection, the trek westward through Silesia to Czechoslovakia. ... The collaboration of the NSZ with the Germans is confirmed by documents kept in German archives. In the Shadow of the Polish Eagle: The Poles, the Holocaust and Beyond, L. Cooper, Palgrave macmillan.
4. The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945, page 372, Joshua D. Zimmerman
5. A document sent to London by the Polish military underground (AK) in June 1944, stated that, "the lower-ranking commanders of NSZ are collaborating with the Germans in liquidating Jews" (p. 490) and leftists. Unequal victims: Poles and Jews during World War Two, Israel Gutman, Shmuel Krakowski.

I try to stick to the article talk page, but seeing that I was accused above of "pretending the sources say something they don't (in particular while they do refer to NSZ as anti-semitic, they do not say NSZ was collaborationist.".Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The question isn't about whether there were instances of collaboration by individual units but whether the organization as a whole "collaborated with the Germans". Zimmerman in particular is careful in making the distinction so I'm not sure why you're citing him here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The X-Files

If you have a moment, can you take a look at Pveluri's recent moves on The X-Files? It looks like he moved it and then moved it back, but I'm not completely certain. The redirect page he created needs to be deleted, because there are spacing errors. I don't know what he thought he was doing, but it wasn't helpful. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that deletion. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia 2: Motion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Macedonia 2: Motion