User talk:NeilN

Today's featured picture Arthur Sullivan (1842–1900) was an English composer best known for his operatic collaborations with the dramatist W. S. Gilbert. Among his early works were a ballet, a symphony, a cello concerto and a one-act comic opera, Cox and Box, which is still widely performed. He wrote his first opera with Gilbert, Thespis, in 1871. The impresario Richard D'Oyly Carte engaged Gilbert and Sullivan to create a one-act piece, Trial by Jury, in 1875. Its box-office success led the partners to collaborate on twelve full-length comic operas, known as the Savoy operas, including H.M.S. Pinafore, The Pirates of Penzance and The Mikado. Sullivan's only grand opera, Ivanhoe, though initially successful in 1891, has rarely been revived. His works include twenty-four operas, eleven major orchestral works, ten choral works and oratorios, two ballets, incidental music to several plays, and numerous church pieces, songs, and piano and chamber pieces. His hymns and songs include "Onward, Christian Soldiers" and "The Lost Chord". This carte de visite of Sullivan was taken around 1870 by the English photographer H. J. Whitlock. Photograph credit: H. J. Whitlock; restored by Adam Cuerden Recently featured: Reduced Gravity Walking Simulator Amphipoea oculea Kefermarkt altarpiece

Issues on the Gender page

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

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

Protection on pages

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

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

Since you are ...

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

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

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

Some misunderstandings were clarified. Just for the records [1] --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted again

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

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

Edit warring noticeboard

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

Legacypac comment

WP:civil isn't the pillar it once was

NeilN, I'm not sure how to handle this comment by @Legacypac: [[2]]. It is simply untrue and again uncivil. First, my complaint that lead to the editors block was for the uncivil comment made by Legacypac when reversing my good faith edit to the article [[3]]. I made no request to block only a request to warn LP to knock it off. The claim of block after edit warring is false since the sequence was, RfC added new material to the article (not long standing as LP claimed). The RfC closed with a comment that the topic should be included but consensus didn't support the specific text. I made a changes to reduce WP:OVERCITE and remove a section that was previously questioned (again, all within the scope of the RfC close) LP reverted with the comment in question and no talk page discussion. LP's only subsequent contribution to the discussion was the warning post (the subject of my post here). LP's summary of the relevant ANI is wrong as @JamesBWatson: did make it clear that the uncivil behavior was the problem and later was the reason for the block (see my 2nd link). I felt that 1 week was overly harsh but that wasn't my call. I disagreed with several of LP's comments during the request to lift discussion but it was over before I could add my two cents and my feelings about the harsh block. I would have hoped the block would have been seen as a warning to knock it off but the comment above suggests otherwise (note that other than that comment LP didn't join in the talk discussion related to the edits LP reversed). I'm requesting that you remove the comment from the discussion and make it clear to LP to knock it off. Thanks Springee (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC) @Seraphimblade:, @Dlohcierekim: as admins involved in the unblock discussion Springee (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Precedent at AE

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

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

^{Atsme📞📧} 18:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Here is another one. Characterizing good faith editor actions as inane cheerleading and obsfucation is not appropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a civil description of what's happening. Editors who act in good faith can still be guilty of doing such things. Trump is clearly given a much longer rope than anyone else guilty of even lesser offensive things, and his supporters here liberally apply the Trump exemption all the time, but are thin-skinned when called out. If they were editing about Obama for lesser offenses,... oh, but they did. Double standard? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Just some friendly advice, drop the Trump exemption stuff and assuming others are just mindless supporters. It is not helping. PackMecEng (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Question. How many times has someone brought "oh they being mean to poor ol' Mr. Trump!!!" up on Jimbo's talk page? Hell, it was some of the same people. But if someone points out that Trump gets a pass on stuff here because some editors (in general terms - no names) tendentiously fight to exclude anything that might even be INTERPRETED in a negative light by crying "NOTNEWS!" and "RECENTISM!" then it's all hand wringing, pearl clutching and buckets of tears about how "Wikipedia talk pages shouldn't be used like that!" or "uncivil!". They're flabbergasted! that someone could actually say something oh so awful on a Wikipedia talk page! They gob smacked! Gobbled. Turkey'd. How could this ever be??? ... Gimme a break. It's the same ol' WP:GAME playing and faux-concern and hypocrisy intended only to set up a ban for editors who disagree with you, that's been here since Wikipedia launched (well, maybe since a few months after it launched)Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I ask the same of everyone, either side. Whining and accusing others is never helpful on either side. As they say, I'm sure there are good people on both sides. If you think you are being treated unfairly or someone is getting a "pass" take it to a board and get it sorted out. PackMecEng (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't assume all are the same. I go by certifiable behavior. A reminder: WP:NOTSUICIDE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Didn't I already request, User:Mr Ernie, that if you are going to talk smack and agitate for sanctions against me behind my back, that you ping me? It's sort of <insert a civil adjective here> of you to conduct your business in this manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't you at least try not to sound so much like a bully, VM? You might get more pings. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Asdisis once more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NeilN, a little history here. Fkp was against including ethnicity in Novak Djokovic page (not just in the lead but in the whole article). I was advocating for that (since it is allowed on Tesla page, so I tried to apply the same principle on Novak Djokovic page). There was a RfC. Eleven editors unanimously decided that ethnicity shouldn't be stated in the lead. Now Fkp is trying to introduce ethnicity in the lead, and I'm trying to apply the consensus from that RfC, although initially I didn't agree with it. Bdw, I'm seeing him going around doing edits like this [4]. Since I knew how much trouble is to deal with him, I didn't want to engage him on Branimir Stulic article. However it seems to me that he goes around articles and removes "Croatia" from them and adding "Serbian" to others. Ironically, if we have in mind that he is accusing me of nationalistic POV pushing. 89.164.132.71 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

OMGitsToast Deletion

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

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

White Helmets article

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

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

An IP you blocked due to LTA

Just a heads up, they seem to be at it again ([5]). –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

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

IP addresses stalking me on wikipedia

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

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

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

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

@NeilN: It seems this multi-IP sockpuppetter has opened an SPI case [6] after failing to get other Users (LeGabrie and Turtlewong) from opening an SPI case, what should I do? Uknowofwiki (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Move My Article

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

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

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

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

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

User:Njorent

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

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

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

User:JogiAsad topic ban

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

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

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

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

START

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

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

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

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

END

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

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

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

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

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

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

rgds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another barnstar for you!

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

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

This is in bad taste.

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

Somerville NJ High School athletics

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

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

Once more, Chernobog95

Hi NeilN,

As you probably have noticed by the title, I have found Chernobog95 evading his/her block once more, apparently he/she is using one of the previous IPs he/she has used [[7]].

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

• The edit the IP made is on a North Korea-related page [[8]], something Chernobog95, as well as the previous IP I reported earlier this month, had a tendency of editing prior to his/her block [[9]] [[10]].

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

• The geolocation reveals that this IP edited in the same area as the previous IP’s geolocation (Zagreb, Croatia) [[11]] [[12]].

• If you are still skeptical and think this is just an isolated incident with a random IP that is constantly changing, then I also have proof that disapproves the skepticism. On the global contributions chart, it shows that this same IP was used to edit a page on the Korean Wikipedia [[13]]; this page contains content discussing about the Hwasong-15 a North Korean ICBM, further proving one of my earlier points, but one a different Wikipedia.

• Finally, this is the exactly the same IP you had previously blocked back in January for being a sock puppet of Chernobog95, as shown it the respective block log for this IP [[14]].

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

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

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

Kachwaha article editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

A namesake

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

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

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

Barnstar

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

FYI

I think this edit by Axxxion is a violation of his extended topic ban on Syrian Civil War. Furthermore, I suspect some kind of coordination because Axxxion complains about this my edit, but the edit was immediately reverted by another contributor [15] with offensive edit summary. Please note that this second contributor did not edit anything else for a long time [16]. I am not saying this 2nd account necessarily belongs to Axxion, but some kind of coordination is very likely. My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Speaking of violations, MVBW has made a blatant 1RR violation at a SCW article: [17][18]. And it's not like he's unaware of the 1RR restriction ([19]). These reverts in themselves are disruptive. They include bold OR unsourced statements like "which has further alienated Russia on the international stage and harmed its foreign relations policy abroad." There's also lots of WP:PUFFERY (see: intense controversy) and misrepresentation of sources (i.e. Russia committing war crimes and deliberately attacking civilians). This is really tendentious and obvious POV pushing. Something must be done. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

As about 1RR, this is an entirely different question, and I explained this on my talk page. Sorry that I untentionally violated 1RR and my 2nd edit was already reverted by someone else (I would be happy to self-revert if I could). I did not check the previous edit history of the page and therefore did not realize that my 2nd edit [20] was revert. I will not repeat this edit on the page ever again - agree that was not the best edit (I did not check Russian language source used for referencing). My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Neil, I hate to resurrect this issue, but the disruption continues. This time, My very best wishes, in his last two edits at the White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) article, makes reverts of controversial material without edit-summaries (see: here and here). Mvbw hasn't participated in the TP for over 48 hours and that happened to be his only contribution to the Talk Page since the 20th of April. Given the fact that Mvbw has a record of disruption in the SCW topic area and even had to step away from the Russia military intervention article, this appears to be especially troubling. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Now explained. The problematic editing was by user Coldtrack (it looks like another sock or "disruption only" account). I reverted their edits to restore consensus version. Actually, I thought this is common practice to just "undo" such problematic edits by IP and other similar accounts - per "deny recognition". My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes reverts/undos without edit summaries should ideally only be done if you're reverting vandalism or block evasion. In the latter case, a report about socking should be made somewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. I do a lot of edits without edit summaries, but no one ever complained about it during many years. This complaint by EtienneDolet was the first. This is something special. Now I will always make summaries. My very best wishes (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 72h

NeilN - I have been blocked [21], I'm not contesting it since it was my mistake. My question is, Am I allowed to add and discuss talk pages as an IP? (I have no access to my account for few more days) or the block applies to the talk pages as well? Please respond here, I'll check this later. Thanks 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:7535:CCA0:C86A:F3C4 (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Thanks. PS. Please also note, because you missed that, I didn't accept others concerns by thanking [22] I thank them for their comments. Other users restored the content [23], and I followed that. Block was justifyed (I'm ok with that) becasue of my 24h mistake but not because I acted wrongly by reverting against concensus. I would like to let you know about it. Thanks anyway 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:7535:CCA0:C86A:F3C4 (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to keep troubling you, but please take quick glance at this if you have a minute [24]Icewhiz perfectly knows that this is my comment, he filed complaint against me that resulted in block[25] despite that he added the false note that I'm a single purpose account to discredit my critique and win the dispute and the vote. Just letting you know how dirty tactics that are being applied here. Thanks, I'll take a break now.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:7535:CCA0:C86A:F3C4 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

EruditeScholar violation of topic ban

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

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

Ella Anderson

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

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

Notifying

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

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

Jameson Blake

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Clarification question

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

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

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

DS and removal of longstanding article content

Hi NeilN. In this diff [27] you appear to be saying that it is a DS violation to remove article text after it's been in the article for an unspecified period of time that makes it the standing version. This is not the way the DS has been interpreted on the AP articles. The understanding among active editors has been that the removal of established content is treated as a new edit rather than a revert, and that it can be immediately challenge by reinsertion, after which a repeat removal would be the DS violation. Is this consistent with your understanding? If so, I think your comment at Trump Dossier could be misunderstood to mean that any removal of content is a DS violation -- a meaning that is not operational and could shut down all work on those articles. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Return to editing

Hi NeilN,

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

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

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

2 questions

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

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

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

Coupla things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

PaulG524 desperately wants more attention

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

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

"Kicked the page to recalculate the age"

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

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

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

Mike Cernovich

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

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

Amdmustafa

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

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Factchecker atyourservice

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

---

The user is out of control [28]. They received an official notification about DS in American politics, but continue willingly making violations [29] and assaulting other contributors [30]. Should they be reported to WP:AE? I am not familiar with previous editing by this contributor, but their current behavior probably deserves an indefinite block. My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Useless

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you...

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

New section

[31], [32]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Apparently User:SPECIFICO and I are operating that now-blocked editor as a sock. [33][34] -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Recent block

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

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

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

Unprotect 12 Rules for Life?

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

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

Cynefin

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

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

A user's twitter

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syria discretionary sanctions?

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

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

It's not a 1RR violation. It's this kind of crap, where he accuses other editors of "supporting terrorism". I see that you warned him here, that he's got blocked for edit warring on related pages [35], that he created some attack page which had to be deleted, and that he added some kind of "defamatory content".

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

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

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

LED protected page

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

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

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

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

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

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

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

Would restoring my edit be a DS violation?

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

Given that...

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

• another individual provided a similarly specious objection; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

*Treker & Failed log in attempt

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

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

Trump dossier talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@SPECIFICO: I'm not sure which is more ironic, you citing WP:COMPETENCE and demanding behavioral sanctions against me because you don't like what high-quality fact sources say, or you calling me a "juvenile" and demanding behavioral sanctions against me after you made one of the most childish and essentially undisguised displays of trolling I've ever seen on Wikipedia (that conversation at the Trump dossier page and its spillover onto your talk page).

If you're going to file some baseless admin case against me, as your recent forum-shopping overtures to another admin suggest, be a pal and do it now because I don't plan to log in to Wikipedia every day just to see if you're trying to get me blocked. Factchecker_atyourservice 23:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• MastCell: "I'm going to put this out there for you to consider: it may be that there is no way to describe some of the things Trump does without sounding, as you put it, "disparaging". He bragged to a reporter about sexually assaulting women with impunity. How do you propose we say that without sounding "negative" or "disparaging"? He defended a violent neo-Nazi mob as containing "some very fine people", and drew a moral equivalence between them and anti-Nazi protesters. How do we say that in a way that meets your definition of neutrality? He publicly begged the Russian government to hack and release the emails of his political opponent. And stereotyped Mexican immigrants as "rapists and murderers". He mocked a disabled reporter and the family of a US Army officer killed in combat. He's routinely dishonest, and promotes easily disprovable falsehoods, to a degree that is unprecedented even by modern political standards. None of these things are my opinion. All of them are facts reported by numerous reliable sources. If someone's words and actions frequently reflect negatively on them, that is not evidence that Wikipedia has a bias. Nor is it evidence that the mainstream media, or reliable sources, have a bias. I wish you (and others) would stop treating it as such."[36] (My emphasis)

• Emir of Wikipedia: "... or did you just want to write that big paragraph attacking Trump?"[37]

• MastCell: "See, this is the kind of reflexive, unthinking silliness that I was trying to put my finger on. I'm not "attacking" Trump. I'm listing a number of things he's done—undisputedly, really, actually done—and asking Atsme how she would propose we cover those in what she considers a "neutral" fashion. I think that's a useful exercise, because it gets at the distinction between biased editing and accurate descriptions of a person's (negatively perceived) actions. If you choose to view it in starker battleground terms—as me "attacking" Donald Trump—then that's your prerogative, I guess."[38] (My emphasis)

• Drmies: "See, Emir of Wikipedia, that's the thing--that big fat paragraph contains nothing but factual statements. You want to call that negative, you can--but that's not MastCell being negative. It's kind of like someone complaining about the weather report because it reports rain, rain, rain, when it's raining, raining, raining."[39]

• Atsme: (long comment)

• MastCell: "As for being "anti-whatever", the problem (as I've tried to touch on above) is that you seem to consider anything that reflects negatively on Donald Trump to constitute "anti-[Trump] fodder" and to argue to downplay it on those grounds."[40]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing on Playback singer by a sock

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

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

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

ARCA sanction appeal

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

Sock Puppet Note

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

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

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

Shame tags

As suggested I'll take myself out for a time from editing the page under discussion, but could the Admins also say something to users Icewhiz and François Robere, since the Admin report was raised they managed to add two more tags to the Collaboration in German-occupied Poland article here [41] and [42]. This is getting out of hand, you don't just go in and place tags and question every thing you don't like. --E-960 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch

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

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

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

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

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

Possible sock

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

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

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

May I trouble you...

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

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

Yes, I thought that might be a problem. I should have reminded them about DS too, but I really didn't expect that second revert. Anyhow they've gone offline, and the nonsense is still in the article, so I suppose I'll give them an alert and remove that stuff once again. Vanamonde (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, given the restrictions. I'm just thinking that there's got to be a better way to do this, given that the DS notice page says that a notice may not be given if it's been less than a year since the previous one, but editors can't be sanctioned if it's been more than a year since the previous. What does ARBCOM expect; that we set reminders of the days on which each editor was notified? Vanamonde (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: <resigned laugh> It seems that way, doesn't it? In truth, if it ever comes to an edge case, I'm prepared to follow the spirit of awareness, if not the letter of the law. That is, if the editor is regularly referring to or being referred to AE sanctions in the topic area, I'm considering them aware, whether or not awareness is technically met. That might be appealed to Arbcom and then we'll see how much common sense we're allowed to inject into the process. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Besides that it takes ARBCOM forever to amend their policy, I wonder if it wouldn't indeed make sense for someone who is brought to, or participates at, AE under a particular DS regime to have their 1-year awareness period reset. It would make alerting more difficult (and possibly change how the awareness requirement is dealt with when a case is filed) but would probably ease application of restriction to some degree. I've also pondered the requirement of "1 year awareness, cannot be re-warned until after that time period", especially since parties to a case are forever aware under the current scheme. --Izno (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Awareness criteria #4. You are given the option to search AE when adding a DS notice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Greg J. Marchand

Far be it to question your call (I'm not), but I noticed your create-protection of this was for "Require extended confirmed access"—a bit of deliberate trickery of sorts? Hope all's well! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Serial Number 54129. No, it was deliberate. Some admins (including me) like to use it when appropriate as it prevents creation by hit-and-run editors but still lets experienced editors create the page without admin intervention. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

So I learn something new every day  :) Thanks for the info. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Revdel request

An IP has left some personal information in an edit summary. Rather than publish at AN/I, I hoped you could handle it quietly. Thanks in advance! Scr★pIron^IV 14:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:  Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

ARB and Balkans

Excuse my naivety here, but you placed an ARB warning on |this User Talk page, but I can't see any edits which hit that ARB decision... are the edits to Eleni Foureira by said editor the reason for the warning or am I missing something? Cheers! - - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 16:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I assume this edit adding "Albanian" as an ethnicity is what is related to the Balkans DS, according to Balkans that region includes Albania. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rich_Smith, yes they are. Edit warring over a nationality/ethnicity fits with "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions" I'd say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for confirming :) - - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

1-Revert notice

Hi, Neil. Thank you for the notice on the sanctions on the Foreign Involvement in the Syrian War article. I was curious, however, why has User:Volunteer Marek not gotten an identical notice? He was the first to do a revert of my addition to the page.

Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi GPRamirez5. That was not strictly a 1RR notice but a notice alerting you to the General Sanctions active in the area. If you search this page, you'll see that VM was alerted in 2015. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@GPRamirez5: Alerts expire after twelve months [43] so a 2015 alert doesn't mean anything. I'm pretty sure Neil knows that since he said it yesterday... "The problem is the notification was done 15 months ago and Arbcom has made it quite clear that awareness criteria are not to be disregarded."[44] Anyway, you can notify Volunteer Marek, doesn't have to be an admin. 46.242.240.216 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The IP (whoever it is) is wrong. No such expiry exists for community authorized general sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Piers Robinson & Tim Hayward

The IP 46. vandal has returned to edit the Tim Hayward (academic) article. More importantly, Piers Robinson has appeared to remove a vast chunk of his own article. I have warned him and reverted his edit. Browser problems have meant I have been unable to add the COI link. However, you may not know that Jimmy Wales has responded on Twitter to some of the people complaining about my edits. Obviously, as I'm directly involved there's a limit to what I feel I can do. Philip Cross (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: Off-wiki lobbying and canvassing always works so well... Editors blocked, pages protected. The complainants need to learn how to use article talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft

This is a case for a speedy deletion: Draft:Philip Cross - Wikipedia Editor. Cannot find the relevant page. Philip Cross (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I tagged it as an attack page, as it is clearly meant as a personal attack on you. Scr★pIron^IV 21:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

ApolloCarmb

Hi!

I've recently been reviewing ApolloCarmb's contributions since there are many that suggest that they may have been involved in POV pushing, including in topics where I'm involved, such as Venezuela. Although many of the changes I've made so far are minor and in some cases I've tried to edit for a common ground, I'm still unsure if there are any problems reviewing the articles since the user has been blocked and naturally, they can't edit in the pages. Is there anything I should be careful about? Many thanks in advance! --Jamez42 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jamez42: You are free to revert what you want. [45] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Arab israeli article dispute

Dear NeilN,

I have received your warning regarding the arbitration of Arab israeli related articles. However, I have complied with recent warnings not to break with Wikipedia consensus, as I have appealed to the editing community BEFORE making further edits, and I only listed Palestine as a UN OBSERVER, and I did not add it to the rest of the UN members. I regret and reprehend the irresponsible arbitration by some editors regarding this dispute and I am in no way tied with their actions. I vow to continue to fully comply with all community guidelines and request consent BEFORE making any edits, and I wholeheartedly apologize for any inconveniences I have initially caused myself. In respect to community guidelines, I will not, from this point on, edit any related Arab israeli conflict articles and I am now disassociating myself with this dispute or any unilateral actions taken by vigilante editors. However, I wish that any recent edits I have made will be kept. Talatastan (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Talatastan. No one is tying you to the actions of prior editors. The editing restriction is one all new editors have to follow. You didn't know that so no one is going to blame you for inadvertently not following it. I'm glad to hear you'll be following the restriction from now on and hope you'll contribute in other areas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Try searching for anything from your archive search box

Hi NeilN,

Archive search (and other search) is broken. Try searching 'foo' (or anything) from your Talk archive search above. Oops! Don't worry, it's not you. If you've a mind to it, come join me at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#MOS search and chime in. Or even better, replace me, because I can't tell if I'm more ((smh)), ((lol)), (roll-my-eyes)), or ((what's-the-emoji-for-grossed-out)), and I think I better stay away from there, now. Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I really, really want to make a comment about how I didn't think it was possible to make search worse than it already is... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Lol; this is your lucky day, then.... Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This ain't no squirrelly amateur. This is the work of a salty dog.

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your judicious yet bold use of the salting process, which may not sound like much to most people, but for those doing battle against the Lernaean Hydra it means a lot. The Gnome (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Jewdas

I'm sorry, but the edits are ridiculous. The RT one was just highlighting the humour used by Jewdas, which the British media curiously choose to ignore. But, fine, you can remove that one if you have something against RT....

In the second edit, I sought to fill the citation that was missing by a reference to their own website, which explained what they stood for, politically, culturally, etc. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you'd want to delete that edit.

The edit in the "History" is partly to correct poor sentence construction, with regards to the sentence starting with "That...". I'm merely pointing where that reference to "sewage" is coming from. Since that "sewage" comment is taken out of context, then surely it's appropriate to put where it came from? Or do we only allow one side of the story in Wikipedia? That is referenced to the Independent and Guido Fawkes, and the latter is where the British media got their information from.

The fourth sentence is from a British Jewish comedian, in defence of Jewdas, after criticism from Lansman and other British Jews. Is Baddiel the wrong type of Jew, for coming to the defence of the wrong type of Jews? I must say, I find this right-wing Jewish censorship of left-wing Jews deeply alarming. Are you saying that members of Jewdas are not allowed to post from articles about Jewdas? Or are only right-wing interpretations of Jewdas allowed on Wikipedia? That is referenced to the Metro newspaper, but what Baddiel reported is in several newspapers.

I am an academic, and I know what proper sources are, and those were accurate sources. I await your responses....Mikesiva (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)mikesivaMikesiva (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mikesiva: You need to discuss this on the article's talk page - Talk:Jewdas. I was just notifying you about our edit warring policy and have no comment on content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Needbrains

Needbrains (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA that has been consistently been pushing a strong pro-Turkish, anti-Kurdish POV in articles related to the Syrian Civil War, especially Turkish military operation in Afrin. Over the last week, he has been long-term edit-warring to add controversial material to the article (without discussion), and judging by his edit summaries (see below), has every intent to continue this indefinitely.

"VERY VERY staunchly" [46] [47] [48] [49]

He is extremely aggressive and hostile in all interactions: "that's just your POV punk" "you are clearly biased" "the poor little gurds"

Please advise. Thank you. Khirurg (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Now notified of General Sanctions so I expect the hostility to be dialed back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Khirurg (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

User:101.178.163.208

Neil, re: your recent block of User:101.178.163.208 for disruptive editing, the disruption has continued since the block expired. There seems to be a real competence issue with the user. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked again by User:Doug Weller. - BilCat (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Tim Hayward and leftwork1

I think the leftwork1 sock/troll is at work again. See here and here. Philip Cross (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

As before here. Philip Cross (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Neil, is there a case on this and all the other socks you've blocked? I don't see one, but I wanted to make sure before I conclude my check. Maybe you could also give me a brief description of the theme or themes of this person's disruption (save me the work :-) ) Thanks..--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: No, I was going to create one if the socking continued after the 500/30 was applied to the article to see if underlying IP range could be blocked. Quacking of blocked editors on here is deafening. Behavior is addition of negative material to the article [50] and the addition of a lawsuit to this article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm rather deep into my check, so why don't you let me create the case, once I figure out which is the oldest account. There are a few additional accounts that need to be blocked as well. I'll give you a heads up when it's done so you may add comments to the case if you wish given that you're obviously familiar with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leftworks1.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Chernobog95, post-block

Hi Neiln,

It seems like Chernobog95 just doesn't learn. in the last 24 hours alone, I've caught him/her using 2 Sock IPs of the user under [51] and [52]. Here's the diffs and reasons:

• Non-native english [53], as shown by "In May of 2017, [unspecificed individual] admited (misspelled)..., and [54][55] "The one of three waitresses interviewed defectors expressed wilignness (misspelled)... These are similar to those Chernobog95 made prior to his/her initial block [56] [57]

• Editing a page recently edited by 188.129.26.144 [58] that was recently blocked, as evidenced here [59], and here [60].

• All recent edits on the IPs special contribution pages [61] [62] display the tags "Mobile Edit" and "Mobile Web Edit, two tags left behind by Chernobog95 and the recent IP he/she used after he/she edited a page [63] [64]. Again all the pages recently edited by the IPs are within the North Korean Portal, a portal Chernobog95 had a tendency to edit prior to being blocked.

• The geolocations show the user editing in Croatia (specifically around or near Zagreb [65] [66], a geolocation similarly shared with the previous IP Chernobog used [67].

• Finally, the IP 212.15.168.195 was blocked by you recently for block evasion [68] which I discussed in a previous post.

I hope this evidence this convinces you otherwise. SamaranEmerald (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• They just showed hostility to towards User: BeenAroundAWhile via both IPs [69], [70], something Chernobog95 showed prior to his/her block [71] SamaranEmerald (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@SamaranEmerald: Both IPs blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Plea for fairness

I was again reported by Icewhiz, please, please review the actual edits (and the full chronology [72]), which Icewhiz listed as alleged "violations" of 1RR rule, if you notice they are all simple reverts of repeated edits done by Icewhiz, François Robere, and IP 198.84.253.202, which include more shame TAGS, removing of text (that was agreed on talk page, but they don't like the outcome [73]) this time using the <!-- Hidden text --> code, etc. These guys are causing major disruptions to the article, and think that if they can just cause enough disruption that an Admin will gets confused and restricts one of the editors from the other side, giving them free rain to change the article with out any opposition. --E-960 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: I will be reviewing the request later on today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Paris Knife Attack vs Toronto Van attack

Please restore the correct information to both articles in a manner which you believe, in good faith, in a balanced manner. If you choose to use the term "Armenian", "Chechenian", or perhaps "Ciscaucasian" that is up to you, but please do it proper.126.161.151.172 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding your preferred terms to articles and use what reliable sources say about a subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that when "Armenian" was added to the Toronto article header it was taken down by concerted editors and kept out of the article, until present. Now the Paris article has "Chechen" in the header. Thus, clearly, unless both articles reflect that the attacker is/was of Ciscaucasian origin (whether explicitly Armenyan and Chechnyan or alternative) the wikipedia is not functioning properly according to balance and neutrality, and has been subverted to biased narrative. However you have become involved by intellectually dishonest or incapable bots or persons, wikipedia is better served with good-faith neutrality than dishonest bots. Honesty is indeed preferred. Meow126.161.190.240 (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is your constant misrepresentations. "Everything is sourced!" [74] No, most of what you added was unsourced and you don't particularly care that it's unsupported, [75] we can always look it up. [76] "There are good sources." [77] You hadn't provided any. "jewishbreakingnews is a dubious source?" [78] That was the first time you (or anyone) had brought up that source. "I corrected the article." [79] No, you replaced sourced terminology with unsourced terminology. "Editors censored Armenian in the past.". [80] No, editors refuted some troll's assertion that the subject's "real" name was in Armenian and "the fact the guy is an Armenian-Canadian be PROMINENTLY noted in this article" (no sources provided, naturally) because of "Human Rights" [81] I am quickly coming to the conclusion that you and the last IP I mentioned are adding about the same amount of value to this project. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

history of guelders

Hello NeilN, Thank you for asking questions in response to the immediate removal of my first additions. Altough I don't know nearly enough of wikipedia as a contributor, your response helps me to believe that wikipedia is not always just someone's opinion. It might even comtemplate to help out in future. Keep up the good work/hope I did post this message in the right wikipedia corner. 88.159.92.203 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Cheers/BornInGelre

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

I'm not in an edit war, someone has declared an edit war on me. Big difference. I explained the reason behind the edit. If someone has a particular reason to change my edit, I think they need to discuss that with me instead of taking it upon themselves to change it without explanation. Bon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon Martin (talk • contribs) 03:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bon Martin: You are edit warring against multiple editors. You need to discuss your changes on the article talk page if you are reverted again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many of them there are if they are wrong or if they have a similar agenda. "Microwave auditory effect" is a scientific fact. It has nothing innately to do with "Conpsiracy Theories". Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

You could just as easily attach "Conpsiracy Theories" to this subject if you were so inclined. There is no "Conpsiracy Theories" section there, as well there shouldn't be. If anyone is interested in "Conpsiracy Theories", they can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Bon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon Martin (talk • contribs) 03:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

And blocked for reverting yet again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Renowned journalist Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Shami page

Hey, A wikipedia page of Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Shami is recently used attack and his character assignation is done, we tried to protect it but took many people are attacking it. Kindly lock this page for further changes. Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry:  Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Source

Hi, Neil - I've been trying to find something about Washington Press - and this is all I could find. If I cited such a source to disparage a public figure, I'd be turning slowly over the coals on a WP block rotisserie. I also got the same message you did when I first arrived at that site. It should probably be added to our banned sites? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: We don't ban unreliable sources, we simply don't use them. Banning sites (that is, preventing linking to them through technical means) is reserved for serial spamming or hosting malware. Mr. Daniel Plainview, I've posted on the article talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahhh...ok, I thought the pop-up was suspicious but didn't stick around to find out. Cheers! ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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 [82] 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[83] (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[84] and it's undeniable that anti-Trump content appeared on the website.[85] The Hill[86] (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[87]. 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[88]. 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: [[89]] and here [[90]].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)

Are you two friends in real life or the same person? Because you seem very cozy with each other. Almost like you are in love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8640:7300:9C5E:6143:4813:DEE1 (talk) 11:32, 27 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 [91] 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)

hi ur the one who is undo *ing all the edits done in parvatii nair's wiki page?