User talk:NeilN/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Re: template

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

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

Long-time stalker

I'm afraid that I'm being stalked by an editor that has been blocked since November 10, 2016 by the name of JuanRiley. Even after being blocked this editor began creeping up on the talk page of his blocked account, then eventually mine twice one in May 15 and this one being recent as of today. And if you look at these IP's they all begin with "75.161." and they all come from New Mexico [1][2][3]. This is really worrisome because apart that he was a troublesome editor, more than anyone I or anyone had dealt with, the fact that this editor has always been stalking my edits and talk page to a personal level even after being blocked is really frightening. (N0n3up (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC))

Quick note on the AE

Extended content

Just want to raise one important point, the text that was removed by user François Robere in those three edits was not under discussion, he just removed it with no consensus. The text that Ealdgyth referes to is under a heated debate (and she correctly framed the debate, that it is regarding what constitutes a reliable source). But, this is crucial, this is not the text that François Robere removed. So, this is a separate issue that is being debate, but not what François Robere violated, or anyone else for that matter. François Robere just went in and removed completely different text and did not initiate a discussion (only later) and had no consensus/has no consensus. --E-960 (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Also, one quick note. At the moment this disputed text which Ealdgyth addressed, contains no self-published references (this was one, and actually I was the editor who removed it after getting consensus that it was indeed a blog [4]), however the debate moved to questions such as: is the Treblinka Muzeum and the Institute of National Remembrance, etc. reliable sources, and should the statement be removed or significantly re-worded if other reliable sources are found. However, again this is not the text that François Robere blanked-out. --E-960 (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC) This is the sentence under discussion Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#RfC: Jewish Baiting Techniques that Ealdgyth referes to "One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Poles for help; if they agreed to, the household was reported to the Germans, who (as a matter of announced policy) executed the entire family or arrested those willing to help Jews." as having the heated debate about reliable sources. However, these are the statements [5] and [6], which François Robere removed or changed — not under discussion when the edits were made, and in completely different sections of the article, and that's the violation of the rule, which as you can see causes more chaos because user François Robere continues to make BULK changes without starting a discussion and gaining CONSENSUS, and also making it impossible for editors to sift through the information. --E-960 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC) @E-960: You've made eighteen straight posts here for a "quick note" that probably should be at AE. Please make your points there and use Show preview. --NeilN talk to me 17:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry, got a bit carried away, will move the text to AE. --E-960 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Extended content

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

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

The AE case

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

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

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

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

Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you in advance.

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

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

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

ABF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@JFG: Taking this a step at a time, this was the content discussed in the RFC. Excerpting Brustopher's close, "So there is very clearly a very strong consensus that something about the Forbes tapes be included." (emphasis mine) and "While there's an obvious consensus to include these allegations, thought should be given to phrasing when including them in the article (perhaps citing the year the events were alleged to have occured?)." Both yours and Aquillion's versions include the allegations. [7] Your version has the stronger "deceived" language but omits why the deception purportedly took place. Neither version really addresses Brustopher's phrasing point. Wording should be worked out on the talk page if editors really want to hew closely to the close. SPECIFICO's hyperbolic comment was unhelpful. And SPECIFICO, considering I took you to task two days ago about your "reverting to longstanding stable content" edit summary, I do not think you should be concerning yourself with JFG's command of English here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Re: ADMINCOND

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

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

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

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

AE and deletion of pages

Regarding your comment "[i]f you want the deletion to be done under discretionary sanctions then open a request at WP:AE"[8], where has Arbitration Committee authorised deletion of pages as an AE action? You can assume that my question is about topic that falls under WP:ARBAPDS, if that matters. Politrukki (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Thanks. I guess the bolded text gives some leeway.

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

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

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

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

Dispute resolution

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

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

Happy Adminship

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

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

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

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

Hi Neil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to your reply.

Best wishes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A once and future open proxy

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

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

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

Some spinach for you!

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

RT (TV network)

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

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

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

This appears to warrant a follow-up response after your last warning. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

LP, more personal comments/attacks.

NeilN, I understand Legacypac does useful work screening new articles but the editor really needs to cut down the personal comments/attacks. Recently LP repeated the exact comment for which JamesBWatson blocked him a few weeks back (link to comment and JBW's thoughts [[10]]). JBW's block was lifted because editors felt it was it was felt to be too harsh for a "single" comment. However, it's clear the behavior hasn't stopped. Calling an editor a "troll" is well beyond the limits of civil.[[11]] Do you have any suggestions? I understand that firearms articles can be contentious. Comments such as these make it much worse. Thanks. Springee (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Followup to the DF24 flaming

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

ANI report went to an archive.

Hi, I am not sure if you are a right person to ask, but I've just noticed that my ANI report was archived, and no actions were taken: [12]. Can you please explain if is it normal, and if it is, what does it mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarify

NadirAli: How the edit was not a violation? He was referring to what is going on at Kashmiris and Talk:Kashmiris, and even on talk page, GoldenRing had said that it is a topic ban violation to edit here.[13] Per topic ban he is not allowed to refer any edits related to the subject where he is topic banned.

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

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

Also noting that I filed the reports in good faith. I didn't filed report about JosephusOfJerusalem who had violated topic ban[14] and I didn't reported Owais Khursheed who had violated 2RR, because I thought they are no more necessary. My Lord (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Other than that, as you already know that sanctions have been handed out, ranging from disruptive editing to rude comments. I wanted to inquire about this edit in the same report where an editor who never interacted me ever before,[15] posted such a strong opinion and went so far that he falsified the incidents and even misrepresented this talk page edit of mine as "very aggressive". While I must notify you that I avoided replying to such a misleading comment I was at the same time thinking that someone will take action against it upon review of the report. Let me know your opinion about that as well. Thanks My Lord (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

SoundCloud rap

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

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

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

Mixed messages

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

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

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

3RR

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

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

TBAN

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobbs2090322

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Factchecker atyourservice:

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

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

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

What do I do now?

Nothing has really changed in A bicyclette's edit-warring, despite my opening the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages. Meanwhile A bicyclette continues to make edits across a vast number of pages relying on non WP:RS here: [16] and [17]; failing to follow proper procedure when he believes a source is not reliable here: [18] and [19]; claiming consensus when none has been established [20], disappointing supported by Buckshot06 here: Talk:List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1966)#Mid-2018 notwithstanding that this is the subject of an RFC. I am trying to follow policy, but I feel that I am the only one who is doing so while A bicyclette runs amok ignoring all rules and policies. I am spending all of my time on dealing with this which is a waste of my time and frankly not what I come to WP for. So please tell me, what should I do now? Mztourist (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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

AR-15 rifle again

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

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

Hello Neil, the discussion had stopped days ago on the 5th [21] with majority in favor and issues addressed such as this [22] addressed with ABC recognizing 2 experts on this topic. I posted my intentions in advanced yesterday with this [23]. So today I included the content as to NPOV policy as mention here on your talk page (Neutral point of view: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.")

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

After I noticed my edit reverted while going through my watchlist today, I replied to issues and addressed them. I trimmed 4 sentences down to just one highly reliable and highly relevant to topic[24]. Expert Dean Hazen said, "the reason mass shooters are turning to the AR-15 is due to a "copy-cat" mentality more than any feature of the rifle, it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity." and one sentence from a stated expert that support this Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder-- echoed Hazen's comments.

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

I thought it might be helpful to know this content in its original state has been in the "Mass shootings in the United States" article for 4 days[25]. There has been ongoing conversation there on other issues and no mention to this specific content. Until just recently today with just issues of its format, that I am now about to address. Also just recently WW today added this "Added more information for balance from 72biker's source, and a paragraph break to make the section more readable" [26]. -72bikers (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Waleswater, the second article edit was premature but 5-5 claim isn't a fair assessment. 5-5 was for the original edit and 72's update did remove the material that was the core of several of the objections. For example, this objection [[27]] may have been addressed by 72's changes. I think the edit was still too soon since it's always best in a case like this to say "here is the text" and wait for a clear "OK" but claiming 5-5 isn't really fair either. Springee (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Neil, an IP user with a dynamic IP address keeps adding and re-adding (after reversion) material to the AR-15 style rifle article. I warned a previous iteration but with no effect. Maybe protect the article from IP edits? Waleswatcher (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: I'd rather block the range if they persist. Also note that editors are bound by WP:3RR and not WP:1RR when reverting IPs (absent any editor-specific restrictions). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Happened again. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: 2605:e000:100b:4057::/64 blocked a week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Waleswatcher (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure you know what I’m talking about

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

Notice

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

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

Dave Williams (Colorado politician)

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your help

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

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

Query

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

Republic of Macedonia

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

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

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

ArbCom motion

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

Just indeffed someone you blocked recently

This guy.[28] Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC) (Love this response to a warning.[29]. Did he really think that would help?) Doug Weller talk 11:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

You've got mail

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

Just for your information

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is a really social scientist hence not historian Nishidani want to peddle WP:SPS source which is clearly WP:UNDUE.Also personal comments about other users are quite troubling [30] calling other editors "POV warriors" is clearly WP:NPA violation --Shrike (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

A political scientist is quite another kettle of fish than a social scientist. For 'Historian': [31]; [32]; [33]; [34]. [35]; [36]; [37] etc.etc. I.e. before throwing opinions around, read widely. Perhaps I should just sigh with Kamo no Mabuchi, another great man, like Finkelstein, who cared for precision in detail and close reading:

ゆく牛の The old man trundles

おそき翁が slow-footed as a cow

うつゆふの his cramped heart frayed

さかりしこゝろ like silk spun hollow

くいもくいたる eaten out by regret.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You took out this:

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

That is precisely what the text states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• That is completely irrational. If you objected to the sources, it is totally illogical to remove the short lede text and full first reference to them, while leaving the substance of my summary of them ([38] [39] [40],[41])on the same page article. That you read the media coverage section is proven by your removal of the word ‘historian’ from that section in the same edit.
• Since I gave the full references in the lead, your removal of them created redlink problems in the media section (Cite error: The named reference NFinkelstein was invoked but never defined), which used the <ref name="" />system. The result is an garbled eyesore, with an unchallenged text standing without any indication of where it came from.

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

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

• I think he needs to explain more things: Although he was told that Wikipedia was not a democracy, he made this revert and said: "consensus is in favour of this change (5 against 3)." --Mhhossein ^talk 12:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The pattern persists: blind reverting with false edit summaries. Even in the face of attempts to suggest he desist on his own talk page.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani and יניב הורון: If I'm looking at this correctly, the first sentence was about October 2008 specifically. Someone added a second sentence taking a stat covering September 2000 to October 2008. If that's right, I don't see this as a blind revert. Again, the edit summary could have been been more on point. Something like, "you cannot associate eight years' worth of data to one month" or even "unnecessary balance". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough reading on the basis of my all too succinct formulation above. It's my fault. I should have specified that what Yaniv excised were two sources, the second of which you make mention depending on the first which is all about the war we are dealing with:

• Mark LeVine, Who will save Israel from itself? Al Jazeera 27 Dec 2009
• Johannes Haushofer, Anat Biletzki, and Nancy Kanwisher, 'Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End,' Huffington post 02/06/2009

Mark Levine's article is written on the first day of Israel's 2008-2009 war and deals exclusively with that war. In it he cites en passant Johannes Haushofer, Anat Biletzki, and Nancy Kanwisher. The editor Yaniv reverted, added the Levine cite and, I suppose through scruple, added one of the key sources Levine, a distinguished historian and Middle East specialist, in part argues from. It is surely immaterial that the second source deals with the deep background (while citing the war in question).

If Yaniv had troubled himself to look at the two sources he removed with the edit summary 'unrelated to the Gaza war', what he affirmed was beyond question untrue, for Irvine's article is precisely about that war.

That would be deliberate falsification. I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt only by assumiong he did not read the two sources. He might just have glanced at the Haushofer et al., article rapidly, missing its several brief mentions of the 2008-9 war, but he did not check the other source he removed. I appreciate that these complications are a burden on admin time. Your opinion on H, B and K is fair, though I dispute it. I think my oversight on not mentioning LeVine is responsible for what, permit me, may be a rather generous misreading. Best regards.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I should add that the Haushofer et at article was a scientific work, published by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America and of fundamental importance for the I/P area ('Both sides retaliate in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict,' PNAS October 19, 2010, 107 (42) 17927-17932, where it is systematically removed because it challenges a meme that is all over our pages.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions, "Balkans (Macedonia)"

Hi NeilN. I received from you a reminder about Disc.Sanctions [42], after a disagreement with other users about Souliotes and Arvanites (Albanians for the Albanians and others, Greeks for the Greeks and themselves). Another user/admin warned me about reverts regarding "people of Albanian descent". I have two questions:

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

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

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

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

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

DS on misrepresentation of sources

Just to gauge your standard on the new sourcing and representations restrictions, please take a look at the discussion taking place on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland: Multiple sources were given that characterize the NSZ, a WWII-era paramilitary organization, as anti-Semitic (among other things) [43], yet one user keeps claiming the sources do not state, or do not emphasize that fact [44][45][46][47][48][49]. Is this at a level that would justify an ANE request for source misrepresentation? Also, is a false accusation of "cherry picking" [50] 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 [51] 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 [52] 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 [53]. I asked Dr.F to please stop this behavior [54] but I see that not only is he pursuing it, but seeks now to involve Future Perfect [55]. 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. [56], [57], [58]. 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 [59] 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" [60]). 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. [61] 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": [62] -- 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, [63]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)." [64] 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 [65]. 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 [66] 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 [[67]] and on WP:GS/SCW and I think it was added by you on 27 April 2017. User:Stikkyy implies there's no restriction [68] and User:Volunteer Merak outright says it doesn't exist in his edit summary [69]. 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 [70].  — 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 [71].

And it's quite amazing how quickly the two of them jump in to revert on each other's behalf [72].

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)[73]. 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 -->[74] 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.[[75]] 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: [76] 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_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.[77] 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 - [78] [79]. 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 [80] and even removed the "In Use" tag I added [81].

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 [82].

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 [83] 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 - [84] + 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 [85]? 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"[86] 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"[87][88][89] 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 [90] [91] [92] [93]. He has referred to the source with insulting language, calling it "A semi-religious tract for schools", "missionary-moral tract" [94], "a missionary text for schools" [95], "a missionary text for school children" [96], [97], "the IPN missionary magazine for school kids" [98] 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 [99] [100] (IPN is the "detailed source") [101])

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/Archive 2#IPN Bulletin as a source + misrepresentations. The IPN has been criticized for being "overtly nationalist content of its mission led to its over-politicization"[102], order by the government to popularize history as "an element of patriotic education" and oppose so-called false allegations that "dishonor" the Polish nation"[103]. The IPN has also been promoting the fascist NSZ, and has promoted a music CD with skinhead nationalist bands in their honor.[104]. 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/Archive 2#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 - [105], [106], [107], [108], 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 [109]. You've also tried to use far-right anti-semitic sources on a BLP [110] 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) [111] or Ewa Kurek [112] (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. [113] 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) - [114] by a historian
2. [115] 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 - [116].
3. [117] despite the fact that Browning does write some grade-A nonsense [118] 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. [119] dubious in relation to Holocaust: Responses to the persecution and mass murder of the Jews - a book chapter by Antony Polonsky.
5. [120][121] [122] (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 [123]) and Studia Litteraria et Historica (which is a newer journal - [124] - 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)

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48