User talk:NeilN

Today's featured picture Artemis I was an uncrewed Moon-orbiting mission that was launched on November 16, 2022. It was the first major spaceflight of NASA's Artemis program and marked the agency's return to lunar exploration since the Apollo program after five decades. It was the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, and the mission's main objective was to test the Orion spacecraft in preparation for future Artemis missions. Artemis I was launched from Launch Complex 39B at the Kennedy Space Center. After reaching orbit, the upper stage separated and performed a trans-lunar injection before releasing Orion and ten CubeSat satellites. Orion completed one flyby of the Moon on November 21 and completed a second flyby on December 5. This picture shows Artemis I launching from Launch Complex 39B. Photograph credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky Recently featured: Sherman's March to the Sea Percy Grainger Réunion stonechat

DS on misrepresentation of sources

Just to gauge your standard on the new sourcing and representations restrictions, please take a look at the discussion taking place on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland: Multiple sources were given that characterize the NSZ, a WWII-era paramilitary organization, as anti-Semitic (among other things) [1], yet one user keeps claiming the sources do not state, or do not emphasize that fact [2][3][4][5][6][7]. Is this at a level that would justify an ANE request for source misrepresentation? Also, is a false accusation of "cherry picking" [8] contrary to the restriction? By arguing that an editor misrepresents a source, one makes an implicit claim about what the source actually says; and if the accusation is fallacious, so is the claim about the source. François Robere (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NeilN? François Robere (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: Yes, I know. But the discussion you asked me to look at is currently at 88K and any violations aren't exactly glaringly obvious. I will take another look today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources are quoted inside {{bq}} and {{tq}}, so it should save you some time. If you think it's grounds enough for an enforcement request, then I'll consider filing one and everything can be examined more thoroughly. François Robere (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The X-Files

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

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

@TheOldJacobite: You're welcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia 2: Motion

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

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

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

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

Guernica

3RR violations by User:Coldcreation

Was it your intention to close Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Coldcreation_reported_by_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz without any action being taken against the violator? If so, would you please explain your close? Coldcreation declared on his talk page that he "will continue restoring the image of Guernica to the relevant articles", despite opposition from multiple editors and without substantively addressing the NFCC policy issues. The same dispute is taking place with regard to other articles, and needs to be addressed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

AN3 about Madrid

Hi NeilN. Since you've protected Madrid, I'm wondering if the AN3 discussion needs to remain open any longer. I'm assuming you would've issued blocks if you thought they were necessary, but chose PP instead. At this point a block of either party would probably be more punitive than preventive, so it seems unlikely to happen as long as things don't take a turn for the worse. At least there's some semblance of a discussion now happening on the article talk page, so perhaps that will be sufficient and the page protection can be removed. I am a bit concerned about this post though because it does seem to indicate a willingness to continue to edit warring, but it was made last night probably in the heat of battle so maybe things have cooled down a bit now. Maybe some "advice" to all sides involved to leave the article as is with respect to the image and continue discussing until its non-free use can be sorted either on the article's talk page or at FFD (if necessary). Anyone not abiding by this would be then be subject to sanctions as you or any other admin sees fit. FWIW, the same thing involving the same same three editors was also happening at Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, so perhaps you wouldn't mind watching that for a bit too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC) ‎

I completely did not notice HW's post prior to mine; so, I apologize if it seems like I was piling on. At the same time, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Under attack, though not specifically related to this particular file's use, does not give the impression that things are going to be resolved anytime soon and also is probably a violation of WP:CANVAS. Any suggestions you have to keep this from furhter spiralling out of control would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Marchjuly, Coldcreation, Randy Kryn, Asqueladd, Modernist, and Kahastok: Madrid was fully protected so there's no need for blocks. Admins usually fully protect or block, not both, and the choice is dictated by which option will stop the disruption with the lightest touch. With Madrid, there were multiple editors reverting each other so full protection was the way to go. As for Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, I have removed the image as an admin action. WP:NFCC is a policy with legal considerations. All ten listed criteria must be met and it is the "duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" for each of the criteria. In short, editors must get consensus before re-adding the image to each article where its inclusion is disputed on NFCC grounds.

Now, a couple of comments about specific editors. Modernist, learn what vandalism is and is not. Any more edit summaries like [9] or posts like this and you're looking at a block. Randy Kryn your notion of using WP:IAR to override copyright policy is a complete non-starter. We might as well toss out WP:NFCCP #1 for all BLPs if the community decided that was allowable. And our copyright and exemption policies come from the WMF. A few editors cannot IAR that. You'll have to get consensus that the image meets all ten NFCC by actually providing reasons why each criteria is met on each article (especially #73 and #8 as those seem to be heavily disputed). Marchjuly, thanks for your observations here and trying to keep the dispute from boiling over. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Just for reference, there is a difference between WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#8, and items #7 and #8 of WP:NFCI. The first two are non-free content criteria (i.e., policy which needs to be met), whereas the second two are just examples of types of non-free images generally considered OK (i.e., a guideline on non-free use). NFCC#7 doesn't really seem relevant here because the file(s) in question are being used in at least one article, so there is no danger of them being deleted per WP:F5; it's the compliance (or lack thereof) with WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 and NFCC#8 where there seems to be disagreement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Pointless editing

This editor [10] is making pointless edits. I left a message on their talk page but they are doing the same. Have a look at this case. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ktrimi991. They're messing around in article space so I gave them a third-level warning for making test edits. Any more should result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will keep an eye on the editor and notify you about any further disruption. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Bastun not reverting

Well, maybe they logged off and did not see your notice. I see Signedzzz has augmented the section as well now.MONGO 17:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

IP 96.68.58.179

ScottB35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, based on their edits, with all probability connected to the IP, and also a sock... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Yes, blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Socking

Hey, what's the appropriate venue when an editor with a named account uses an IP address to create an illusion of support in a talk page dispute? I had an SPI or two closed in situations like this because we can't reveal a named account's IP address. So...what to do? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I would personally tag the IP page with a template so you can easily see their location and internet provider. SPIs should not be closed in such cases in my view, but the blocks should be based on behaviour analysis and not CheckUser confirmation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I think your SPI closes were for slightly different reasons than what you suggest. Anyone can tie a named account to IPs if they provide behavioral evidence. Checkusers can't use their tools to publicly reveal if a named account and IP are linked. So if you opened a SPI for a named account and IPs and didn't provide enough evidence it would have been closed. Open a SPI, don't ask for a checkuser, provide enough behavioral evidence, and you should be good. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks, that was my suspicion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Neill, I'm very sorry for interjecting in this conversation, but Dr F. appears to be talking about this discussion where last month an ip address out of Ohio commented on the talk page. I actually waited to reply, since I was a bit suspicious of this address and its motives, but after making a phone call and verifying some of the material the original post was speaking of, made a good faith edit that this article might need to be merged. Its pretty clear that Dr F. is now thinking that I am connected with this ip, which I am not (I have not been to Ohio since I was a teenager and have no connection to anyone who lives there) and this is actually the second time he has made a pretty baseless sock puppet accusation (the first time was here). The user also appears to really be harping on my former account of Husnock, and was very upset a few weeks ago that my account was unblocked for the image problems, even going so far as to contact the unblocking admin and posting a pretty blatant personal attack with no evidence or diffs provided [11]. I asked Dr.F to please stop this behavior [12] but I see that not only is he pursuing it, but seeks now to involve Future Perfect [13]. Can something be done about this? I really want to avoid making this a formal thing, going to ANI, and turning this into a major affair, but this is now going against WP:AGF and clearly WP:BATTLE and WP:GRUDGE. Maybe an interaction ban would be best. My main goal is avoiding future conflict with this user and also any future problems with my own account getting mixed up in this kind of thing. Thank you for looking into this. -O.R.^Comms 19:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@OberRanks: At this point, I expect DrFleischman to stop with the socking accusations until the SPI is filed. What happens after then will depend on the behavioral evidence presented. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was merely asking for procedural advice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Neil

Thank you Neil for the correction and advise. As you can see i'm just beginning to learn my way around. I think i still need for you to show me more. Polycarp Iwodi (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Iistal block

Hi Neil, I don't agree with your block of Iistal for two reasons. First, unlike other topic bans, administrators shouldn't block for a limited duration. It's either no block or an indefinite block as the ban was a condition of Iistal being unblocked from an indefinite block. Second, Iistal should have been blocked when they violated the ban if at all. Instead, they were permitted to appeal and then blocked after the appeal failed.

I am in favor of unblocking. Obviously if they violate the ban in the future, they should be indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you block Iistal for the BLP violations before the appeal, or did you block for their complaint at ANI about the closure? If it's for the latter, i.e., for either disruption (complaining) or for appealing again (no matter what they call it) before six months had expired, then I don't have a problem with the one-month block.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Bbb23. I don't quite understand "First, unlike other topic bans, administrators shouldn't block for a limited duration." Are you talking about this specific case? Also, Iistal was not blocked for violating their topic ban. They were blocked for continuing to appeal after being told they had to wait for six months. [14], [15], [16]. The ANI post was done after they were explicitly told to stop. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine now (as I elaborated in my second comment). I'm sorry for creating an issue when no issue existed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Pretty sure I've created more unnecessary work for you in the past so we're not quite even yet :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring comments

Hi Neil, could you link me to the edit warring noticeboard discussion you mentioned in the AE discussion, I don't recall it and as you do far too much work in the Wikipedia namespace (not a criticism!!) I can't find it... Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive358#User:Genesyz_reported_by_User:EEng_(Result:_Stale)
• Talk:209 (number)
• User_talk:NeilN/Archive_41#209_again

I respect you were trying to help a new editor but your posts really did pour fuel on the fire. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that first diff probably should have earned me some kind of chocolate-coated barnstar. But they seldom give me anything like that these days, just wonderful day trips to the dramaboards. The second one, well it just goes along with the adage that all of us are equal, just some (i.e. admins) are more equal than others. I note in that discussion that I was the one on the receiving end of an NPA. From an admin. And by no means not for teh first time. But no-one mentioned (or ever does) such affronts. The final one is simply a restatement of my frustration at the ongoing inability of certain individuals (not you) to look at comments in context. Often there's a robotic quality to some of the assessments at the drama boards, and that simply doesn't map onto human behaviour. Anyhoo. Thanks for responding, I appreciate your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Anti-semitism and AE close

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.

---

Neil, did you see my new comments at the SPECIFICO AE before you closed it? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And you closed it regardless, with no comment and no action taken over the second anti-semitic comment made in the same section by another editor [17] at the Donald Trump talk page? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: If you wish these editors to be blocked for antisemitism you can post at ANI and see what the community thinks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

So more administrators can drive by and tell me that I've made a frivolous filing and wasted everyone's time because the comments are not anti-semitic in nature? Yeah, that sounds like loads of fun. Let me ask you this: do you think those kind of comments, if they were directed at African Americans or in relation to Barack Obama, and the filer was known to be Black -- would those comments be dismissed with a wave of the hand as not racist and the filer blamed and shamed from bringing them to AE or a noticeboard? I know the answer, and so do you. But let's be very clear on something: I'm not looking for blocks, that's not my purpose in objecting to the blatantly anti-semitic comments. I'm looking for someone to do something to send a message that it needs to stop, now. If blocks happen, that's not my business because I'm not an admin and I have no idea how you folks deal with this stuff in your private chat room conversations. But I do know this, as I stated at the AE just before you closed it, you have all given permission for this kind of thing to continue. You might want to re-read Niemoller's famous words at this point as a reminder. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Do I think a comment like, Obama had to play up his "blackness" to establish his black credentials with African American voters or even Obama had to play up his "blackness" to establish his black credentials with the "homeboy" voters made in the proper context would get an editor sanctioned for racism or told to stop the relevant discussion? No, I do not. Cullen328, you're good at getting to the heart of these situations. Am I missing something here? AE request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think that the phrase "unwashed Hasidic Jews" is in quite bad taste, especially when combined with words like "dumb", and another editor's "Jewdentials". In context, though, it seems to be a very clumsy and offensive attempt to speculate about Trump's thinking, as opposed to direct evidence of the editor's alleged anti-Semitism. Accordingly, I will align myself with Melanie's "shame on you" comment, and agree with NeilN's decision to close the discussion. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a convert to Judaism who once served as a synagogue board president. I could go on and on about the stubbornness of several editors of various camps in these discussions, but I will refrain. It is a reminder to me of why I tend to stay away from all things Trump on Wikipedia, although the day may come when I dive in. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  @Cullen328:What about the end result that I got a logged warning not to open frivolous requests? Do you agree with that? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, Sir Joseph, I just got an edit conflict, and was trying to address that point. I do not think your report here was "frivolous", but perhaps ill-advised. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  @NeilN:I ask you to remove the log. I don't need things used against me as usually happens in certain topic areas. AGF is a benchmark of Wikipedia and I did not open the request on a whim. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  @Sir Joseph: No, sorry, if this was your first instance doing this kind of thing I would've been inclined simply to say, "don't do this". But as I stated in the request, you've been blocked for the same type of behavior before and your ARCA appeal resulted in several Arbcom members admonishing you (example: "but accusing people of lying and throwing our "perceptions" of anti-Semitism is even more disruptive behavior" [18]). If a logged warning makes you think twice before doing the same thing again because editors will use it against you then it's doing what it's meant to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  I think you missed the point. I am pointing out that if I bring an AE action for whatever reason then someone will just use this. I think you're 100% wrong and I will not stand down from that. My action was not frivolous and I ask that you take your own advice by seeking out the advice of Cullen328. I was also not wrong in 2015 when I was blocked and I am proud to be the victim of Coffee's and Bishonen's banhammer. Using a reason of "bludgeoning" to block just means that you lost the numbers game. That's why I don't edit in many areas anymore, it's not worth the headache, as MONGO just wrote below. If that is how you want WP to be, that is fine, but it's not right. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  @Sir Joseph: I'm not sure Cullen328 looked into your past history but if he did, then I'm willing to change "frivolous" to "ill-advised" (his term) in the logged warning or consider what other wording he suggests. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC) And your block was in 2016, not 2015. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  As he said, he didn't see this request as frivolous. My past has no bearing on the current AE action and using that is just wrong. I've been at the AE page many times and even frivolous requests don't result in a log so I have no clue why you are doing this. But to the effect of editing, you just lost a couple of editors to the Trump area because of this. I already unwatched a couple of pages. To echo Melanie, Shame. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018#American_politics_2 Search for "Netoholic". And past behavior certainly plays a part with handling discretionary sanctions. Did you think admins don't look at past history when trying to figure out what to do or the appropriate length of possible sanctions? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  One block is not indicative of behavior. I opened this action in good faith. I am very troubled by your actions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  (talk page stalker) We've established that you're shocked, saddened, angered, and very troubled. No doubt we would all like to see everybody happy all the time. NeilN has responded, as is his habit, in good faith and with focus and consideration, where many would have shown less patience (including me). Your good faith does not mean people are required to see things your way. Wikipedia will never be what I want it to be, either, if that's any consolation, and I suspect that's true for pretty much all editors except those who come here for their daily fixes of chaos, conflict, and drama. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The final decision is yours, NeilN. I am somewhat familiar with Sir Joseph's past history. But I do not think this particular report rises to the level of "frivolous". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that. @NeilN:, will you please remove the logged entry? Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: The problem I have is that you still think you're right for reporting SPECIFICO for making antisemitic comments. I will strike out the logged warning but just so you know, I will block you for making personal attacks if a similar situation comes to my attention in the future. Please reply to indicate you understand this. I don't expect you to agree but you won't be able to say you weren't warned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:I understand, but I never made a personal attack and I acted in good faith. Others saw it that way and others saw it differently, that is what happens at AE but I didn't act frivolously or with bad intent. Thank you for removing that logged entry. I hope I don't see comments that require any action in the future. Perhaps if I do I'll ask Cullen328 first. (For the record, the last time I made queries about a comment, I did email three or four users to give a different perspective.) I don't wish to continue here so I will lay this to rest. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I think asking Cullen328 first is an excellent idea and kudos to you for proposing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellas. I actually think that this bit about finding a "Jewish Admin" and asking their opinion is extremely offensive and possibly anti-Semitic. Think long and hard about the assumptions and implications underlying that. @Cullen328: I forget whether Sir Joseph was the first to suggest that on the talk page or whether it was one of his comrades-in-outrage. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Blackness" is not racist just as "Jewishness" is not anti-semitic. "Jewdentials" is quite anti-semitic. Are you seriously unaware of the incident when a well-known political figure referred to New York City as "Jew York" (his name escapes me at the moment) and the fallout that ensued? Adding "Jew..." to sayings is code, a dog-whistle if you will, for anti-semitic thought and behavior. [19] Saying things like, "I jewed them down" is also anti-semitic. Such "neologisms" and colloquialisms are discriminatory in nature because they denigrate the group of people they are referencing, turning them into a punchline -- it's mockery. There's nothing kind about any of it. I'm not one to be into political correctness, but that kind of thing is just wrong and needs to be called out. Allowing it to continue gives others permission to not only do the same but build on it. It brings out the ugly in people. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

And again, context. The politician was using the term in an antisemitic manner. I doubt The Times of Israel or the Zach Feuer Gallery is antisemitic. And if you think "blackness" can't be a dog-whistle, you probably need to experience more of the world. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I added to my comments above before realizing you had responded. "Blackness" is not racist. It's a term used by Blacks and not in the same way the n-word it used by Blacks. Let's be clear on something else, I'm very well acquainted with the African-American world from a personal standpoint. I don't need to experience more of the world, I've been in it for a very long time and have much experience in many aspects of it. That's what happens when you are as "senior" as I am and have gone to war (literally). And the majority of your blood relations are not White. Please don't make assumptions. Here's some background for you on the use of the term "Blackness": [20] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: And again, you're missing my point about context (which, really, is at the heart of this entire matter). Absent a "Neil, you're being blind here" from Cullen328 or other uninvolved experienced editors, I stand by my close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Winkelvi: This is not the first time lately that I am taken aback by the aggression of your comments simply because an administrator (or editor) doesn't agree with your view of the world. Your comments here are effectively a snarky, somewhat oblique personal attack. I think the last time I criticized your comments I warned you. I'm not taking any action right now, just as I didn't take action then, but you should consider this another warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You're reading this situation and my comments here completely wrong, Bbb23. No personal attack intended at all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not misreading either. Your comment above about your personal experience as if those experiences mean you are right and everyone else is wrong have been used before. You're "senior", you know about bigotry and life, you know exactly what people mean when they say certain things that strike you as bigoted...and the list goes on. I endorse NeilN's close, and I wouldn't have the patience to listen to you go on and on and on as you have been doing...and are wont to do generally. Arguing with you is a thankless task.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I am shocked and saddened and angered that people are OK with comments that are beyond the pale. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Whose comments are you referring to? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, [21]MONGO 15:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Vaguely echoing User:Cullen328 above, the tone is disappointing but such comments are par for the course in the topic area. If we're going to sanction for this comment, we would need to impose corresponding sanctions on the vast majority of the editors who participate on the Trump pages. I am not necessarily arguing against such an outcome. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That day may come. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This was my first time I think visiting that page in a while which may explain why I was shocked by those comments. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

There is plenty of back and forth there but when I see comments such as: "Like every politician running for higher offices, it is necessary for them to establish their "Jewdentials" (my own neologism)." [22] I am done with the topic. They can have it. And I am one of the few FA level writers even attempting to keep the place neutral. I doubt I will ever take Jimbo up on his suggestion even [23]. Why should I bother?MONGO 17:35, 19 June 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.

TPI

Where do you report a userpage of a minor revealing too much personal information? The one in question is User:Lukerose2002. There are so many messageboards it's hard to keep track sometimes as to what goes where. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 16:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: Any friendly neighborhood admin's talk page or via email to an admin. Thanks for reporting. I've taken care of the situation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Vietnam again

Hello NeilN. You handled at least one previous Vietnam case, for instance Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive369#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned user(s)).

Currently at AN3 there is a new Vietnam complaint, this time about the Vietnam War article. Do you have any ideas? Full protection could be an option, though there could eventually be many articles to protect. I couldn't figure out whether the supplied diffs in the new report were actually reverts. Sending a confusing dispute over to ANI might not lead to any good result.

One option might be to warn both parties they could be blocked if they reverted again without getting prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: A bicyclette again? I recently handled a similar situation - newish editor constantly edit warring with other editors. It was always a one-on-one edit war but they were the common factor. I finally blocked them for 72 hours after the third report by a third different editor (and then they got themselves indeffed by the super-nice Anna Frodesiak). Warn both editors but we may also have to tell A bicyclette it's not a good idea to keep being brought to ANEW by different editors (two, recently) because if an admin decides they're the root cause, they could be blocked, even if they haven't violated 3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The AN3 complaint has been closed by another admin, sparing me the need to worry about it any further. Thanks for your advice, especially the part about being brought to AN3 by different editors. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops, there it is...

		The Purple Barnstar
		Wow, since I spoke to you earlier, you've been avalanched with hideous retribution on a number of fronts. Fair play to you sticking with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus Required

Hi NeilN. I reverted an edit [24] on Khan Shaykhun chemical attack because it was restored without consensus after being reverted, and the article says Consensus Required. It's listed on the talk page [[25]] and on WP:GS/SCW and I think it was added by you on 27 April 2017. User:Stikkyy implies there's no restriction [26] and User:Volunteer Merak outright says it doesn't exist in his edit summary [27]. Instead of showing them consensus IS required or warning them you protected the page making it so I can't undo the edit. Why? 199.127.56.88 (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Because there's been a lot of reverts by IPs and precious little (one (and that was of little use)) talk page posts by them. Consensus-required requires editors to actually work towards a consensus on the talk page - not just come by every couple days and revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

AE and that discussion

Just so you don't miss it at WP:AE, regarding this discussion. It took place between May 23th and 24th. Obviously I didn't participate in it. In fact, I didn't participate in any discussion on Donald Trump during this time, as you can easily check by searching for my username in that archive. You can also check my history for the period between May 14th and May 29th or so and see that I only made a few edits at the time. I was in fact travelling outside of United States, had only sporadic access to the internet and was not following this topic area at all. And I did try to check for previous versions and discussion before I made that particular edit but I guess I used the wrong search terms or something because this one didn't pop up. So yeah, I missed that discussion and if I had been aware of it I would not have made that edit. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sanctions

So, I can’t add actual facts that got deleted by someone. Please, this went on the news and I’m not letting the news seem fake. If someone is deleting facts and adding fake facts, I’m smart enough the save the actual facts tho, I want wiki to have the best info out there and I don’t want to start a editing war. It all started with these sanctions. I added a copyrighted page, Well my bad, but for someone to delete ACTUAL facts before is absurd. I demand to locked that page and please remove the sanctions, because I’m trying to help. I’m waiting for a response. Ok then... Prime2k (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Prime2k: I responded on your talk page. You need to discuss on the article's talk page. Work with other editors to see what can be kept from your addition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for updating Peter Fonda's page. Let's memorialize that. Trinalgrant (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Calton close

Good close; I had serious concern that Calton was going to be railroaded (at the prodding of SPAs and meatpuppets) over relatively minor (and often questionable) incivility claims when the WP:CCPOL are the more important issue. This also has implications for various "we'll nail their ass eventually" actions against SPECIFICO. Both of these peeps need to take WP:HOTHEADS to heart (seriously – I wrote it about my own behavior and learning past it, ca. 2008–2014 – when I took a similarly kind of explosive approach to PoV pushers). But their actual hearts are in the right place when it comes to this project's central goals for its audience.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thanks. Good essay. I've kept myself out of trouble all these years when things get hot by following one simple rule: Assume my post is going to be brought up at ANI/AN/Arbcom. If I think about that before clicking Publish, then I'm certainly not going to be making any personal attacks or cheap shots (the occasional sarcastic comment slips through). I want other editors to focus on the content/behavior I'm objecting to in these cases, not my own behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a point worth integrating directly into the essay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Done [28].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For many constructive edits, often done without recognition. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Bloody hell, don't encourage him!!! :p  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Yes, I might actually write a second article some day. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki-cookie

Having a party tonight and sharing a cookie with you for your help over the years

.

I hit twenty four thousand edits tonight and became a senior editor on Wikipedia. Thank for your help over the years. -O.R.^Comms 03:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Your Admin Statistics

I noticed that some of your statistics shows spams of sixes. Did you made that or somebody vandalized it? INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 16:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(tpw) It was vandalized. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

blind reverts, tag teaming, the usual

NeilN, can you take a look at this revert by User:Icewhiz. It's obvious he didn't even bother to read what he was reverting. His edit summary is about something completely different than what he's actually reverting. So, like literally, it's a "blind revert". It's pretty obvious he's just making reverts to support his tag team partner who for some reason also brought up a non-existent RfC about a different issue in their edit summary [29].

And it's quite amazing how quickly the two of them jump in to revert on each other's behalf [30].

This is pretty obvious disruptive behavior. I mean, if you gonna start an edit war, you should at least read what you're reverting. So it's WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TEND and WP:TAGTEAM and all that other stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

What is disruptive here is attempting to introduce a poorly crafted sentence to the lede, which has been clearly objected to (with refuting sources!) in Talk:Żegota#Only country with secret aid structure. Instead of following WP:BRD and building consensus on the talk page, VM is edit warring this content in (first added by GCB on 21 June). Concurrently to this counter factual sentence in the lede (with "government support" = funding per most possible meanings of government support) - we have an open RfC on funding (where supporters have been following BRD - after having this well sourced addition rejected by (mainly) VM, we opened a RfC here).

As for tag teaming, WP:HOUNDING has stronger evidence per this interaction diff (VM has recently decided to edit ARBPIA too, e.g. Ahed Tamimi interaction, Duma Arson attack, Human rights in Israel, Death of Mistafa Tamimi- though the main intersection is in Polish issues).Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

No, what is disruptive is reverting someone's edit without even bothering to look at it, which is clearly what happened since your edit summary is about a completely different issue. And all your weak attempts at trying to reflect, deflect and change the subject don't change the fact that that's exactly what you did. You could show some good faith by self-reverting your blind revert and staying away from the article for some time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "blind revert" - I have been discussing the sources presented for this lede sentence for the past two days, and have provided counter sources and refuting sources. "Government supported" is in many cases equivalent to funding. Some of the journal article sources I presented show a possibly opposite relationship (that more funds were diverted by the gvmt from Jewish provided funds to Zegota than the rather small gvmt in exile contributions to Zegota).Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary was about a completely different issue. You had no idea what you were reverting. Now you're scrambling to make up some BS excuse ("well, gee, if you think about it, then "support" is same as "funding" so it's sorta similar"... except you EXPLICITLY referred to a NON EXISTENT RFC!). Your inability to admit your mistake and back down is just more proof that you have no intention of stopping your disruptive behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear Talk:Żegota#RfC on Żegota funding. The "government support" sentence was added to the lede after the RfC was opened. And instead of a civil discussion (keeping the newly added challenged out of the article and retaining the prior stable version), VM has been reverting this in.Icewhiz (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)::::Your edit summary was about a completely different issue. You had no idea what you were reverting. Now you're scrambling to make up some BS excuse ("well, gee, if you think about it, then "support" is same as "funding" so it's sorta similar"... except you EXPLICITLY referred to a NON EXISTENT RFC!). Your inability to admit your mistake and back down is just more proof that you have no intention of stopping your disruptive behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz's removal and edit summary. consensus for this counter factual lede sentence introdcuced aftermthe RfC was opened. As RSes show Zegota was mainly funded by Jewish organzations, and the Polish underground state did not pass much of the Jewish funding to Zegota - some transfers disappeared all togethers, others diminished by ann artificial exchange rate

Material removed

Poland was the only country in German-occupied Europe where such a government-established and -supported underground organization existed

Sources supporting the material removed:-

• Partly funded by the government-in-exile, Zegotas came too late to save most yet it proved indispensa bvle in supporting thousands of Jews primarily in Warsaw, by prviding hiding places . .food, medical care, and financial support. . .It is rightly a source of pride in Poland that Zegota was the only organisation of its kind in Europe.(Martin Winstone, Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi Rule in Poland under the General Government, I.B.Tauris 2014 p.181. )

• The Polish government in exile was dedicated to rescuing Jewish victims of German genocidal policies in occupied Poland. It was code-named Zegota. It saved thousands of Jewish lives. Zegota was unique in all of German-occupied Europe.'(Iwo Pogonowski, Jews in Poland: A Documentary History, Hippocrene Books. 1993 p.29)

• '(Zegota)’s fundamental aim was was the common cause of saving Jews in danager fro m Nazis, and in this Poland was the only country in Nazi-occupied Europe where such an organization, run jointly by Jews and non Jews from a wide range of poòlitical movements, existed.'(Paul R. Bartrop, Michael Dickerman (eds.) The Holocaust: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO 2017 p.737)

This (alas, once more) has all of the appearance of an open and shut case, Icewhiz, of you once more using a personal opinion about the inadequacy of strong sources, to remove what they indiosputably state. One never removes such strong sources. The edit ignores the usual obligatory move (Adding ‘It is often regarded as’ and then clarifying in the main body of the text questions raised by the claim ), preferring to send down the memory hole a reliably documented view. The talk page on this is unreadable. Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not even about the removal of well sourced materials. I mean, that's bad too, but it's pretty much par for the course for Icewhiz, and he's been getting away with this stuff for months. Here the problem is even worse - his edit summary has NOTHING to do with the actual text he reverted. Which clearly shows that he didn't even bother to read what he was reverting. He just saw who made an edit (me) and jumped in to edit war, doing a blind revert. It's classic WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: These sources do not match the text added - for instance - they omit the joint Jewish-Polish aspect of Zegota (per Bartop). Pogonowski is a popular source, and Poland specific (so not a good source for "Poland is the only..."). And all Winstone says is "one of a kind" (which is true - for all the particular here - there were other aid organizations - e.g. Œuvre de secours aux enfants, Slovakian "Working Group", or Browning, Christopher R. "From Humanitarian Relief to Holocaust Rescue: Tracy Strong Jr., Vichy Internment Camps, and the Maison des Roches in Le Chambon." Holocaust and Genocide Studies 30.2 (2016): 211-246. Group rescue, the third form, was carried out by organizations such as Żegota in Poland or Varian Fry's Emergency Rescue Committee in southern France. These organizations were created explicitly for the purpose of helping Jews and other victims of Nazism. - equating Varian Fry#Emergency Rescue Committee with Żegota). And it ain't that simple - as the Polish government skimmed funds from donations to Zegota:

1. Moreover, within the narrative of Polish assistance to Jews in the public space surrounding the MHPJ, there is no mention of the significant participation of Jews in Żegota, nor is there any information about their involvement in the much more extensive rescue of Jews outside of Żegota. There is nothing about funding Żegota with the money of American, British, and Palestinian Jews. There is no information about how often the money – transferred to occupied Poland via the Polish underground state channels – never reached Żegota or were paid to Żegota in Polish zlotys, according to the official German rate instead of the much higher black market one.14 There is no trace of the reflections of Jan Karski, which I quoted above. There is no trace of Irena Sendler’s explicit objection to being used as an instrument of the Polish politics of memory Janicka, Elżbieta. "The Square of Polish Innocence: POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw and its symbolic topography." East European Jewish Affairs 45.2-3 (2015): 200-214.
2. Then, there is the question of the Council for Aid to Jews (Żegota), which was establishedand exploited by the Polish Underground State for propaganda and financial purposes. At the same time, its organizational possibilities were restricted and, with them, its scope for action (Urynowicz, 2009). From the Museum’s explanation, we learn that both Żegota and the Jewish National Committee (Żydowski Komitet Narodowy, ŻKN) were co-financed by the Polish government-in-exile, whereas in reality it was the other way around. The money from Jewish organizations was only partly forwarded to Żegota and the ŻKN. The rest subsidized the coffers of the Polish administration. There is no information about how often the money – transferred to occupied Poland via Polish Underground State channels – failed to reach Żegota for other than objective reasons or was paid to Żegota in Polish zlotys according to the official German rate instead of the much higher black market rate. Janicka, Elżbieta. "The embassy of Poland in Poland: The Polin Myth in the Museum of the History of Polish Jews (MHPJ) as narrative pattern and model of minority-majority relations." Studia Litteraria et Historica 5 (2016).

The merits of this sentence (in the lede!) - for an organization which was exploited for funds by the Polish government - are very much in question.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This is NOT about a content dispute (though you're in the wrong on that too). This is about you blind reverting text you didn't even bother reading, as is clear as day from your edit summary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

'These sources do not match the text added - for instance - they omit the joint Jewish-Polish aspect of Zegota (per Bartop).'

So? Your other option was simply to rewrite:

Poland was the only country in German-occupied Europe where such a government-established and -supported underground organization, one run by Jews and non-Jews, existed.'

To repeat, you ignored all normal options and went for erasure, nuking excellent sources. I've had my say. That's it. Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Clarification for Icewhiz sadly misleading comment: None of the other organizations were in Occupied Europe (one was in Vichy France, other in Nazi Slovak Republic (1939–1945) a client state and third in was Palestine) Janicka is not a historian (she is an artist)[31]. Please google translate here wiki page, she mostly works as a photographer (exhibits described) and essayist, she is not a Holocaust scholar or historian. This information is correct. Detailed discussion and explanation reg. this here -->[32] Please note that Ice is already aware of all of this but continues using the same arguments. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, for joint Jewish-Polish aspect claim, information removed by Ice was sourced to this:

• 3- Bartrop, Paul R.; Dickerman, Michael (2017-09-15). The Holocaust: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection [4 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 737. ISBN 9781440840845. Poland was the only country in Nazi-occupied Europe where such an organization, run jointly by Jews and non-Jews from a wide range of political movements existed and reference quoted.[[33]] GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Janicka, is Elżbieta Janicka is a historian of literature, cultural anthropologist, photographer, MA at the Université Paris VII Denis Diderot (1994); PhD at Warsaw University (2004). Author of the following books: Sztuka czy Naród? Monografia pisarska Andrzeja Trzebińskiego [Art or the Nation? On Andrzej Trzebiński’s Literary Output] (Kraków: Universitas, 2006) and Festung Warschau (Warsaw: Krytyka Polityczna, 2011), an analysis of the symbolic topography of the former area of the Warsaw Ghetto. Currently working at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences. per Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History. NeilN - my apologies this got to your talk page!Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, all, take this to the talk page. Points have been made, and this is not a forum for replaying what has already played out there. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a place for discussing content issue. This is about Icewhiz blind-reverting in an edit war without bothering to even read what he was reverting in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GAME. His edit summary is about a completely different discussion then the text he's reverting. He references a non-existent RfC. He actually seems to have no idea what he's reverting. Just WHO he is reverting. This a clear cut violation of both usual Wikipedia policy (WP:BATTLEGROUND) and the relevant discretionary sanctions on these articles. And to put it plainly, it's just JERKish behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

No, my revert clearly addressed the content - which I was discussing in Talk:Żegota#Only country with secret aid structure. While the present pushed text is an improvement (initially - it was in outright WP:HOAX territory - diff - as there were other countries with secret aid structures), it is still UNDUE, with POV porblems, and misrepresents the wider sources. It definitely shouldn't be in the lede prior to being in the body - and trying to push this into the lede is a run around the open Talk:Żegota#RfC on Żegota funding - funding being clearly related to government support.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

False nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Now this is exactly the thing you accused me of doing, that I didn't do. I asked for NeilN's opinion on the breadth of a newly-enacted policy; you started an entire ANE discussion on his talk page. You have some nerve! François Robere (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, it's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I also want to note that this revert (taking out material that was present in the article for a couple of months, and returning poor PRIMARY sources which were removed more than month prior - rolling back the article to what seems like an interim state from May 19 + some other removals) - is an outright WP:BLP violation. Beyond using WP:BLPPRIMARY sources (from a prosecuting body that has severe reputation problems in general, and was criticized in this case in particular) - VM also removed the fact that the investigation itself was closed against the BLP in 2008.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You're trying to distract (ineffectually) from the fact that you got cold stone busted doing blind reverts without even checking what you were reverting. You and FR both actually. How about we address that first, then we can talk about other stuff? You haven't even been able to admit that you screwed up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

My revert was not "blind" - this was a single sentence that was contested on the talk page. As for this blind revert by VM - rolling back an article on 23 June to a state on 22 May - introducing several BLP issues on the way (removing coverage in secondary academic sources, returning a prosecuting agency's documents in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, and removing the rather pertinent information that this "contemptible farce" (per an academic source) was closed in 2008).Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary clearly indicates that you had no idea what you were reverting. That's like the definition of a blind revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

plagiarised pic

Hi..these pics appear to have been plagiarised.. they r of very low size/resolution and have been mentioned as Own Work, which isnt possible for such low size/resolution. In description it's not mentioned that these pics r of which place. Plz delete them...Im asking u to delete as u r a Wiki admin. Thanks. 171.77.148.223 (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Those files are on Wikimedia Commons not the English Wikipedia. You would have to ask an admin at Commons. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you're sure they've been copied when it just as, if not more, likely that the photographer cropped the photos before uploading them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Neil - just looked at the Commons uploads and the images are properly licensed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering...

How long is a week in WP time? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: If you're asking because of "consensus-required", I usually take four to six weeks as longstanding. I've said in the past that if editors want to reduce that timeframe on certain article, I would be amenable to that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think she is referring to the AE close. PackMecEng (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, PackMecEng. @Atsme: The close was different than what I originally proposed in that it only mentioned the Donald Trump article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil - but still wondering how long is a week in WP terms? Is it 5 days or 7? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Seven days. Nothing - blocks, article protects, requested move discussions, etc. - considers a week as five days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Good to know - down with the 5 day business week!!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Ingise

This is a vandal knowingly inserting false information to the page of Once Upon a Time character Emma Swan. The user tries inserting a SwanQueen (a ship pairing Swan with Regina Mills, the Evil Queen) slant to the article, overriding canon, and has been reverted by multiple users and yet she keeps coming back. I'm enlisting your help to handle it and point me to appropriate message templates regarding this to her talkpage--Harmony944 (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Harmony944: Judging from their past editing history, they're not going to stop until they're blocked so I've blocked them and told them to use the talk page or face an indefinite block next time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi talk

Hello NeilN. RE: [34] I presume you are aware that the nasty header of that follow-on section "Warning/threat_issued" was added by Winkelvi after I posted a simple follow-up post, below the thread he had preemptively closed, to point out that, while he harped on the article-talk move and header change, he had not addressed the more serious issue of his false accusations against me. He declined to discuss or reverse the CRYBLP stuff, including after I showed him ample RS sources that support use of that term on a talk page. The only reason there's a second "follow-on" thread on Winkelvi's talk is because of his preemptive "close" of the first discussion, which he alone prolonged and turned hostile by declining to acknowledge the central issue and throwing back additional baseless accusations toward me.

I know you are involved in dozens or hundreds of pages and issues, but you may recall that Winkelvi is one of a small group of Politics editors who have been hounding me with increasingly extreme and unsupportable complaints at various message boards. I would have been required to notify Winkelvi had I proceeded to an AE complaint for his renewed personal attack against me, and under the circumstances -- although I think I understand what you were saying in your follow-up remarks -- I would think we're all better off with direct warnings and pings to those involved rather than the immediate AE filing and only that after the fact notification on the offending editor's talk page.

It is entirely possible that your final comment in the second thread will be taken as enablement and possibly even cited as "evidence" by Winkelvi in the future. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Warning editors about their behavior is good if they're new to Wikipedia or the area but some point these warnings can be seen as crossing into harassment. You don't like being being chastised - "One revert is not an edit war. Next false disparagement from you will be prosecuted" - the same goes for other editors. You can assume that all the "regulars" have been adequately warned. In the future, I suggest you follow through on your own warning and escalate to a formal setting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

/* mestizos */

Good evening,

The user above is falsifying information from the CIA which clearly states that the said percentage is European and Mestizo and erasing the fact that it is Mestizo. I ask for your collaboration in getting to grips with the issue, and your support as if you see the CIA page it clearly states the two groups: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html Demographics of ArgentinaDemographics_of_Argentina Thank you--WikiJuan (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiJuan, you and Leonina666444 are now both blocked for violating WP:3RR. When the blocks expire, use the article's talk page and discuss the matter in English with each other and other interested editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

Steeletrap continues to edit war in violation of 1RR (and other policies) at Richard B. Spencer. Edit 1, edit 2. This disruption has gone on long enough and is gone way beyond the point of isolated violations and into the realm of systematic edit warring, BLP violations, POV pushing, and ignoring all input from other editors on the talk page. They've received many warnings and second chances. I hope you'll do something about this. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I also think the article should be rolled back to the last stable version and full protected. The talk page is littered with unresolved discussions that have been ignored while Steeletrap has edited with abandon. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Before you do that, you may want to consider DrFleischman's failed attempts to convince anyone at WP:AE about his POV, as well as here and here. --Calton | Talk 04:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Steeletrap's edits were slightly over 24 hours apart so no violation of WP:1RR there. Two editors have supported their edits. You need to stop seeking admin intervention so quickly to solve a content dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I identified the wrong arbitration remedy. They were reinstatement of content without consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've removed the page from my watchlist. In my years here I've never seen such systematic BLP violations and disruption, both in the article and on the talk page. However it's not my job to police it. I suggest you keep a closer eye on that page. Just a suggestion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The page does not appear to be under consensus required. PackMecEng (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: As PackMecEng says, there is no consensus-required restriction for that article. If it hasn't been done, a post to WP:BLPN asking for editors to keep an eye on the article might be helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for pointing that out. It's not just BLP issues, but sure. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction?

This comment at a current AE, "I would caution Rusf10 against expressing his personal views about the work of living people so forcefully (diff 1) and to take care when summarizing other editors' views (diff 2)" seems to be in direct contradiction to dismissing the expression of personal views that include use of the slur, "jewdentials". I'm not trying to make an issue of this, just trying to understand why you seem to believe one is okay (an anti-semitic slur) and the other isn't (expressing an opinion about whether or not an opinion piece is a biased opinion piece). One is very inflammatory while the other isn't. At all. Can you help me understand where you're coming from? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: "work of living people". And quit portraying other editors' comments out of context or I'll start looking at blocks for disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

In all honesty, that is not what I'm doing. I'm conveying how I see the comments and am asking for clarification. Not everyone reads text on a computer screen without benefit of facial expression and vocal inflection the way the writer intended their comments to be read and understood. My Asperger's frequently prevents me from understanding context when viewed on a computer screen without further explanation, illustration, or context. Hopefully you now better understand where I'm coming from and why. Disruption has no part in what I'm asking you (or another admin in another discussion). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I've said over and over again that this issue is about context. If your Asperger's prevents you from understanding context in this situation then you need to drop the matter. Remember there are two parties here - yourself and the editor who made the comment. It's not acceptable that they are repeatedly accused of making an antisemitic comment if you cannot understand the context surrounding the comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm merely trying to understand how, in your eyes, one is acceptable and one isn't. Is it your personal opinion? Is it policy? Is it something you're seeing but I'm not? Once again...just trying to get where you are coming from. I've always had respect for you as an admin and editor, and that includes your assessment and opinion on Wikipedia matters where editor conflict is taking place. I'm asking because I sincerely want to know - just trying to make some logical sense out of it. Is it wrong to ask? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I've encountered the assertion that the phrase "jewdentials" is an antisemitic slur a couple of times now on drama boards and Neils TP, and I've not said anything thus far because it's none of my business.

But eventually it gets old, and so I now would like to point out that google disagrees with you. There are all of three different sources in which to find someone using some variation of that term on the internet: This discussion (including various mirrors of it), a rather mocking send up of implicitly antisemitic speakers at a debate pulling the old "but some of my best friends are jews!" line (sound familiar?) by a German-writing nightlife reporter and an explicitly Jewish, explicitly pro-Israel blogger. With only three sources, it can hardly be argue that the term has a history of being associated with antisemitism the way triple parentheses or the over-use of the term "goyim" do.

Furthermore, the usage in all cases is clear: "jewdentials" refers to facts which a person can cite in order to argue that they are not antisemitic or are actually Jewish (or -based on normal English usage of similar phrases- possibly that they resemble Jewish stereotypes, though I've yet to see this use). The blogger uses it to refer to himself humorously, as well as to refer to implicitly antisemitic people. The German-writing nightlife reporter uses it to refer to implicitly antisemitic people. So if anything, it's an accusation of antisemitism, not antisemitic itself.

So I don't know what the problem is, unless there are editors taking offense at any use of the word "jew" as a prefix, which is -frankly- so unbelievably thin-skinned that it border on social incompetence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No need to comment on editors or their social competence. I was asking seriously in an effort to better understand something. The factual information you provided above is helpful. Veering from that and going after other editors who genuinely see use of the term offensive is not helpful at all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let me expound upon the last bit to make myself clear, since you apparently only saw a personal attack and not anything resembling constructuve criticism: A person who consistently behaves with such an extreme sensitivity to offense with no self-reflection upon the effects of their outrage is likely to end up being a net negative to this project, regardless of any benefits they bring. This is because one simply cannot engage such an editor in good faith without worrying what will "set them off" and bending over backwards to avoid it (and it bears pointing out that trying to predict what will offend easily offended people is an exercise in futility).

What was unsaid but really should have been read into that comment was that pointing this out now, directly to said editor in lieu of seeking sanctions intended to to prevent any such future disruptions is an attempt to help said editor come to grips with the reality of continued pushing for redress of said offense before it becomes a commonly held belief on this site that sanctions against them would be to the benefit of this project.

In other words: I don't think you're so immature that you can't deal with a non-Jewish person using "Jew" in an off-handed way, so please stop acting like you are. Your interpretation of this remark as antisemitic has, to the best of my knowledge, been dismissed, and so you are now in a hole and would be best served by behaving accordingly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)+(edit conflict) I have lots of respect for both of you, so allow me to try and explain how I see both points of view here. Winkelvi compares controversial talk page remarks by two editors and sees a double standard, probably because he feels the "jewdentials" neologism is strongly offensive whereas criticism of the Cutler study as "garbage" looks milder. NeilN retorts from the point of view of Wikipedia policy, whereby the neologism was addressing politicians in general, whereas criticism of the study was addressed to a particular person who happens to be alive and the subject of a BLP article. Hope this helps. — JFG ^talk 15:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to the discussion, JFG. I will consider what you've said. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• One comment on Jewdentials and why it was wrong in this page is that because the original poster wanted to put in Israeldentials but it obviously didn't fit so he used Jewdentials. Many people find it wrong to assume Israel and Jews are one and the same. Just something to think about. Being supportive of Israel is not the same as being supportive of Jews and being Jewish doesn't necessarily mean support of Israel, etc. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Conflating Israel and Jewishness is not antisemitic. It's dumb, but not antisemitic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, although it can be depending on context, possibly. But in this case I think it was just dumb. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) *@JFG: Some good points but MPants at work was closer to the mark. The use of the neologism can be antisemitic or not, depending on the context. Kind of like how the n--- word is extremely offensive except in certain situations (which have expanded in scope recently).

• White supremacist: "X is meeting with a group of Hollywood execs. Hope he has his Jewdentials in order!" - antisemitic.
• Political commentator: "X, who has never expressed an opinion on the Palestine-Israel conflict before, is meeting with [Jewish lobby group]. Probably to establish his Jewdentials before next week's election." Perhaps not politically correct, but not antisemitic either as the commentator is conveying his thoughts about the politician's perceived hypocrisy and cynicism.

• For Cutler, accusing an academic of publishing fringe theories without providing proof is BLP-problematic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: We agree on the BLP aspects. I have no opinion on the perceived offensiveness of either remark, and I respect Winkelvi's right to be offended as well as your right to consider such comments reasonable. I also agree with MPants that the matter should be closed, as several people have explained to Winkelvi why insisting further is counter-productive. — JFG ^talk 17:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)FWIW (and since I'm already here), I agree with your conclusions about the BLP issue re. Cutler. Using bigoted language generally reflects poorly only upon the person using it (assuming for the sake of argument that "jewdentials" is unambiguously bigoted, which I've already shown is spurious), whereas accusations of incompetence are often taken at face value. There's a very good reason that calling someone incompetent can get you sued, but calling them a racial epithet generally cannot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Anthonyrussano

Sorry, Neil; I didn't see your question on User talk:Anthonyrussano until I had already revoked talkpage access. If you want an answer to what you asked, you may want to restore tpa. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: They should thank you for revoking TPA as they were quickly headed for an indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Coming to that page from a different article, I have to wonder at what exactly the point was. I imagine it played out like this in their mind:

Admin: Why should I unblock you?
Anthony: Penis!
Admin Oh! My delicate sensibilities have been grossly offended by this incredibly lifelike ASCII depiction of a penis! I will be upset for days!
Anthony: That's what you get...

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Seriously? That's what B===D is supposed to represent? Wouldn't have guessed that in a million years. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd use a good font and give it a 90° rotation just to show you exactly, but I'm not 12 and haven't been for a long time.

I'm sure your imagination isn't that bad, anyways. If he really wanted to be witty, he should have made one out of beans instead of ASCII characters. That would have been impressive just for the hint of creativity (usually absent from dick jokes), and would have at least had the potential to offend someone. (Feel free to revdel this comment before someone gets any ideas.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention that it wasn't on account of my delicate sensibilities that I revoked tpa. By the time I saw the unblock request, the user had already changed it.[35] Bishonen | talk 22:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC).

I never thought that for a second. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

More blind reverting

Hi Neil, I'm sure you're sick of hearing it but the situation is getting a bit out of hand. Above I notified you of an instance where User:Icewhiz jumped in to make blind reverts at Zegota where he didn't even bother reading what he was reverting (his edit summary is about a completely different issue than his revert!)

He's now doing the same at Koniuchy massacre - [36] [37]. He's jumping in between my edits when it's obvious that I am in the process of making piece by piece changes (since I don't want to blind revert myself). He ignored me asking him to give me time to work on it [38] and even removed the "In Use" tag I added [39].

This is creating edit conflicts and makes editing difficult. Worse, it appears to be an attempt by Icewhiz to cause me to "revert" (not really) by quickly inserting his edit in between my successive edits, so that he can then leverage that, I presume, for sanction-shopping. This is probably why he tagged my talk page [40].

Can you please tell him to desist with this practice as it violates WP:BATTLEGROUND and also explain to him - again - that a series of edits which could have been made as one edit do not count as multiple reverts?

Like I said, the blind reverting by Icewhiz is really getting out of hand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear - I am not blind reverting - I read each and every change by VM, and retained constructive ones. VM did not achieve consensus for his changes on the talk-page - where this is being discussed. He has also introduced highly questionable sources - e.g. added this - a non-English language popular-audience website by (probably) this person (masters degree - various education and tour guide professional experience). while removing English language academic sources that cover this in depth - for instance - this soruce - a University of Nebraska Press academic book written by an established scholar and edited by an established scholar. Instead of discussing his changes after being challenged (by myself - and others) - VM has been re-reverting.Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

" I read each and every change by VM, and retained constructive ones." - that is obviously false with your edits at Zegota [41] since your edit summary justifies your revert by invoking an RfC that has nothing to do with the text you're reverting. It's also not true at Koniuchy massacre since your edits removed simple formatting and wiki links, simple grammatical changes as well as instances in which I provided sources for "citation needed" tags. You literally reverted everything.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I've made precisely two reverts. In one I returned info after reverting. In the simpler one - [42] + ref fix I reverted with retaining the ref fix. If we are speaking of blind reverts - then I fixed a source's language from Hebrew to English, however when VM reverted - he flipped the language back from English to Hebrew - a counterfactual change - an error that remains in the last version of the article as I post this. In any event - I intend to discuss this on the article talk's page.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

And now a strange IP has arrived to help out Icewhiz with his edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The IP is not a fan of yours. I've warned them. However I do not think you can reasonably expect an inuse tag to stop other editors from allowing you to edit disputed content freely if they have objections. Icewhiz is using the talk page so the normal dispute resolution mechanisms need to be followed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: that IP is the same as this person [43]? Note this rationale in a different discussion, where they quote an obscure Wikipedia guideline. Hell, I had to look up what "MEDRS" was and I've been here awhile. Obviously not a new user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Note the inuse tag was added after this removal (of over 25% of the contents of the article) was challenged for the first time.Icewhiz (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You've been mentioned

although not by name here. Comments on the Tim Hayward article. Doug Weller talk 08:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for letting me know. I will be putting in my two cents there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The criticisms continue. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Response --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

‎Made me laugh

I planned to block him indefinitely, but the stupid dropdown having such big options that the top of the list was hidden, it was easy to click "Other" instead. I figured a century-long block would work just as well as an indefinite :-)

The problem, both with this and with deletion, is that the dropdown's so huge and thus much less useful than the old. I've been doing much less deletion and much less blocking since they gave us this bad new interface for these purposes. Nyttend (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Skylax30

• Skylax30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi NeilN. Skylax30 was blocked for 48 hours a few days ago for warring on articles of people of Albanian origin (Souliotes, Arvanites etc). Since the block expired, they have been involved in disruptive editing in several articles (Skanderbeg, Gjon Kastrioti). The aim of their edits on those articles seems to be replacing current names of Albanian historical figures, claiming that the said figures were not Albanians. Several editors have tried to make them reason, but the thing is Skylax30 takes every advice in a wrong way. Skylax30 has gone as far as to accuse two Greek editors for being pro-Albanian and anti-Greek. They have two blocks on their block log on the English Wikipedia, and some 20 blocks on their block log on the Greek Wikipedia. In the last 24 hours alone they have been warned/criticized on their talk page by three different editors. You have placed a message on their talk page before, and have experience in Balkans matters, can you place some advice on their talk page again? They need to calm down and read Wikipedia' policies on reliable sources, consensus and good faith before they try to make constructive changes to delicate articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991: I agree that the edit pattern and edits of Skylax30 are problematic, and I would appreciate help from NeilN to explain them how Wikipedia works. I have, however, a question for Ktrimi: You say that Skylax30 "accuse two Greek editors for being pro-Albanian and anti-Greek". I have found one editor accused of this, namely me. Am I one of your "two Greek editors"? If that is the case, can you explain how you deduce that I am a Greek editor? Regards! --T*U (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I was talking about two other editors. They reverted Skylax30 on one or more articles and Skylax30 reacted angrily. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course you agree. But you'd better go to the relevant talk pages and explain why in english WP, certain persons have to be given albanian names. Especially if those persons never used those forms of names.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Skylax30: You've already had two blocks in recent months for editing in this area. I'm looking at your reverts on Skanderbeg and wondering if a topic ban would be a better solution. Following WP:BRD is key if you want to edit in this area. Use talk pages to engage editors objecting to your changes. @Ktrimi991: It would help the process if you briefly laid out your objections on the talk page when you write "Rv. Take to the talk page". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. Those edit summaries of mine are probably a bad habit copied from other Balkan editors. Balkan editors generally are not a good example for newbies. I note that Skylax30 was already told by other editors to not use those sources, hence my edit summary. Anyways, I am going to stay away from these disputes for some time, as it is summer and I want to create some new articles which Wikipedia strangely lacks. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Lipulekh Pass

@NeilN, Kautilya3, and Ponyo: Please take a look at Lipulekh Pass page. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jakichandan. What do you want admins to look at here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello @NeilN:. It seems another admin has already addressed the issue. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you glance at

This (2001:8003:3895:3A00:38B8:7B3F:D7D6:625E) chap's work at Skunk (weapon), Neil. Appears to require blocking. Sorry for the bother. Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Not as straightforward as it seems. The added material was not about the Arab-Israeli conflict so I'm reluctant to block for that (plus the editor wasn't warned about DS). However, the snide comment in the addition was obviously unencyclopedic (the same material is covered encyclopedically in the body) and so I've blocked for disruption. I've also ECP'd the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that: I really should, after 12 years, master the finer points. All I note in edits like that is the POV enmity (subtext: Indians can put up with being sprayed by shit, so why do 'Pallies' kick up a fuss, etc). Actually the text, though I think The Irish Times thrives on this tabloid type of muckthrowing spin against the third world and the Palestinians (two birds with the one stone here), can be introduced, regardless of the instrumental use of it by the IP, so I will duly restore it. Thanks again. Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a AE note

I don't really want to get involved at AE if I can help it but I would like to point out with the JAMA stuffs. It was brought up at RSN here where it was found mostly unreliable for the claim, it was also brought up at at project medicine here finding a similar result. Last the source was not JAMA but JAMA forum, their opinion side with no editorial oversight. Then after that the EPA disputed the claims in the paper. If you think it would be better to post this at AE I will otherwise take from it what you will. PackMecEng (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: The IP at RSN had a good point: "The source not being properly represented in the article does not mean it's unreliable - simply means that further discussion should take place on the article talk page to resolve the issue." There's a fair distance between not meeting Wikipedia sourcing requirements and being "garbage". For example, WP:MEDRS states, "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." A NY Times article covering a new cancer treatment does not meet this standard. But you can't simply dismiss it as garbage as you could a National Enquirer piece trumpeting a cancer cure. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not disagree that the characterisation of garbage was inappropriate, but that the source was unreliable for how it purposed to be used. PackMecEng (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: And Rusf10 is free to argue that without arguing a piece he personally disagrees with is garbage and a fringe theory. As I said at AE, that is POV editing (similar to when an Indian editor dismisses out of hand all works by Pakistani scholars) and that kind of editing will get you topic banned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the help. PackMecEng (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a side note, there have been some places that dispute the report. "The EPA dismissed the essay as rhetoric, not research, in a statement provided to Bloomberg News"[44] PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Yes, I read that before my post. Please re-read what I wrote and please read what the EPA stated and the results of Bloomberg's followup. The EPA (or any other organization) can label a peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Science "politically-biased mumbo-jumbo". It does not mean they're disputing the facts - just that they don't like them or the study. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure where everyone is getting that it is peer reviewed when every source I see explicitly states "is an essay and not a peer-reviewed study"[45][46][47] and confusing JAMA (journal) with JAMA Forum. Am I reading the situation wrong? I have no doubt it is a piece by two experts in the field, and their opinions are certainly valide and do not exclude them as a source. But when it is said to be JAMA rather than JAMA forum and said to be peer reviewed that seems to misrepresent what it actually is. Again I appreciate your patience with me here, and it is more for my own knowledge than anything else. PackMecEng (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: I addressed that at AE. "The editors who supported inclusion of the text may have overstated their case, conflating editorial review and discretion with peer review..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:GAME and WP:BATTLEGROUND by Icewhiz

I told you here that this is exactly what he was trying to do.

This is blatant gaming. And the sheer dishonesty of that report is frankly, astounding.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations by Icewhiz, WP:TEND, misrepresentations of sources

This section is a discussion about an article, published in something called the IPN Bulletin by the historian pl:Kazimierz Krajewski. The source can be found here (the 2.82 MB Pdf at the bottom). Needless to say Icewhiz does not like this source as is obvious from his comments, and he's been removing it from the article - despite the fact that it's reliable, and written by a scholar who specializes in the field [48] [49] [50] [51]. He has referred to the source with insulting language, calling it "A semi-religious tract for schools", "missionary-moral tract" [52], "a missionary text for schools" [53], "a missionary text for school children" [54], [55], "the IPN missionary magazine for school kids" [56] etc.

Now all this is just the usual WP:TENDENTIOUSness and as annoying and non-constructive as it is I've let it slide, although it's also significant that Icewhiz has repeatedly refused to take the issue to WP:RSN (probably because the last time IPN came up over there, he was told that the source was indeed reliable [57] [58] (IPN is the "detailed source") [59])

But recently he crossed over the line by falsely accusing the author, the historian K. Krajewski, of anti-semitism. Here Icewhiz writes: "One should also note that in 2008-9 there was a wave of various mass-market quasi/popular-history publications in Poland in reaction to a film, and that at least some of these reactionary pieces (at least those who received notice) were accused of anti-Semitism." Since the subject of discussion is Krajewski, one naturally concludes that Icewhiz is referring to his article when he describes "reactionary pieces (which) were accused of anti-Semitism". He provides a source for his claim... which doesn't even mention Krajewski or IPN (!!!). Then just so it's perfectly clear that his characterization as "anti-semitic" refers indeed to Krajewski he adds "A hit piece in a popular-audience magazine in response to a movie release". The "popular-audience magazine" is the IPN Bulletin (the source he linked describes newspaper articles).

So he's pulling a little switcheroo. He basically says that there were sources which were accused of being anti-semitic, provides a source for that claim, doesn't tell you that THIS SOURCE wasn't actually one of them but then pretends the claim applies to THIS source. This is a very dishonest and dirty BLP violation.

And just to be clear - K. Krajewski, AFAIK, has never been accused of anti-semitism. Indeed, this historian is quoted approvingly and extensively by scholars such as Joshua Zimmerman (you have to search the book for "Krajewski" - there's at least ten citations to works by Krajewski, and positive discussion of his scholarly contributions).

I got more but I got to go take the dog for a walk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for this being on your talk page. In response -

1. please note this edit Latest revision as of 23:22, 1 July 2018 which inserted a section heading "IPN, Krajewski" into the middle of the existing section - prior to this user talk page post.
2. Also in regards to this diff by Nishidani, note changed opinion of same editor down in the thread. I will also note that that specific RSN discussion ended after it was demonstrated that the Polish language source was being misrepresented (and unlike the Bulletin - the source in that RSN dicussion was written as a scientific document. I have legitimate misgivings regarding that journal, however we never explored this in depth after demonstrating that the Polish language source was in agreement with the English sources).
3. To be clear, I did not accuse "the author, the historian K. Krajewski, of anti-semitism". I did note that in 2008-9 there was a wave of various mass-market quasi/popular-history publications in Poland in reaction to a film, and that at least some of these reactionary pieces (at least those who received notice) were accused of anti-Semitism (and quoted a source). This is indeed borne out by sources. or this one that discusses the resurrection of the Judeo-Communism myth in Poland as a result of this movie.
4. Krajewski is generally not widely cited (scholar), and the piece in question was cited zero times - which is not surprising given that it is in a questionable popular audience magazine, the author at the time did not have a PhD (or at least it isn't signed as Dr. and per other sources he received a PhD in 2012), has no citation, is written for a general audience, and is a response to Zwick's movie - Defiance - as is made clear in the introduction „OPÓR”? „ODWET”? CZY PO PROSTU „POLITYK A HISTORYCZNA”? - in the first bolded sentece in the intro - {{tq|Wejście na polskie ekrany fi lmu Edwarda Zwicka Opór z Danielem Craigiem w roli głównej, który przedstawia w...}.
5. My assertions about the IPN and the IPN Bulletin were all supports by sources - see Talk:Bielski partisans#IPN Bulletin as a source + misrepresentations. The IPN has been criticized for being "overtly nationalist content of its mission led to its over-politicization"[60], order by the government to popularize history as "an element of patriotic education" and oppose so-called false allegations that "dishonor" the Polish nation"[61]. The IPN has also been promoting the fascist NSZ, and has promoted a music CD with skinhead nationalist bands in their honor.[62]. The IPN Bulletin itself is rarely cited by others, but it has been mentions in research (Behr, Valentin. "Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland: a sociological approach to the narratives of communism." European Politics and Society 18.1 (2017): 81-95.) as Research at the IPN differs from academic work in several respects (Behr, 2011). First, researchers do not only conduct scientific projects; they are also required to take part in educational and public outreach initiatives such as exhibitions, short publications designed for lay readers and youth (like the monthly IPN bulletin), websites, and even board games. The purpose of this deliberately synthetic history, reduced to a playful and attractive format, begs the question: does it seek to popularize knowledge about the past, or to turn it into a political tool?. The Bulletin has also been a subject of in-depth research - per The Post-Communist Condition: Public and private discourses of transformation (chapter - Power, knowledge and faith discourse) - The audience of its message is mostly the youth and its teachers, A number of similar examples of the IPN’s missionary struggles for the truth can be found in the Bulletin ... It should be emphasised that in the discourse of the debate to define the Polish historical policy, references to the figure and texts of Pope John Paul II (Pamięć i tożsamość – “Memory and Identity”) appear very often ... "language characteristic of a religious discourse appears in the Bulletin". .. Together with the radicalization of the state authorities’ attitude towards the communist past, the image emerging from the IPN’s publications sharpen. The notions of the recent history of Poland, created by the IPN discourse represented by the publications of the Bulletin in the last years, is a sharp, black and white image of a fight: the clashing of a Christian nation, in the name of the eternal value – freedom – with the repression apparatus of a communist regime, imposed by strangers. There is no room in this discourse for greyness or nuance, or for the suspension of the moral assessment of the events, people and their deeds. etc. etc. These sources were used to make the assertions VM refers to above.
6. Finally, I would like to point out that this questionable source of little impact (0 cites) has been introduced to several sections in the article - and more seriously - has been misrepresented. See Talk:Bielski partisans#Removal of defamatory misrepresentation in regards to this. The Bulletin in fact does not say this - it says Działania „gospodarcze” grup żydowskich wobec ludności były prowadzone w sposób tak bezwzględny i okrutny, że podczas pertraktacji pomiędzy dowództwem Nowogródzkiego Okręgu AK i dowództwem sowieckim (reprezentowanym przez Brygadę im. Lenina z Puszczy Lipiczańskiej), do jakich doszło w czerwcu 1943 r., strona polska jako jeden z warunków porozumienia żądała, by Sowieci nie wysyłali Żydów na rekwizycje, „[...] bo ci się znęcają, gwałcą kobiety i [mordują nawet?] małe dzieci [...] obrażają ludność, straszą późniejszą zemstą Sowietów, nie mają miary w swej nieuzasadnionej złości i rabunku”. (per google translate - The "economic" activities of Jewish groups towards the population were carried out in a manner like this ruthless and cruel, that during the negotiations between the command of the Nowogródek District of the Home Army and the Soviet command (represented by the Lenin Brigade from the Forest Lipiczańska), which occurred in June 1943, the Polish side as one of the conditions the agreement demanded that the Soviets not send Jews to requisitions, "[...] because they are abusing you, do they rape women and [murder even?] small children [...] offend the population, threaten their future revenge The Soviets have no measure in their unjustified anger and robbery. ") - So a general defamatory statement by the Nowogródek district command towards Jews and Jewish Groups was misrepresented as Bielski's partisans.
7. Despite being challenged as a misrepresentation, VM has chosen to revert this back in, the latest time - Revision as of 00:26, 1 July 2018. This version has some modified language, but still ascribes this to "partisans of the Bielski and Simcha Zorin units" - which is not in the source. It has also been inserted into the "Allegations of war crimes" section despite the source not quite making this allegation.
8. Also, I would like to note these PAs/aspersions towards a number of users - [63], [64], [65], [66], FR Yaniv

Again - sorry this is on your talk-page.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

" I did not accuse "the author, the historian K. Krajewski, of anti-semitism". " - At minimum you sneakily insinuated it. We were discussing Krajewski. You wrote "One should also note that in 2008-9 there was a wave of various mass-market quasi/popular-history publications in Poland in reaction to a film, and that at least some of these reactionary pieces (at least those who received notice) were accused of anti-Semitism." And you provided a source. You COULD HAVE been specific and said "but not Krajewski", but you didn't. Then you added ""A hit piece in a popular-audience magazine in response to a movie release"" which is an explicit reference to Krajewski's article. A reasonable person reading that thread would understandably come to the conclusion that your statement concerns Krajewski and that the source you provided surely said this about Krajewski. Except your source didn't even mention Krajewski. It's an underhanded BLP VIO, but still a BLP VIO.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

And actually Icewhiz, you slipped up, and inadvertently admitted that your statement was in fact referring to Krajewski. Up above you write, describing Krajewski's article that it was written as "a response to Zwick's movie". In your comment you likewise referred to "response to a movie release". So please stop BSing us.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I said at least some of these reactionary pieces (at least those who received notice) were accused of anti-Semitism - clearly sourced, and limited to at least some (specifically sourced to an academic RS). I did not refer to Krajewski (in fact I specifically excluded it in my preceding qualifier - (at least those who received notice)) - as this Bulletin piece did not receive notice (0 cites per scholar. Does seem that a few blogs / forum posts do refer to it).Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You did not refer to Krajewski explicitly but Krajewski was the only person/source being discussed in that section, hence it was very much an insinuation about it him. Your claim that you "specifically excluded it" is an excuse you're inventing right now, after your disturbing behavior has been brought to light. Anyone reading that conversation would reasonably conclude that Krajewski was accused of anti-semitism. Because you very strongly implied it. You made a disgusting and false allegation against a living person. You attempted to smear him. You've been previously notified of BLP DS because you tried to smear other historians you disagree with [67]. You've also tried to use far-right anti-semitic sources on a BLP [68] and even falsified what the sources said (when called out on this at WP:AE you excused yourself by saying it was just "mild case of original research" - as if falsely accusing BLPs of anti-semitism was "mild") You've done the same thing with other historians and BLPs, such as Norman Davies (though there it was more of a case of cherry-picking sources) [69] or Ewa Kurek [70] (though in that case there is legitimate criticism to be made you turned the whole BLP into one attack piece).

Basically, whenever someone finds a reliable source you disagree with, after making up various excuses for removing it from a relevant article, your next step is always to go after the author and attack them.

At minimum you need to be topic banned from BLPs or BLP comments regarding any author or historian in the topic area of Eastern and Central Europe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Unsourced statements on sources generally considered reliable

In light of your comment at AE (... is free to argue about the appropriateness of a source without stating a piece he personally disagrees with is garbage and a fringe theory and providing no evidence. That is POV editing (similar to when an Indian editor dismisses out of hand all works by Pakistani scholars) and that kind of editing will get you topic banned., I would like point out the following diffs:

1. [71] Either the source is garbage. Or the source is being sarcastic - in regards to an academic book (an historical dictionary - not the sort of source you'd expect to be sarcastic or garbage) - [72] by a historian
2. [73] And I have no idea what your source is or who the author is, but there's some grade-A stupidity and nonsense in it. The author seems to sincerely believe that a regional partisan commander (a colonel) and a Abwehr major had the authority to negotiate over Poland's postwar borders! WTF??? Where the hell did you dig this piece of junk up? in relation to a work by a historian published by Berghahn - [74].
3. [75] despite the fact that Browning does write some grade-A nonsense [76] and any source which describes AK as "conservative nationalist" is garbage. Yes, that applies to Christopher Browning - in relation to Christopher Browning, book in question Remembering Survival: Inside a Nazi Slave-Labor Camp.
4. [77] dubious in relation to Holocaust: Responses to the persecution and mass murder of the Jews - a book chapter by Antony Polonsky.
5. [78][79] [80] (continuing after being presented with a clear source on the credentials of the individual) -- It's a junk source, a peer reviewd publication by a historian" - yup, also a false statement. <redacted> is not a historian, she's a ... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... a photographer! You're doing that thing again. Where you make false claims which are trivially easy to show are false., :Funny, cuz right up above you're swearing up and down that's she's not a photographer. I guess now she is. Anyway, she's not a historian. And this is irrelevant. - this in regards to work published (both on the same topic - very close) - in the East European Jewish Affairs journal (a long standing and well regarded peer reviewed journal [81]) and Studia Litteraria et Historica (which is a newer journal - [82] - open access, but is peer reviewed). The individual has been described as <redacted> is a historian of literature, cultural anthropologist, photographer, MA at the Université Paris VII Denis Diderot (1994); PhD at Warsaw University (2004). Author of the following books: Sztuka czy Naród? Monografia pisarska Andrzeja Trzebińskiego [Art or the Nation? On Andrzej Trzebiński’s Literary Output] (Kraków: Universitas, 2006) and Festung Warschau (Warsaw: Krytyka Polityczna, 2011), an analysis of the symbolic topography of the former area of the Warsaw Ghetto. Currently working at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences. per Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History (which is a peer reviewed well regarded journal as well).

These assertions were not backed up by sources. I do apologize for cluttering your talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding #1 above I clearly said "EITHER". I'm actually of the opinion that the author is being sarcastic (or more precisely, snarky) but that this is partially lost in translation (English not being the first language here). The nature of the sentence which is that "people in the West" were offended that "heroic Soviet resistance" was criticized strongly suggests that.

In #2 I am referring to a source which claims that a low ranking local regional commander and a no-name major in the Abwehr had the authority to conduct negotiations on the future of Poland's borders. That is indeed nonsense, no matter how you slice it.

1. 3 just calls the information dubious - and this is because this info is contradicted by other sources and this has been the subject of discussion elsewhere, as noted in my comment. Icewhiz is familiar with these other discussions since he was part of him. This is weak.

In regard to Janicka, Icewhiz's last point, she is indeed a photographer and not a historian. I have no idea why Icewhiz keeps pretending otherwise. She might have been described as a "historian of literature" in some promo but she has no academic credentials in history and that's sort of like describing me as a "historian of Wikipedia dispute resolution process". I mean, I sort of am.

Finally, the fact that Icewhiz is trying to sanction-shop and piggy back off an unrelated WP:AE report outside this topic area really just exemplifies how much of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality he brings to this topic area. Before he arrived (around March I believe, is when he really got going), this topic area was stable. There was some controversies but everyone involved managed to work them out and achieve compromise. Icewhiz basically came in, kicked over the table and has been refusing to let anyone stand it back up. Worse, he's been threatening anyone who has tried, and every time someone tries to pick something up off the floor he's knocked over, he runs to the police with spurious allegations. His editing displays a consistent negative pattern and pushes the same narrative over and over again. Some of his edits and comments have been border-line trolling. For example this edit and edit summary in which he 1) compares the primary Polish anti-Nazi resistance group to... the Nazi party itself and at the same time 2) tries to remove the names of very notable and famous individuals (Karski, who was one of the first to inform the Western allies that the Holocaust was under way, Bartoszewski, who was one of the main organizers of rescue efforts of Polish Jews and others) as having been recognized by Israel's Righteous Among Nations. Both of these actions are, well, insulting, probably purposefully so, and their purpose appears to be to provoke other editors. so that they respond in an incivil manner, so that Icewhiz then can run to AE or an admin and ask for sanctions. In fact, that has been Icewhiz's modus operandi on these articles. The overwhelming majority of his content edits have been rejected and have failed to achieve consensus. He knows he can't win the arguments on the merits so he's developed this practice of stalling by engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics, while trying to get those who disagree with him banned or sanctioned. This is WP:BATTLEGROUND to a tee. It's exactly the kind of behavior the policy was written for.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I responded to the assertion above in this diff, explaining that I did not exactly make a comparison, and providing sources and here providing a history professor stating that this comparison is widespread in Holocaust literature - a widely held view in Holocaust studies should not be "insulting".Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Not all dismissals/endorsements need to have sources. If the community has previously held a source to be reliable (e.g., JAMA), then an endorsement doesn't need a source. If a source is held to be unreliable (e.g., National Enquirer or works by authors defined as fringe by our own articles) then a dismissal shouldn't need a source. If the source hasn't been discussed by the general community then the challenger needs to go beyond "because the author is Pakistani/Polish/worked as a scientist in the Obama administration/etc." The reasons could range from having a questionable publisher, pointing out factual inaccuracies, showing how other experts view the work, questioning the credentials (real example: no, a NASA shuttle mechanic is not an expert on climate change) or highlighting stupidities (e.g., the work relies on fringe theories like the Holocaust being a hoax). If the challenger can't do this and resorts to "because the author is Pakistani/Polish/worked as a scientist in the Obama administration/etc." then we have an issue that might have to be looked at. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

All of the sources above are in reputable venues (publisher / journal) and by reputable mainline scholars in the relevant field. Janicka was published in East European Jewish Affairs journal (and is a historian of literature and cultural anthropologist). Source #2 (still attacked, it would seem) is a Berghahn Books publication by an established PHD in the field (as for the assertion such promises during negotiations are absurd - perhaps - they are still often made in low level feeler talks - very easy to walk back a promise by someone very low ranking). There are dismissals, and then there are dismissals - calling academic work "garbage" is a rather severe dismissal when it is based on an editor's opinion and without sources to back it up.Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Albusreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has been warned several times but still is making disruptive edits. I do not have time to file a report, can you have a look at the issue? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: Looted their ability to edit indefinitely :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. Much appreciated. Cheers. :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

After the event

Your interpretation of the consecutive-edits rule does appear justified by common sense. But the plain language of WP:EW doesn't technically agree: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. I use a script which collapses adjacent edits by the same person, so it automatically collects 'reverts', which helps in counting them. Though it would not produce a count by your definition, which seems it would need manual interpretation.

Regarding that report, though Tony B's protection was certainly a good option, I was not actually seeing a plain 3RR violation. So I think the closer had two choices (other than protection, which was also good): (a) no violation, (b) block for long term edit warring (i.e. longer than 24 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Oh, I agree with you about the language in WP:EW. And invoking "common sense" can be taken by some editors to mean "playing favorites". But no admin with a clue is going to sanction two editors working peacefully together on an article because a third editor reported them for edit warring. Before we get to WP:3RR, the condition implied in the first sentence in EW ("An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions") should be met. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

R/D

Hello N. I hope you are having a pleasant weekend. Would you please take a look at these edits. A lot of personal info is used in them and may need rev/del. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 03:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Done. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for checking on this. MarnetteD|Talk 05:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem with recent page move

Why you moved the page [83] "per request" when no discussion was initiated and only an edit summary was used by someone[84] that violates WP:OR? See my request at WP:RMTR. Rzvas (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rzvas: Because not all moves have to be discussed beforehand. I checked the talk page and there was no indication the page title was controversial. If you are disputing the move I will move it back and you can start a discussion with NadirAli who requested an admin correct an accident. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that Anthony Appleyard has undone the move. Thanks Anthony. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Another TPI?

This is not a minor, but their userpage seems at least to violate WP:NOTSOCIAL. Cheers. --Ebyabe (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: Posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Y'know, when you violate someone's username is indeed another way to report to an admin!! This is MY userpage, WE should control it however WE want!!!!!! I want an administrator's response on this. This is freaking ridiculous! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

Your userpage does not belong to you. It belongs to Wikipedia. You are generally entitled to control its content, but there are many exceptions. One of them is to have an article about you on it. You can say a little bit about yourself, but not what you've done here. I've undone your latest edit. I strongly urge you to let this go. Wikipedia is not a social media platform.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zacharyalejandro: This admin is going to point you to WP:UP#OWN: "However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you check it, plz

HistoryofIran whom you probably know, insists on commenting on user rather on content. I told him about it, but he repeats his derogatory comments. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I've collapsed the subthread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, my comment is not derogatory at all. NeilN, if I show evidence (which I can easily find in numerous examples) that supports what I said, would I then be allowed to say it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Article talk pages are for discussing article content, not for unhelpful detours on what editor supports what cause. And please do not refactor your posts after they've been replied to. You can cross out statements you wish to retract. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

My point is that more neutral users should be active on that article, which is definitely not the case atm. But yeah, my bad, what do we need neutral users for anyways? Also yeah, I forgot that you could cross it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

June 27 diff

"not historically notable" ... yet the event I listed has its own exhaustive Wikipedia article. ? PseudoSkull (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: If WP:NOTNEWS was tightened up, that article (almost all of it written by you} would not exist. A flash flood occurred at a ranch near a small town in New Mexico. One person died and one highway was closed for less than a day. That's it. The exhaustive article is filled with trivia which really has no place in an encyclopedic summation of an event {examples: "the crew consisted of eight youth Scouts, three adult advisors, and one ranger who was assisting the crew" (with 14 citations!) and "These CARE packages could either have been sent to Philmont, to the home of the Brock family, or to the homes of anyone else with a connection to Alden."). I respect that you've meticulously detailed everything local coverage stated about the event but that does not mean the event is notable enough to rate a mention anywhere aside from directly related articles. People die from natural disasters every day, the news covers it, and then the news moves on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response. I don't agree that this should not have an article, nor that a majority of its contents should be removed (maybe the stuff about the CARE packages was a bit much, but the info about the crew is relevant to the story IMHO), but I do now understand why this does not warrant a mention on an article meant for historically vital events. I will not add things like this to date articles anymore. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

To extent on my opinion of notability, I am an inclusionist, and, since I tend to "specialize" in local history and events, I am against removal of information based on locality alone. I've received criticism for that in the past. I actually recently was searching Google for any new sources that came up mentioning the flood, and unrelatedly found 2 people that used this Wikipedia article in their research. That might not be a significant number, but it felt pretty good for me given how much time I spent writing it. It shows that it was useful to someone, and you can pretty much exponentiate the number of people who read the article and cited it to figure out how many people read it and found it useful alone. meta:Inclusionism#Arguments against deletion sums up almost perfectly my viewpoint on how information should be treated on Wikipedia, and it makes me happy to know that some, if not many, users agree with me. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your quick action against the anon. Much appreciated! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: You're welcome. Sorry you had to experience that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Need help with an editor

Pvqnp940a (talk · contribs). The CIR is strong with this one, but if we can at least get him to use edit summaries and to accept input from others he might avoid a trip to ANI. Could you perhaps try to speak to him on his talkpage? He has so far responded negatively to contact from anyone: [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]. I'm going to invite Doug Weller and Cullen328 as well. Softlavender (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if this editor is not User:Jgrantduff? Poltair (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

In all likelihood, yes, and in all likelihood he has other sock(s) as well, particularly for the interim between the blocked account's last edit and this account's first edit. It being a holiday time and all I don't feel like filing an SPI, but anyone else is welcome to, and CU should be done to check for sleepers. Based on DUCK I'd say this is a 99% match, and if someone like Doug Weller (whom I've already mentioned) argees he can do a CU, and then if DUCK suffices he or a sage like Bbb23 can block the lot of them, in my opinion. For my money, the severe and irredeemable CIR problems are enough for an indef (or site-ban). Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: sorry I missed this. I see that this account has been blocked. I'm not clear why a CU was done on this account as the old account is clearly stale, but I presume any sleepers would have been unearthed. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I don't believe a CU was done (even though Alex Shih has that capability as an Arb), but rather Alex Shih seems to have blocked based on the 99% DUCK evidence (look at the userpage and talk page of the master) as mentioned above. Softlavender (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

On that note, could one of you (Alex Shih or Doug Weller) do a CU and check for sleepers? There's a longish gap between the last edit of the master and the first edit of the sock, so there may be an interim account(s). Softlavender (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Initially I thought CU was unnecessary per reason stated by Doug, but ran a check because there were only four overlapped pages per Editor Interaction Analyser despite of the fact it is near certain that these two accounts are connected based variety of behavioral evidence as you indicated, so it was reasonable to suspect that interim accounts are involved. No sleepers are immediately visible, however. Alex Shih (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: checkusers have a menu item that allows us to see whether checks have been made in the past - just when and who did them. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Return of Chernobog95

Hi NeilN,

Call me a tattle-tale, but I have caught Chernobog95 evading his/her block once again using yet another sock account: 83.191.91.138. Below are the diffs and the evidence:

• This user’s contributions [90] show that he/she has edited pages previously edited by Chernobog95 and previous IPs, most notably in the articles regarding the Kwangmyŏngsŏng-4 satellite [91] [92] [93], and the National Aerospace Development Administration [94] [95]. If you notice, the information added by the recent IP is virtually the exact same content added by the previous edits made using the account and sock IPs.

• The IP’s contributions] also reveal that this IPis using Mobile Edit And Mobile Web Edit tags, just like Chernobog95 and the previous IPs used by him/her before being blocked [96] [97] [98].

• Non-native English is also prevalent in theedits made by this IP, just like Chernobog95 and the previous IPs (e.g. unspecified individual/organization confirmed/reported, poor grammar and spelling, etc.) [99] [100] [101] [102] [103].

• And finally the Geolocation reveals that this IP originated in Croatia (possibly in Zagreb [104] [105], the same area where previous IPs used by Chernobog95 originated [106] [107] [108] [109].

I hope this helps convince you that 83.191.91.138 is Chernobog95 nonetheless. SamaranEmerald (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

And not he/she is reverting edits and showing hostility as though he/she owns the article [110] [111][— Preceding [Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by SamaranEmerald (talk • contribs) 13:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@SamaranEmerald: IP blocked. I've created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chernobog95 so future reports can use that and we can track activity. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Dan the Plumber sockpuppeting

Just wanted to point you to an issue that has arisen. The editor you recently sent a warning after he violated 1RR on a Syria-related article, Dan the Plumber, seems to have very well resorted to sock-puppeting to push his POV and has been reported by editor Terrorist96. The suspected sock's very first edit was to again reintroduce the version [112] Dan the Plumber was pushing for at the article he was edit warring. His only other edit on an article [113] was also at an article where Dan the Plumber previously edit warred and the suspected sock reintroduced an identical version of a paragraph the Plumber was also pushing for (which I added as additional evidence). But it would seem the most obvious thing proving the sock was his was this edit [114] on the Plumber's talk page where the suspected sock was talking like he was the Plumber, an edit which he promptly removed shortly after. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(tpw) EkoGraf, I closed the SPI as the sock is unrelated to Dan the Plumber but another nuisance from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134 that has been pulling this joe job for a while (Courtesy note to Terrorist96 too). Alex Shih (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih Was pretty certain he is Plumber since he talked on his talk page like he is him [115] (a sentence which he promptly removed). Plus due to his reintroduction of two of Plumber's identical texts to two article's Plumber edit warred on. Not to mention the sock used the same derogatory term towards a fellow editor that Plumber also used. In any case, thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to unblock *Treker

What do you think?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I said I'd like to see them back after they have things under control and their appeal seems to indicate this has happened. So yes, unblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dr Silverstein (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you.★Trekker (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Notpron

I accidentally overwrote your application of semi-protection to the article.... my sincere apologies for doing that, NeilN.... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Not your fault and absolutely no need to apologize. We've all done the same thing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Request

Will you please delete all subpages in my user space? Thank you. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: I've looked into the matter that presumably triggered this request and think both sides have points. Hear me out before making any final decision to retire? I will delete the applicable subpages even if you wish to ignore what I say if that's what you want. Pinging Oshwah and Ritchie333, the two admins who discussed this matter with you.

• First Ritchie333 is absolutely right that you have a problem distinguishing what is and what is not vandalism. I've told you this before and even warned you that you'd be blocked at some point if you kept it up. Good block for this.
• Wikieditoreddy looks suspiciously like a sock of this blocked IP and should not have been editing in the first place. You noted the probable socking here. I personally will not block editors reverting likely socks (unless they're reverting back in vandalism, etc). Other admins might have a different approach.
• I really wish Ritchie333 would stop implementing his personal views on content and blocking editors involved in the same dispute. It's going to earn him another trip to WP:AN one of these days.

I do hope you reconsider your request and perhaps take a few days off to think about if you are willing to accept adhering Wikipedia's definition of vandalism is required to edit here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Thanks for your advice. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite - I completely understand your frustration over the situation and how disheartened you probably feel over all of this. Stepping away and taking a break is encouraged in situations where emotions are tense and elevated; you're of course very upset and frustrated... these kinds of situations rarely ever result in people walking away happy... I obviously can't make you stay here if you don't want to, but I sincerely hope that this decision is temporary. Getting tripped and scraped at times doesn't make you a failure or a bad editor... it's apart of learning and gaining experience, and it's apart of life. In the 11 years that I've been an editor here, I won't even begin to try and list all of the mistakes I've made and the things I've messed up royally during my time here. It's... extensive... lol. NeilN has had to ring my neck and hit me on the noggin at least a few times that I remember, so he can definite attest to this ;-). Should this be the last message you read before you go, I want you to know that you're a good editor and an asset to this project... I mean that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Neil's assessment above. Look, I don't like doing blocks like this - they're a pain in the neck and often a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". TheOldJacobite, given your tenure and service, I think you're within your rights to call me an asshole and go off onto any number of Wikipedia criticism sites about what a horribly abusive powermad maniac I am to whatever audience will grant you it, if it will make you feel better. I permanently soured relations with Cassianto after he told another editor to fuck off and edit-warred it back onto the other party's talk page and I blocked them for it, and all I can say is it's not personal and never was - unfortunately these things sometimes crop up and shit happens. However, I'm afraid your reactions to the block are not particularly surprising; had I felt you would listen patiently to how you just can't assume that much bad faith on fellow editors, I would have had a quiet word instead. It's pretty obvious that I don't exactly see eye to eye with Neil or Oshwah, and if both of them are saying that the block was good, then we've got a serious problem. Nevertheless, the block is over, we should move on, nothing else to see.

To be also clear, Wikieditoreddy was also edit warring and he'd have got blocked too had he made another revert on that article. To be equally clear, I took administrative action to stop a dispute and then cleaned up the article to a state that neither editor involved in the warring wanted. In my view, making an editorial stance after you have used the tools is different from using them during a dispute to gain the upper hand, and I don't see a problem with it. If other admins say that once you take action you are WP:INVOLVED period, then I accept their views.

The problem is, Neil (and you are better than you used to be, I have to say) is I really struggle to empathise with things you say and do, and you really don't seem to grasp that copyediting articles and improving the content really isn't that hard, and unlike a lot of the backstage and admin stuff around here, the actual research and writing of articles is actually quite fun and what keeps me coming back here again and again. And I say "in my view", because we all specialise in different things, and the Dunning-Kruger effect means we tend to think that things we can do well are easy and wonder why nobody else can do them. Now, the converse to that is I don't have a clue about SPI; the subtle but important difference is when another admin takes action against a sock, I generally respect the decision (unless I want to take a decision on the content) because we have specialists for that. This is why I sometimes have a go at you, not because I'm a grumpy old sod who likes to "stick it" to admins he doesn't like, but because I just find myself banging my head against a desk when you don't "get it". Seriously, we're both here for the encyclopedia, so if we can find some way of just getting along, we should probably do that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The only thing I'm going to say about the above is that I think my actions match my words. I don't think the same is true about you and that some of your knee-jerk reactions leave a lot to be desired. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry you feel like that, but if you don’t want to reach out and patch things up, I can’t force you to. Hey ho. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I don't think the problem lies with me. Two recent interactions [116], [117] If you can find or recall any similar out-of-the-blue drive-by comments by me on your actions then we have something to discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ack! Apology for all those pings over the last few minutes

I clumsily both wikilinked your username as well as the relevant talk page discussion in responding a few minutes ago to Modernist's mass post regarding me; that means you've been getting pinged over and over (I did catch it for the last couple responses) for the last few minutes. Sorry for that annoyance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Dan the Plumber again

Hey, despite the topic ban, Dan continues to make edits on Syrian war releated articles. [118][119][120][121][122] Terrorist96 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI

There's potential trouble brewing you might want to keep an eye on: Started here (and check out the edit summary) [123]; I left the following caution on his talk page [124]; his response: [125] [126]; next was disruptive and premature archiving of discussion [127]; I left a formal caution [128]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Will keep an eye on it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

In case you're not aware, there's been an indef at Commons. [129] Just passing it on, for what it's worth. Hopefully he won't go as far here as he did over there. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what the Talk page says, the block expires on July 14, 2018.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. Just saw indefinitely blocked. I didn't realize you could indef someone for a set amount of time. Actually, I'm glad it's only until the 14th. I think the guy is upset and making some really bad choices because he's upset. Maybe with the block he'll stop and think a bit and come back with a cooler head. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Heh, you can't indefinitely block someone for a limited time, but you can block someone for a limited time and say you've indefinitely blocked them. My guess is the blocking admin either meant to indef the user or made a mistake on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Some shit-show developing at Commons… see c:User talk:Rowan Forest#Bad block and c:COM:AN#What appears to be an inappropriate indef block of User:Rowan Forest. — JFG ^talk 03:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Both Rowan and Nagual were threatening Commons users/admins. Same as they are doing here. Look at Rowan's interactions with editors at the article talk page. Both are behaving badly and very immaturely. As far as the image, it's likely to get deleted again because "provenance"/copyright ownership has not been proven any more than it was when it was deleted the first time. If Nagual could have proved ownership previously, why didn't he? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to leave discussions of user behaviour out of the debate on file authorship and copyright status. Nagual's work was aggressively removed, and he threw a temper; an admin at Commons threw an even bigger temper and caught Rowan in their ire. A bunch of regulars then complained about said admin, and other Commons admins restored order. Now cooler heads have prevailed, and we should focus on discussing the content at c: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tesla Roadster Falcon 9H.png. — JFG ^talk 03:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"I'd like to leave discussions of user behaviour out of the debate on file authorship and copyright status...an admin at Commons threw an even bigger temper." Then don't talk about the Commons admin's behavior. Because, truth be told, you're speculating and WP:ABF. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

No ABF involved. All I want is for the content to be discussed. Admins at commons can sort their issues with each other, it's none of our business. — JFG ^talk 04:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It may not be your business, but it's certainly my business. I've got over 400 files I've uploaded there. Because I have a vested interest at Commons, I care about how things function there, including how admins do their jobs there. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Great. I guess you can comment there if you wish. We can leave NeilN in peace. — JFG ^talk 04:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your usual level-headed approach, Neil. I get the feeling that your finger was hovering over the big red button at one point but you resisted the urge to press it. You're my personal Stanislav Petrov! It's a credit to your good judgement. Regarding the courtesy vanishing, I want to assure you that I put my request in long before I was blocked on Commons (perhaps 48 hours before, IIRC) and certainly wasn't a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. I'd just had quite enough of Wikipedia and wanted to delete my account. The fact that I've returned, albeit temporarily, is my prerogative if I understand things correctly. If you wish to reverse the vanishing I don't mind, and if not I don't mind. Either way there will remain a trail of breadcrumbs leading to my account, which will remain extant in perpetuity. Now that I know that, the whole idea of vanishing seems rather pointless.

I don't know what Winkelvi means by me making bad choices (the swearing maybe? fuck knows). And I certainly didn't behave threateningly, nor have I or Rowan behaved "very immaturely" - at least not by normal standards. Perhaps some of this stems from Winkelvi's Asperger's coupled with my penchant for colourful language, which is fair enough I suppose. Anyway, thank you also for being able to read between the lines and take a step back when necessary, and for your enviable ability to deal even-handedly with editors of all types. Without wishing to inflate your ego, I must say I'm rather impressed.

Take care, and if I don't get the chance to talk to you again I wish you all the best. Sincerely, nagualdesign 12:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi nagualdesign. When I saw your posts, I just hoped you weren't thinking of going out in a "blaze of glory" and forcing an admin to block you. I get that deciding to leave can feel quite liberating and there's quite a temptation to give the place the finger on your way out. Writing a final "get lost" can be fine and may be useful if it contains criticisms of our processes but calling out specific editors and giving them a piece of your mind beyond what is allowable by WP:CIVIL is going to be stopped pretty quickly if it becomes clear that the leaving editor is just looking to settle some scores. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Page restrictions

I'm thinking I'll probably end up asking this at ARCA but wanted to pick your brains first as someone who issues page restrictions. I'm still inclined, following the recent AE cases, to impose an academic-sources-only type restriction on Poland in WWII. But am I right in thinking that this would only be enforceable where edits are made to a page that had a relevant editnotice in place? Would this effectively be a page restriction on a not-very-well-defined set of pages? GoldenRing (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi GoldenRing. I didn't follow the recent Poland AE-requests closely as I'm going on vacation next week and work is going predictably crazy. But yes, that restriction would need an editnotice in place and be logged at WP:DSLOG. The only way to get around this is to have Arbcom issue a modification to sanctions to automatically include that restriction (like 500/30 on Arab-Israel articles) or get the community to do it (like 1RR on Syrian Civil War and ISIL articles). I highly doubt it is worth the effort as from what I've seen, this dispute is centered around three or four articles. Place restrictions on them and if the dispute moves to other articles, look to sanctioning editors. This area isn't like Syrian Civil War or Arab-Israel - new editors aren't constantly coming in and basically ignoring dispute resolution processes on a wide variety of articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi! Thanks for getting involved as we discuss this Miami article issue.--TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you have a minute...

...to take a look at a new editor at Talk:Donald Trump named GrecoArm? Thanks. --MelanieN alt (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN alt: Warned editor --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Dan the Plumber behavior

Telling a fellow editor (who is advising him of Wikipedia's neutrality) to "fuck off" like here [130], and making bad faith comments like this [131] that editors who are of a different POV from him are "brain dead and cynical" (which is all in violation of WP:CIVIL) leads me to believe Dan the Plumber will continue his general battleground attitude towards other editors in the future. EkoGraf (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: Based on their editing, you're probably right. They have a bit of rope left. I'm leaving them alone and seeing what they're going to do with it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, everyone should get a final chance to contribute in the right way. EkoGraf (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- BilCat (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: Thanks, done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber and Pakistan

@NeilN, my edits are not wrong/negative about Pakistan, if you want to revert my edits, then revert, I will not edit the pages again, and references have been added to the pages, you can check. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

My thanks

Thank you for posting the edit warring noticeboard notification to ZH8000's talk page. I meant to do it and then forgot. My apologies for omitting it. TheVicarsCat (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Mario Cerrito, III

Hi Neil! As far as seeing where RandyKitty said that it wasn't eligible for speedy deletion it can be seen on the talk page and history on it. I was just creating a page I thought was good for Wikipedia on someone in my local area who has a good amount of press, done some notable things in the independent film world. I was hoping my article was a good contribution to Wikipedia. 16:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)MikeTallahasee (talk)

@MikeTallahasee: All right. An edit summary on a talk page is not the usual place to look for a preemptive decline for a speedy delete. I don't see how the two versions are not substantially identical but will remove the tag in accordance with Randykitty's judgment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

ZH8000

ZH8000 is continuing his edit warring at Crime in Switzerland. He has created a sock account SW1998, and made a seventh revert at the article. This time he is accusing everyone else of disruption. This is a confirmed sock because ZH8000 has admitted it with this post to the talk page claiming I am in the wrong for 'gaming the system' (how?). In my opinion, for what it is worth, ZH8000 is clearly WP:NOTHERE to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia.

Are you able to take care of this, or would you prefer me to raise a WP:SPI case? Thanks. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheVicarsCat: I blocked the new account. I doubt it's ZH8000. There's some troll creating accounts impersonating editors reported to ANEW and ANI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134/Archive --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It did strike me as a rather stupid thing to do. Let's see what happens. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Dan the Plumber Syria violations again

Dan the Plumber has violated his Syria topic ban once again within a day of being unblocked [132], with his first edit being the un-discussed removal of sourced material and its RS ref (Associated Press) that has been in place in an article for years, with the edit apparently being POV in nature. It was also an edit war action he already previously made before he was blocked the last time. He also made an edit on a second Syria-related article [133] as well. EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks, topic ban reset. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Its a shame he's not sticking to policy or a neutral POV. EkoGraf (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Souliotes

Skylax30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi NeilN. I am pinging @EdJohnston: as they are familiar with the matter. Skylax30 has been warring and making disruptive editing on Souliotes again although they were blocked for warring there a few weeks ago. Their comments on the talk page as well are not very helpful. They went as far as to open a RfC saying Users and administrators who have been activly involved in the past in articles related to Albania, (e.g. protecting Skanderbeg) please do not comment here. For this they were criticized by an admin and another editor. Before Skylax30's edits, Souliotes was a stable article, with no warring. Now it is a mess. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Keeps accusing and indicating other editors support nationalist POV on Wikipedia. The latest example is today [134]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked ten days and RFC closed as invalid. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Just saving a link here to your 3RR closure, which I agree was necessary. If the problem resumes later, it may be time for a topic ban. Skylax30's last ARBMAC alert was here on June 15. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Chernobog95 Sockpuppet: Gwailofeng

Hi NielN,

Once again, I have found yet another two sockpuppets of Chernobog95, an Ip and for once, he/she actually did not use an IP or one of the socks, rather a a sock account under the name Gwailofeng [135]. I'm going to make this short for you this time to let you know how I how it's Chernobog95:

• Hostile behavior towards a user over the removal of content they added [136] [137] [138] [139] [140]. One of these edits was on a talk page where he/she mentioned the term "double standard(s)"[141], which was the same term used by Chernobog95 frequently on their primary account prior to being blocked [142] [143] [144].

• Non-Native English [145] [146] [147] [148] matching that of one previous used by Chernobog95 and the previous IP he/she was caught using a week ago [149] [150] [151] [152] [153].

• User edited articles related to North Korea or sections of articles and talk pages related to North Korea [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160], one of which was a page Chernobog95 previously edited (and edit-warred on) prior to being blocked [161].

• While Geolocation is impossible for use on usernames, an edit by the IP 77.219.43.96 on one of the sections of a talk page Gwailofeng later edited under [162] has Geolocation matching the region that the previous IPs Chernobog95 socked were located in (Croatia) [163] [164], the dialogue exchanged by Gwailofeng towards the user he/she is antagonising suggests that the aforementioned IP was used by Gwailofeng in the past.

• I should also note that the username first edited on the day after the previous IP Chernobog95 was caught sock-puppeting under was blocked (and abruptly stopped) [165] [166] [167] [168].

• I have posted a copy of this explanation into the Sockpuppet Investigation for Chernobog95, but I decided to send this to you just in case they aren't convinced (Chernobog95 tends to IP hop as you may have noticed). SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• @SamaranEmerald: Next time you want to open or reopen a case, follow the instructions at WP:SPI, but do not edit an archive under any conditions. I reverted your edits at the archive. That said, you are right about the new account: Gwailofeng (talk · contribs · count) is  Confirmed to Chernobog95. I have blocked and tagged the new account and tagged the master. Thanks for spotting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

ZurgyStardust

ZurgyStardust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned from his block to edit war on the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling page, as well as Steve Williams (wrestler), and made a personal attack.LM2000 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@LM2000: Blocked indefinitely but HHH Pedrigree's lack of care was unimpressive when they added the editor's name twice more to the notification log when it was already present. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry about notice you placed

Some time ago you placed a notice about adding templates to User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. May I inquire why? I am unclear on the reason. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• If I may, NeilN, the template was placed to counter the frequent erroneous warnings I've received, primarily for reverting disruptive edits as an IP. By the way, I asked Alexf for assistance here [169]. I'm unclear why a whois template is necessary at the top of my talk page. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • My thanks to Widr for the block [170]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexf: The editor has received numerous incorrect warnings and two wrong blocks from editors and admins who aren't paying attention to what they're doing. Luckily, the person takes it in stride but this type of behavior chases away constructive IP editors and needs to be examined to make sure it's not a recurring pattern. I'm also questioning why a whois template is necessary. "For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address. This includes schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots, and other shared IP addresses, but not dynamic IP addresses." The editor has been using this address for over a year so it looks relatively stable and unshared. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN. We've been down this road before. It's unfortunate that rather than assist me that moment in stemming persistent vandalism, an admin felt the need to put that template atop my talk page. I'm writing this in as tactful a manner of prose as I can muster. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I see. I was on my way out and caught suspicious activity. As I was going and finishing several postings I did not catch the user's (and this) messages until now. As an aside, I do not understand why an active user like this relies on an IP, which is dynamic and will change no matter what, when the ISP's servers decide, or when the user access the account from other places. Anyway I digress. Noted. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Violation of arbitration remedies at AR-15 style rifle

@Thomas.W: restored an edit I reverted, which violates the "consensus required" rule there. I asked them to self revert, and they refused.

(If it matters, my edit summary (on the initial revert) was terse because I hit enter by accident while typing it. When I had time I came back and explained further on the talk page here. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• See User talk:Thomas.W#Violation of AR-15 style rifle arbitration remedies, Waleswatcher obviously wasn't willing to take the risk of having their tendentious editing on multiple gun politics-articles scrutinized at WP:ANI, but chose to post here instead. They have been adding POV to the article in question, plus several others, for a long time, while at the same time obstructing any and all attempts to make the article comply with WP:NPOV. The edit in question was an attempt by another editor to point out what the longstanding (70+ years) internationally used definition of an assault rifle is (i.e. a fully automatic weapon), while Waleswatcher wants people to believe that AR-15 type rifles (i.e. semiautomatic rifles) are assault rifles, probably because "assault rifle" sounds more menacing (see my revert of Waleswatcher's edit.... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ping

Meant to ping you for this question, but pinged the wrong Neil instead (which coincidentally, turned out to be not a bad choice either). Abecedare (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Just saw vacation notice. My query is not-at-all urgent. Enjoy your holiday! Abecedare (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You reverted an editor's message to me on my talk page.

On 6 July an unregistered editor edited my talk page to add an invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics task force. You deleted this message less than 3 hours later the same date, but you gave no reason for the deletion. I would like an explanation please, since this appears to have been a good-faith communication. Thank you. --Zeamays (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Zeamays, per the message at the top of this talk page, NeilN is away on holiday. I can see that the IP was evading a block and not a good faith contributor. That is a sockpuppet that is evading, in fact. It is standard practice to remove sock edits or anyone else's that are evading a block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

ZH8000

I note that you recently described ZH8000's attempt at getting a talk page protected, to prevent those who were pointing out where he was wrong from doing so, as 'particularly unimpressive'. I also point out Swarm's instruction about making sock allegations (here and here).

Now while you have been away, ZH8000 has not been idle. I should point out that I am not expecting any action on this as it is now so long after the events, but in view of your involvement, comments and actions, I though you would certainly appreciate this (please bear with me, the best is at the end).

You blocked ZH8000 for 48 hours for edit warring (and a few other things). Right after the block expires, it is straight back to the edit war (claiming that the sentence is unreferenced when it clearly and unambiguously is). Disruptive but relatively small beer with what's to come.

You warned ZH8000 for labelling others' attempts at reverting his disruption as vandalism. Well he hasn't got that message either (here).

And now the best bit! You described attempting to get a talk page protected as 'particularly unimpressive'. So instead of getting a single talk page protected, How about trying to get all the editors who have opposed your disruption at all articles where you have edit warred blocked all in one fell swoop. Why not totally ignore Swarm's instruction and raise a WP:ANI complaint accusing all those editors of being one big sock farm (after all WP:SPI requires the inconvenience of actual evidence). And that is precisely what he tried to do here. Needless to say and not unsurprisingly, it didn't fly but crash landed.

A question: How WP:NOTHERE does someone need to be to be, "NOTHERE to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia". Not ever starting a talk page discussion (except to attack other editors) is one thing, but to actually try to eliminate all editors from any discussion has to be quite another (and as far as I can tell - a first). TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear NeilN, please take into consideration that TheVicarsCat (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is "hunting" me wherever (s)he can for quite a time now. Actually, I am bored to report this behavior. Please take also into consideration that I made so far almost 18,000 edits v.s. TVC' less than 250 (and many of them directing against me). If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If ZH8000 is complaining that I am 'hunting' him, then the above post is clear evidence that he is doing exactly the same thing as I did not ping him. He can only have found the above by following my edit history. Another instance of ZH8000 attempting to enforce rules against others that he himself has no intention of following.

On the subject of which, the above post is a partial rehash of the failed ANI complaint. One where Bbb23 specifically told him to 'drop it'. Again ignoring instructions and not letting it drop.

I know that you are well aware that I have substantially more than the claimed '<250 edits' from when I edited from IP addresses before I was forced to create this account. In fact I was editing before ZH8000 even created his account. An interesting exercise would be to go through his editing history to see how many edit wars he has been involved in. Just looking at the last three months and extrapolating, it could well be into three figures. TheVicarsCat (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

As TheVicarsCat pointed out, much of this happened more than a week ago so I won't be taking any action. However ZH8000, any more unsubstantiated charges of defamation, vandalism, or similar will likely result in another block. Edit count does not excuse poor or unacceptable behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion: Swiggy

Hello - messaging you since User:SpacemanSpiff seems to be unavailable. I had posted the following message on his Talk page last week, but there has been no response:

Hello - I believe as an Admin you had deleted a previous article on Swiggy in 2016. I understand the comments from the community at that point of time - the company may not have been notable then. But things are different now: it is certainly notable now.

Swiggy is now India's largest food delivery company, and the fastest Indian unicorn. There is plenty of regular coverage on Swiggy in reliable secondary sources to establish its notability by WP standards.

Can you please undelete the article so that editors can work to improve it? I would also be happy to help to improve the article, if I have sufficient time: I have been thinking of creating a new article for Swiggy for quite some time, only now realized that an article on it was deleted earlier.

If you are still skeptical on Swiggy's notability, a simple Google search would be sufficient to convince you that I am right.

On WP:REFUND, it was suggested that the Administrator who deleted the original page should be contacted for any requests to restore articles: that's the reason for contacting you here. If there is something else to be done for this (e.g. WP:DELREV), please let me know.

Thanks.

Can you please review and help with the above, considering User:SpacemanSpiff's unavailability?

Thanks. Aurorion (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

CSD report removed

My fault for posting that CSD situation with the user. I have solved it with the user. All good. Thank you AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

About that picture .

I don't know if my point is clear or not, but that picture is misinformation because two reasons: First, the painter never met or saw the prophet (Peace be upon him).

Second, the physical characteristics of the Prophet that mentioned in history books are diffreant with drawing.

so this is kind of misinformation is published there, even the black stone is not like a ball as picture shown.

if I drawed a historical person, I have never seen him and what I drawed is unlike his documented physical characteristics, Will you accept what I drawed here in Wikipedia and present it as an information for the reader, I don't think you will accept that . so help me to remove misinformations from Wikipedia.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.56.28.98 (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's not be disingenuous here. You are removing that picture because it depicts Muhammad, something that is against the beliefs of some Muslims. If you really believed what you were saying, you would be removing thousands of pictures here, including those depicting Jesus, Buddha, Cleopatra, Confucius, etc., etc., etc. And you're wrong. If you're a well known artist and donated a work of yours depicting a historical personage to the public domain, it would certainly be considered for inclusion in that person's article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

YGM

I hope you had a nice vacation. ~Awilley (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Thanks. Got it and will review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply: ِAbout that picture.

Actually, any picture depicts any prophet is against the belief of the majority of Muslims not some, so you don't see such as that picture in Arabic pages.

Anyway, I will not remove that picture again, but I hope you or any other of editors consider to this case as a misinformation and change it because the picture is not depicted him as what the history books said about his physical characteristics, the picture is shown a person unlike he was.

I think at least you should write "An imaginary illustration" not only "An illustration".

Thank you.

Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.56.28.98 (talk • contribs)

• IP 37.56.28.98, did you read through the link I provided you on your talk page?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Qualifying the caption isn't going to happen for the same reason I stated above. Tens of thousands of pictures on here would require the same qualification. And not only illustrations of people but of places, things, extinct animals, etc. I would also draw your attention to Muhammad#Appearance: "neither absolutely white nor deep brown", "white circular face", "His hair was neither curly nor lank", "He had thick, curly hair" So it seems "history" does not have a consistent view of his physical characteristics (which is not surprising). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

His hair was not long like that and nothing in that picture like him, and if you don't want remove the picture at least adding word "imaginary" this is the right thing should does, and I'm not responsible for other pictures you can edit them all and add word "imaginary" if you want this right not wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.56.28.98 (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I notice you ignored the fact that even contemporary accounts do not agree with one another. The caption is perfectly correct as it stands. In fact, your proposed addition would make it incorrect. Unless you're saying the work Jami' al-tawarikh actually doesn't exist, the illustration is very much real. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I will add imaginary to the description of the picture, if you want to remove the word, remove it but I hope not to be the reason behind what you do is that you are an extreme or hate Muslims and their prophet (Peace be upon him), or under the influence of islamophobia.

I don't want bother you, so I will stop writing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.56.28.98 (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If you add it, I will remove it. Seeing as you're ignoring everything I'm saying and are now resorting to thinly veiled accusations, yes, it's a good idea to stop posting here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Miawpukek First Nation

Thank you for reverting the edit at Talk:Miawpukek First Nation. I've been having such a difficult time there, and unfortunately the article doesn't have a lot of watchers. I was going to try "Third Opinion", but then another editor got involved so it will have to go to dispute resolution, or the original research noticeboard. I spent an hour scrutinizing databases before reverting that edit, and my head is still spinning. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Merphee

I'm not sure you care what I think about Merphee, but frankly I was surprised at first by the block for socking. It seemed merely an unfortunate coincidence that the IP had ended up on ANI at the same time - perhaps because I had pinged The Drover's Wife on ANI and by doing so made them consider a report there.

I spent a while this evening wondering how similar they are, and if perhaps I should (like HiLo48, who I've intentionally pinged) suggest the block is in error. (Because I am a bad editor, I was also tempted to leave it be since they're both no good, and besides, I could be wrong). They're both incoherent, but many problematic editors are. The IP doesn't show the same semi-infinite persistence. There are certain similarities (finding a bit of policy and latching onto it, in particular, but also in style and general indifference to punctuation) but also some differences (eg Merphee constantly pushes the Murdoch line) so I thought it was Not Proven.

Then all of a sudden Merphee switches to running their talk page comments into one giant paragraph just like the IP. Ironically, their appeal against a block for socking seems like the most vigorous quacking yet.

Nevertheless, I still honestly don't know one way or the other. I'm not sure if this edit is of value but I thought I should write down what I thought somewhere. Sorry to bother you. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: It's also trivially easy to switch IPs and networks via VPNs. We have one notorious England-based LTA who occasionally takes to trolling editors with, "But the IPs are 200 km apart! Obviously the admin made a mistake!" Sometimes they snare a well-meaning less tech-savvy editor with their pleas and then we all have to waste time explaining about VPNs and proxy servers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I have never seen a case of a newish editor with a pointy attitude where they have not been a sock. Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It certainly is trivially easy - checkuser can only confirm, not disprove - but the objection that Merphee and the IP are supposedly geographically separate only came up after I'd already seen the block and had my doubts; I had them partly because HiLo48, who is frankly intemperate even by my standards and has been as vexed by Merphee as anyone, wasn't sure. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's pretty hard to come down one way or another on this, but matching IP addresses are generally secondary to identifying sockpuppets, that's just for obvious cases. NeilN could you tell us what was the basis for suspecting they were sockpuppeting? I'm inclined to believe some combination of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is happening on Australian politics articles based on how specific a lot of this stuff is, not only similar. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw the same things Ponyo outlined plus what I said at ANI: "both the account and the IP apologize for their edits but both are very keen to see the other editor sanctioned". Subsequently, Merphee's cries for justice sound very similar to the IP's "What I ask now is that the Droverswife be blocked for not notifying me about this complaint?" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't even make it through the mess that was being posted on Merphee's talk page. I have no idea how you remained so patient throughout, especially given the convoluted story about speaking with both Optus and Vodaphone. It will be interesting to see where they go from here now that they've been unblocked. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your information :) AlbusTheWhite (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

ZH8000 again

ZH8000 has now taken to altering a post that I made on his talk page. Following the Architect 134 sock case (above). I posted a good faith apology on ZH8000's talk page. As you are aware ZH8000 never accepted the apology and continued to accuse me of falsely accusing him. Consequently because of the continued "unsubstantiated charges of defamation" (your words), I struck the apology and explained why. ZH8000 has altered the retracted apology twice to make it appear that the apology is still extant (here and here) despite a specific instruction not to alter other people's posts. It's not as though the last one is a revert that happened to alter my post, it was an ordinary edit that deliberately altered my post.

I'm sure that you are getting as fed up with him as I am. At this stage, I think it is not unreasonable of me to insist on some sort of sanction. I bow to your judgement as to what. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheVicarsCat: I thought everyone had moved on from the Architect matter. It's still being raised? Diffs please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I had moved on, but ZH8000 clearly hasn't. This was the first in an ANI complaint where I had made it clear that there was no blame attached to ZH8000 (post dating the apology). Among other references, he alleges:

One of her/his most recent acts was an effort to complaint/attack against me on this page, but closed it after (s)he realised this could turn against her/himself; see #Interesting activity from 'new' user. above.

in the ANI complaint raised by ZH8000 linked to in the previous correspondence (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#Defamation and pursuit by User:TheVicarsCat). TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

... and I have just noticed in a post made by ZH8000 on an article talk page, that I have not been involved with is this post on the talk page. I have no idea what 'WBTVC' is intended to mean, but 'TVC' is his abbreviation for 'TheVicarsCat'. Possibly another unsupported suggestion of socking? TheVicarsCat (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheVicarsCat: C.Fred has re-struck out your post and left clear instructions to ZH8000 not to unstrike again. "WBTVC" very likely means "welcome back TheVicarsCat" so yes, an implication that you're socking. ZH8000 you need to stop this now. Make your case at WP:SPI or refrain from accusations, implications, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Merphee again

You have been very kind to him.

While he may not be a sock (I'm still not sure - he's certainly lying about something - he knows too much for the novice he sometimes appears to be), nothing about the behaviour that got him reported in the first place has improved. He wasn't reported for socking. Last night (Australian time) I tried to have a constructive conversation with him, firstly pointing out that because of time zones, you weren't likely to quickly see his agonisingly persistent complaining, because you may well have been asleep. I also did what I have done many times, and tried to improve his editing style, so we could have a decent conversation. (E.g. indenting) I also experienced edit conflicts almost every time I replied to him, because he kept adding more edits from himself before any replies. I think it's this advice I keep giving him, that gets ignored, that he calls belittling. He is only marginally competent, if that, and gets angry when advised. SO yes, I became exasperated again. No, I didn't tell him to F off again.

However, he has now deleted all of my conversations with him from his talk page. Yes, I know he can do that, but what is he really trying to hide? So, nice of you to unblock him, but his poor editing style has not ceased. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop antagonising me HiuLo48 and posting this type of inaccurate stuff and focus on your own editing and importantly conduct toward other editors, especially new and newish ones like me. Let's move on, seriously. You have been far from innocent in our interactions, but I just want to move on. It's been ridiculous. Ok? As far as deleting your comments from my talk page, I kindly asked you multiple times as you know, to not post on my talk page but still you continued unabated. Even administrator Drmies asked you to stop. You continued. It is my talk page HiLo48. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand. I consider your behaviour harassment and if you do it again I will report you to the administrator's noticeboard without hesitation. I've had enough of you stirring things up and accusing me of things I haven't done because we don't like each other. Please also be civil toward me in future. I've truly had enough of your behaviour and trying to get me blocked and setting me up for falls. Please just drop it and comply with policy that's all I am genuinely asking you to do here. Let's start afresh. I am still learning so let me do that please. I listen to civil and competent editors like The Drover's Wife who I think is a great asset to Wikipedia and I told her so last week [171]. But as in real life I don't respond well to disingenuous and abusive people nor listen to them much. I hope you understand what I am saying about continuing to post on my talk page though and Wikipedia:Harassment policy and take my last warning seriously. Thanks NeilN. Stick dropped.Merphee (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Merphee - I went to your Talk page last night in total good faith. You seemed to acknowledge that yourself. I cannot comprehend why you later decided that was not the case, and now feel the need to again be abusive. As for starting afresh, that's precisely what I did last night. And you noticed it. The kinds of demands you are making now is what irritates people. I was completely polite to you. You ended up ignoring much of what I said, and are now abusing me for it. That's not how productive editors work. I will say no more here, unless you again say misleading things about me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) HiLo48, it's probably best if you stopped posting on Merphee's talk page as asked. Content issues can be addressed on article talk pages. Any future behavioral issues can go straight to ANI or an admin's talk page if the behavior is particularly egregious and doesn't require community input before an admin can take action. Merphee, please remember that it wasn't HiLo48 that reported you to ANI and they were instrumental in getting your block lifted. Other editors have issues with your editing as well and I don't think it will take much to make the community decide that the negative aspects of your editing outweigh any positive contributions. I'm hoping it won't come to that and that you take what Curdle said to you at ANI to heart. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Even though I am tempted, I am not going to take the bait and reply to all of that HiLo48. This disruptive cycle needs to end. Your post on my talk page just then and directly after I asked you to leave my talk page alone [172] is what I mean by harassment. NeilN I've dropped the stick and listened carefully to what you and others have said today and genuinely want to move on and start afresh. However HiLo48 obviously will not stop posting on my talk page so I feel pretty helpless here. I just hope HiLo48 hears your warning and stops doing it, now two administrators have asked him not to.Merphee (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)