User talk:NeilN: Difference between revisions

Unless I specify otherwise, any uninvolved admin may undo any of my admin actions without checking with me first if they feel my input isn't necessary. NeilN Arbitration enforcement actions If I'm away for a couple days, any uninvolved admin may modify/lift any page restriction I've placed without consulting me or formally appealing the restriction. If I'm away for a couple hours any AE block deemed incorrect by three uninvolved admins may be modified/lifted without a formal appeal being made. In other words, no need to jump through bureaucratic hoops if it looks like I've messed up. NeilN If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. NeilN Template:Archive box collapsible Today's featured picture The acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus) is a bird in the woodpecker family, Picidae. It is found across Central America, as well as the western United States and parts of Colombia. A medium-sized bird, it has a length of around 20 cm (8 in) and is mostly black, and adult males have a red cap starting at the forehead and females a black area between the forehead and the cap. As their name implies, acorn woodpeckers are heavily dependent on acorns for food, which they store in small holes that they drill into trees, known as "granaries" or "storage trees". This acorn woodpecker was photographed in the grounds of California State University, Chico, United States. Photograph credit: Frank Schulenburg Recently featured: Heungseon Daewongun Symphony No. 9 Phoenicolacerta troodica Archive More featured pictures

Hello NeilN,

How to propose an article to good article label ? At French Wikipedia, it's easy but here, I don't understand... (Sorry for my English, I'm not an englishmen).

Thank's for your precious time. Danfarid133 (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danfarid133. Have you read Step 1 and 2 in the Nominating section of Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions? Let me know if anything is unclear. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Step 2 and 3. Thank's. Danfarid133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil. I don't know if this edit summary needs a revdel or not. I'd be grateful if you could take a quick look. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

@Lugnuts: Yes it does. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for sorting it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was accused of making a legal threat here. Could you intervene? Plagiarism isn't a crime or a tort. Carte Rouge (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you again to stop ignoring the personal attacks against me. You are aware of the history here and I have asked you multiple times to respond. This is an uncivil personal attack. All I'm asking is for comments directed at me to not contain insults, name calling, and false accusations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ANI again or another admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. Setting a simple boundary like that is usually all it takes to keep a situation like that from escalating. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy podner. Interesting to see this one [1] From an editor who is well aware that's a no-no, having promoted spurious claims against me alleging that I had done the same thing when I was sanctioned. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: It looks like Melania has responded. Must be awkward for her, considering the content. Anyways, right call per the "consensus required" clause. The initial post seemed to be asking more about the edits, rather than asking for anyone to be sanctioned. Posting "hey, that edit violated the editing restrictions" is normally fine, "I am calling for x to be sanctioned" is not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But of course, I never stated "I am calling for x to be sanctioned" and in my case an Admin responded quickly to my concern just as MelanieN did in this one. I'm not asking for you to do anything here. Just helping you to see what you Admins are up against civil-gaming-the-system-wise. Really, no more need be said. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As usual Melania maintains a dignified silence about these matters. However, her namesake admin took a look at the additions and removals from the article and didn’t see any clear AE violations. The “consensus required to restore deleted material” issue might have arisen, except that it isn’t spelled out on the article’s editing page (only 1RR is), so I’m not sure if that restriction is in place or not. In any case I can’t imagine why SPECIFICO is bringing this to your attention since they were not involved in any of the adding and removing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." And your statement "your talk page gets a lot more interesting after you become an admin" is true, true, true. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has that been there all along? When this came up I looked at the editing window for that article and I swear I saw only a 1RR restriction. No doubt all this talk about my husband is giving me the vapors. OK, in that case the second adder should get a warning and I will do so. --MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And not just your own talk page, but other talk pages as well. Reminds me of the old saying: No good deed goes unpunished. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocresy - The time shown in my screen does not correlate with the time in the Talk History so I don't have the exact diff. So I am pasting it here from the Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster: "The kind of hypocrisy one sees in these situations is disgusting. It's entirely based on a double standard that "it's OK when I do it because I'm righteous". - [2]

Liar - [3]

Drunk- [4].

I'm sure there are more instances of insulting at other editors in addition of his disturbing POV pushing and warring. His combative behavior at that article is singular. All his motions to change the article's subject were rejected by all editors involved. Unanimous rejection. Nobody agrees with his POV, synthesis and angle. He posted several topics under different names/titles demanding -basically- the same thing: that the article be primarily about a commercial ad, and he even proposed to move the article to "Tesla ad (2018)". He has been around long enough to recognize when his POV was detected and declined, but also long enough to learn how to

The first part is a rehash of accusations that were already disregarded at ANI. We could go through it all again, but it was already done once, just not to BatteryIncluded’s satisfaction. The second half is straw man hyperbole. I wish to give greater weight to statements from a very large number of sources, and he exaggerates this to falsely claim I wish to make that the primary subject. I keep saying that’s not my intention. I never made a formal proposal to rename the article, and have repeatedly said I don’t wish to rename it to a title I casually mentioned in the context of another proposed title. The claim that no editors agree with me is another bit of hyperbole. I can re-post the diffs from editors who agree with me that the weight of the article is out of whack. For some time, every attempt to discuss solutions has been derailed by this personal bickering. BatteryIncluded goes on badgering me to admit this or admit that— and when I comply — he comes back and repeats the same demands. After he had demanded I admit the car is not in Earth orbit 6 or 7 times, I did ask him if he was drunk. When you say, “yes, I know it’s not in Earth orbit” and he badgers you again with the same question, you do suspect you’re wasting your time with a drunk.

I’ve asked BatteryIncluded many times to let all this go and drop the stick. No luck. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the diff to the quote above. Other classic quotes can be found at the bottom of

Could you briefly review the quantity of sources shown in the table at Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster#Comparison of sources? In general, is this evidence that sources covering marketing and PR give overwhelmingly greater weight than the other interpretations? To me it isn't even close. The difference is so large it's obvious. The root of the frustration in all of this is that I have been told that the sources do not give us reason to give much greater weight to the first category. So I took the time to try to quantify how much we have, and allow a comparison of what kind of sources -- prestige news versus clickbaity blogs, are telling us what to give weight to. I was told I cherry picked these sources, and when asked for any evidence of that, was never answered. Do you see any evidence of cherry picking? I found several sources that supported my argument that were cited by BatteryIncluded and others who deny that the marketing coverage is all that great. It suggests they didn't even read the sources closely, but merely picked out the parts that suited their agenda.

Do you think my goal of wanting to give weight that is approximately proportionate to the the quantity of coverage in the sources is some kind of troll? I don't insist on any one specific layout or tone or structure, but at the very least I think we should try to match what we see in the sources. I have been personally attacked repeatedly when I try to address this. New editors have posted on Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster, and have been rebuffed. When they complain the article's weight is out of balance, nobody acknowledges that these editors are lending support to the same issue I am trying to raise. If you want to say I should use nicer language, fine, but in what way am I trolling? I have provided an extraordinary amount of evidence that this article has a POV problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

consensus will change, but for now it would seem wiser to WP:drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — JFG ^talk 05:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Back away? I had not picked a fight with BatteryIncluded when he made this personal attack. I had not commented in that thread for twelve days. He chose to call me out by name in a discussion I had dropped out of. And back when I had commented, I had agreed with BatteryIncluded that the article shouldn't be renamed "Tesla Roadster launch". Please think about that. Agreed with him, at least partially. I had definitely not said or done anything to oppose him. He had proposed an alternative article title, and I didsn't say anything. Which is good, right? Right? Isn't it? Why would he want to drag me back into the same thread? My response to his off-topic provocation was to remove the personal attack and to repeatedly ask BatteryIncluded to carry on without me in a civil fashion. To refrain from trying to make that rename thread about me.

   Don't accuse me of doing anything disruptive or opposing consensus when I wasn't even involved. BatteryIncluded and several other editors insisted the comments about me had to remain in that thread so that the off-topic drama could escalate. Why?

2. On the actual topic I was interested in, giving greater weight to the marketing/PR aspect, the last thing I said was to agree with Insertcleverphrasehere's suggestion that I write it out in the Draft namespace, and expand the article in its current form, with the sources I had. I hadn't bothered any of the poor beleaguered editors who were victims of "trolling" about this since then. If they wanted to drop the stick, then why didn't they drop the stick? As long as I had nothing to say, then they should be happy. Don't accuse me of refusing to drop the stick when I had not done anything and the only thing I planned to do was write a draft, and make additions that didn't contradict the form that BatteryIncluded & his pals liked.
3. Cherry picking? What cherry picking? Where? Is there any way to recognize cherry picking? Is it just a thing that exists whenever you say it exists? Or is there a way to ever recognize it? I had assumed everyone had carefully read the sources, but then I showed evidence [5][6][7][8][9][10] that BatteryIncluded, Sladen, and GreenC had found sources that they considered reliable enough to cite when it suited them, yet ignored those very same sources when they contained statements that supported what I had been arguing. I call that evidence of cherry picking. I cited 25 highly respected sources (including Elon Musk himself!) that stated definitely that the motive of using a car was, in part, marketing and PR, and only found a handful that seemed to (just seemed -- without a single one explicitly taking a clear position) that it was whimsy and fun, nothing more. If I was cherry picking, then you ought to easily find just as many respected sources that say it was only whimsy, and perhaps even one that went so far as to say PR was definitely not a motive. I'm asserting there is lopsided weight for one against the other, and I carefully listed the evidence for that. You accuse me of cherry picking. Show evidence that it is not lopsided. I'm working very hard to gather evidence and in response I get personal attacks and unfounded accusations of cherry picking.

   If it were true that there is lopsided agreement that it was partially marketing, what would that look like to you? Is there anything that would convince you? I've counted up the sources and shown them side by side. Not good enough? What would be good enough?

4. As far as your assertion that "Wikipedia does not necessarily reflect quantity of coverage proportionately" you linked to a policy that says we should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and you lined to one that said "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Yet you say no, we don't have to treat it proportionately, and your links point to policies saying "treat it proportionately". It make me wonder if I'm the one being trolled. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a scholarly opinion of Klaus Klostermaier to an article Bhimbetka rock shelters . He is a prominent German-Canadian scholar on Hinduism and Indian history and culture and has a PhD in "Ancient Indian History and Culture" from the University of Bombay in 1969.

Two wiki-users named User:D4iNa4 & User:Doug Weller are removing the above mentioned content added by me.

One of them , User:Doug Weller, is specifying 3 reasons for this.

1. He is saying Klaus Klostermaier is not an archaeologist. So his opinion can't be included in this article.

But this is an article related to Bhimbetka rock shelters, and what is wrong in adding any scholarly opinion related to this? why are these wiki-users insisting that only an archaeologist's opinions can be added to this article? Does this article has any speciality which other wiki-articles does not have? So by this logic, in an article about a novelist, we can not add an opinion by a historian about that novelist, because the historian is not an expert in novel writing? That is weird logic...These two uses seem to have some kind of hidden agenda.

2. He is saying Kalus Klosermaier is not a reliable source

Klaus has a phD in Indian History and culture. Isn't that reliable enough, to express his opinion? Please note that i am only adding more scholarly content related to Bhimbetka Cave Paintings, to the article and not trying to validate any claim. I have not made any claims in the content added by me to the article.

3. He is saying the dating of Klaus as the cave painting being older than 10000 BCE is wrong.

But archelogical Survey of India in their publication has clearly stated that the cave painting in question here is of mesolithic era. (that is before 10000BCE) So Klaus is very correct in his dating.

Above all, why all this fuss about adding an opinion by a scholar. Why these two users are so opposing against the opinions of Klaus, is what i dont understand. WHat is wrong in adding an opinion by a scholar like Klaus? If they have any citation from any other scholar which criticize the opinion of Klaus, they can add it also. Nobody is prohibiting them. Please note i am not trying to make any personal claims in the content i added, but i am only adding the opinion of Klus Klostermaier about Bhimbetka rock shelter paintings. Now they are accusing me of edit-war, while they are the ones who removed the content i added with out giving any reason.

Please intervene in this issue for a solution. This user Doug Weller was earlier banned for 24 hours too.. Please check here.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FactChecked1_reported_by_User:Doug_Weller_(Result:_Blocked_24_hours) (Banasura (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

What can I say? Of course I'm a notorious spammer, everyone knows that. Continually being blocked. But see the talk page

WP:RSN#Two users removing my scholarly citation accusing the scholar is not scholar enough. Kindly verify for my responses. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

(talk page stalker) I've blocked Banasura indefinitely for disruptive editing and incompetence. Maybe I should block Doug Weller too, what do you think? Bishonen | talk 16:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Horrible man. Banhammer. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and think about how long he's been getting away with it... —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Neil,

I've talked with you about this before. I doubt I can convince you one way or the other, but I'd like to say my piece anyway. Background:

You're not the blocking editor, but I would appreciate your summary of this. I'm trying to understand your thinking, but your terse comments on the discussion don't quite elucidate it (ie what exactly is it that you found missing?). Another question: Does consensus matter - that is, does it matter if the material I restored was removed by the other editor against the consensus? The reporting editor suggested so, and you implied it as well. François Robere (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The post I was pinged in has been removed but I'll reply anyways. My "terse" comments are usually seen as clear and direct - something that you may want to keep in mind when asked questions about your own behavior. I asked you about or referred to accepting a 1RR restriction four times. None of your four responses contained a clear "yes, I will accept 1RR". Instead, most were long-winded responses about how your reverts weren't really reverts or blaming other editors or pushing for other editors to be sanctioned or a combination of all three. Be more terse in giving answers to terse questions. As for consensus, if your changes are being reverted, especially by multiple editors, it's obvious you don't have it. Unless you can point to a RFC or a more formalized decision, admins aren't going to put much stock in your "my edits have consensus" arguments. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Out of the lot of administrators come across here around here, you seem like one of the more reasonable ones. However, even you, in your reply, repeat two related things I've come to expect from the administerial process on Wiki:

First, they don't "dig deep". ANI discussion is always very shallow, narrow and limited, and no one makes the effort of going through edit histories or talk pages. For example, a user who's misspoken is admonished, and no one cares if they were led there by others truly maddening actions; or, in this case, a user's edits are reverted, but no one wonders why or what effort was made to prevent it - everything is examined superficially, temporarily and no one tried to understand how events unfolded. Take this my case, for example: you claim I was being reverted by "multiple editors", but the fact of the matter is I was only being reverted by three editors, of which two are "opposing parties", and the third was an uninvolved editor who only did so since he got the same superficial impression that you did (he's very much part of the consensus now). Nevertheless no one cares, because a superficial examination of the edit log shows seemingly-arbitrary reversals, and that's the end of it.

Second, they tend to have a very narrow perception of "proper" conduct on Wikipedia. For example - Wikipedia demands consensus, and you ask for an RFC "or a more formalized decision", but... how many people start an RFC to resolve an argument? How many arguments are resolved through RFCs? A fraction of all discussion! Most discussions are finalized and consensus is achieved by mutual understanding, not by RFCs. RFCs are a formal device that's simply not used in the vast majority of cases; does this mean the vast majority of discussions don't achieve consensus? Yet you clearly state that it's meaningless, and there's no point in even trying to show it as I did (by the way, this is the state of the consensus at the moment, with only 3/19 against). If it's not "codified", it doesn't exist.

Both of these suggest administrators simply don't put much weight into human behavior. Events, circumstances, human nature - none of those is being considered. If a user makes an acerbic comment he will be reprimanded regardless of what drove them there (I've seen several of those on WP:3O, and I usually opt to express my understanding of their frustration rather than strictly reprimanding them for expressing it); if a user files a complaint, submits a reply or asks for assistance from an administrators, they must not only cite a specific policy, but use a specific phrasing or their message won't be processed.

I don't know how you perceive it, but it seems to me that many administrators don't deduce, interpret or study what's presented to them; instead they make technical decisions, on technical matters pertaining to very nuanced and non-technical human affairs. The result? Not only do administrators fail to deal with legitimate concerns (like the edit war I asked you to intervene in and you refused, and it's now spread to another article), but the fallout demoralizes everyone. François Robere (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a strong feeling this IP [11] is LittleDipper, who has resorted to socking following the decline of their unblock request. Would you consider semi-protecting the page? Thanks,

@

Khirurg: I've blocked the sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. He is now making inappropriate use of his talkpage [12].

Khirurg (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

JamesBWatson: I really appreciate hearing this, thank you. It's hard to block an editor who wants to write about a serious social issue that everyone agrees is an abomination but on here, working with other editors and listening to what they say to ensure content meets our guidelines comes first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. This was not a bad faith editor. It was an editor who came here in 100% good faith, to try to do something which he or she regarded as a positive contribution, on an issue which he or she quite rightly thought was important, and on which he/she had put in a considerable amount of research work. I hate having to block people like that. It seems to me that a large part of the problem was that he/she was so closely emotionally involved in the topic that they honestly could not, rather than would not, conceive of anyone disagreeing with their editing for any other than nefarious motives. That is very similar to the very common case of a COI editor posting to an AfD on their spam article who cannot conceive of anyone wanting it deleted except because they are working for a competitor. However, that may not be the whole of Ashy's problem. There seems to me also to have been a degree of inability to consider another person's point of view that may go deeper, but I don't really know enough to say. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 19:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Could you take a look at List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes? It seems like the same IP you just blocked is at it again under a different IP, I requested semi protection for the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN. Regarding this post of yours [13]. Did you mean to say that it is not within the scope of AN/ANI/AN3 for the community to impose a topic ban or site ban for whatever reason it sees fit? That has never been my understanding. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CBAN: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." Not at ANEW (AN3). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I thought, because of the AN3 label, that it was same authority. So I've made a bit of a mess then with my proposal. I guess your post took care of it. SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I get back from a pleasant Wikibreak to find this obviously bad deletion. I'm curious if looking back on this conversation, you'd have any thoughts on how things might have been done differently? NickCT (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ORGDEPTH that doesn't make it a bad deletion, just one you disagree with. No regular has a 100% "agreed with outcome" rate at AFD. If those were the best sources found then perhaps the TOOSOON comments are accurate and article creation should wait until better sources pop up. I assume you know how to contest the deletion but I don't think it will be overturned. I'd be happy to userfy the article for you so you can add to it if more sources appear in the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:GNG

. Do you? The company got direct coverage in half a dozen major national media outlets. These weren't second rate sources. I don't think I've ever seen a topic fail at AfD with this much coverage.

If you look at the AfD comments, it's pretty clear editors were confused by the reference stripping.

Anyways, I'm not seeking action here, so much as I'd just be interested to know whether you felt your actions contributed towards a good outcome in this case. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:3RR. I think that was a good outcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@NeilN: - So what do you make of this comment. Seems clear to me an editor didn't see all the references. Doesn't seem like opinion.

Anyways, you haven't answered my question on whether you think the topic made

WP:GNG

.

I'm not sure my getting blocked or not really affects whether the ultimate outcome of the deletion discussion was good or not. NickCT (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: You've got one editor saying that. The others? If I wanted to comment about notability I would have done so in the AFD and refrained from handling the ANEW case. I don't make content-related comments like what you're asking for here before or after any admin decision - there's no upside for me and lots of potential for drama. Not getting blocked allowed you to still participate in the AFD; it just didn't go the way you hoped. Bottom line: There's no 3RR exemption for adding sources other editors (and you!) think are overkill but may influence an AFD discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So you'll give me that one editor was confused by the reference stripping? Seems likely to me that HighKing didn't see the references either given his comments.

re "lots of potential for drama" - I look at it as lots of oppurtunity for drama.

Anyways, I can see getting some admission that things could have been done better is unlikely here. Bottom line is that you had several editors gaming the system and you basically let em.

I'm not trying to be overly critical. You were probably right in your interpretation of 3RR, but at the same time, it probably would have been helpful if you'd looked at the topic more closely. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another one. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know being an admin must not be easy, and when two longtime, generally upstanding editors get into it, that can be more infuriating than open-and-shut cases. While I was under the impression that the compromise photo was going to be used until the RfC close, and while I'm sorry to see a bright-line 4-reverter get away with it, I do appreciate your kind words about us both, and your patience generally, here and elsewhere. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

diff but that's a pretty mild aspersion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It's [14], but if you consider it mild, no block is required. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is a serial abuser: "undo your stupid changes" [15], "so dial down the pride, would you?" [16]. It seems like he has en enduring

WP:CIVIL issue. Also "How dumb do you have to be? You're a no one. People way superior to you have written those things, yet you refuse to accept them, as does the other moron. Ooo, big deal, you're going to ban me for a month of something, who cares..." [17]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have requested a topic ban at

WP:ANI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Resolved with a block at ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this user here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/YorkshireTeaLover

The account solely exists to cause disruption and vandalism on a single page, despite multiple reverts, the User insists on making the same change over and over.

What action should be taken? 185.9.19.152 (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a source for either term. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin noticing this might like to look at this edit. I have never encountered the case but checking the contribs shows admin attention is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked VoA; will leave the tagging to someone with better knowledge of the sock farm. —SpacemanSpiff 10:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Copied this to AE for them. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Proto-Indo-European homeland article, I have made some additions with multiple authentic citations and references but editor User:Joshua Jonathan has removed the content I added without even trying to build a consensus or providing valid reasons. The user is trying to make a personal judgement and interpretation on the content by calling it invalid and fringe, even after dozens of references and citations, this is against Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. I would appreciate if the content is discussed and agreed upon consensus rather than passing judgement and threats. ---User talk:Truthteller301

Read the talkpage diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neil! Could you do me a favor? As you know I don’t like to make admin decisions for articles I am involved in. Could you take a look at this edit by User:Volunteer Marek? As you can see from the history, they immediately re-added something that had been “challenged by reversion”. VM also made a comment at Bish's talk page when I initially reported it there (she said she doesn't deal with that kind of thing). Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Lambden made that revert as a revenge revert because I disagreed with him on the Peter Navarro article [18] (I have edited that article previously on many occasions). Also consider that immediately after his indef block was removed and his interaction ban with me expired he immediately resumed the practice of following and reverting my edits. He also showed up to my talk page, despite having been asked on at least FOUR different occasions [19] NOT to post there. After I removed his comment and asked him AGAIN not to post on my talk page... he immediately posted again [20]. After another user (User:EvergreenFir) removed his comment from my talk he immediately went and found another article where I had made a recent edit and undid it. It's straight up revenge reverting, stalking and harassment. This is what he's been doing for more than a year. It's something I've complained about for ever and partly what led to his IBAN. The fact that he's resumed this behavior as soon a he could is telling.

There are also other issues involved here which are better not discussed publicly. I've informed User:Bishonen of these even before User:MelanieN raised anything on her talk page. If you'd like Neil, I can let you know as well. Finally, since, iirc, it was User:Coffee who invented the "consensus required" restriction, why not ask HIM what he thinks of this situation? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @MelanieN: Ordinarily a straightforward violation. But the two editors are fresh off an IBAN as of Feb 15th and there was some nastiness back in January that I was half-privy to (the resolution was dealt with in private by Arbcom). However Volunteer Marek needs to ask for editing restrictions to be imposed via AE, ANI, or Arbcom and that request needs to be granted before they do anything like that again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Neil, thanks for looking into it! You were certainly the right person to ask since you knew all the history. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN. I have to correct the record of events presented:

• VM initiated our recent interaction with his revert of my edit to Peter Navarro [21]
• When I explained that his justification for reverting ("long standing") was incorrect (the text had been added less than 2 weeks prior) he accused me of "stalking harassment provocation and taunting" [22]
• I responded sincerely in an edit summary [23] having forgotten his request. I have now noted his request on my talk page to avoid repeating the mistake [24]
• When I reverted his edit in another politics article [25] with valid justification he again accused me of stalking.
• He then (by the standard he applies) "stalked" me to this page [26]
• Note that I have not objected to the overlap in our edits as both of us have previously edited these articles.

I have no objection to following whatever standards of behavior are expected. If reverting each other in articles we've both previously edited is forbidden I will avoid it. If our interaction ban (which expired last month) is restored I will respect it. In fact I have no objection to any level of interaction restriction endorsed by the community whether general or specific to VM and I as long as it applies equally. The current situation however, where he will freely revert my edits while responding to my reverts and posts with accusations of "stalking" and "harassment" is untenable. No editor should be expected to endure constant verbal abuse. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I'm sorry, the implication seems to be that the "nastiness back in January" involved interaction between VM and myself. While the IPs in the report which led to my block interacted with VM, the Arbcom found no connection between those IPs and my account. With respect I do not appreciate being associated with "nastiness" I had no part in, or having a mistaken block used as evidence of poor behavior. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden: I apologize that my comments came off that way - that was not my intention. Right now both you and Volunteer Marek are under no interaction restrictions and have to observe the normal discretionary sanctions instructions. Many AP articles have a civility restriction so concerns about behavior need to be taken to the appropriate board (with diffs) rather than being put in edit summaries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. No hard feelings. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

@Oshwah: I can't see anything obvious either and would probably wait for some more edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. Thanks for the input :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello, is Rusf10 opening this Talk:Bergen County Executive#RFC on biographic information on Alansohn's article really in the spirit of his voluntary interaction ban particularly as Alansohn has been interaction banned. 185.244.215.246 (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the RfC link in the IP's post. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where did

Rusf10 agree to a voluntary interaction ban? I see they were asked about it on ANI but see no clear acceptance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

First, who is the IP address above? (with only one edit, obviously its someone else) Second, Alansohn did not create that article, so its not even a legit question.--

Rusf10 (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

See the last line of the first paragraph of

User:Rusf10 is under a WP:TBAN "to not directly Tag for notability, PROD or AfD any article created by Alansohn or where Alansohn is a major contributor? Restriction to run 6 months and then expire" However Rusf10 is not under an IBAN so this implies it should be OK for Rusf10 to open an RfC on a topic where Alansohn has been active. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is the page that we're trying to modify and the back-and-forth modifications being made. No one thought this would be so controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bookkeeping&action=history

We're bookkeepers. I like to tell my prospective clients that we're not your grandfather's bookkeeper because the work and the workers are so different now and the word does not really do justice any longer.

It rather appears as if the editor removing our work isn't really looking at the links as proper, but as we are in the industry, we believe they are and are being improperly removed. No one wants to fight but the page here is so outdated and really does need to come up to modern times. The people here trying to make these changes are real advocates for the industry and I stand behind them (Ingabird and VanessaPolymath).

Can you assist us here in getting these needed changes incorporated? Or at least offer us some advice to getting it done, please? Evanvalken (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Evanvalken[reply]

@Evanvalken: What, exactly, is your connection to the two editors you named above? Bonadea was definitely right to remove the material. It was basically an advertisement sourced to a blog and a copyright violation to boot. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now a third editor shows up. Is there something you want to tell me? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're all bookkeepers and acquaintances. They were kind of upset that their changes were removed so asked others to jump in. I've asked them to be patient while we work this out. I'm actually not sure why you're calling the first link an advertisement. It doesn't appear that way to me. Why is it a copyright violation? Can you help me understand that? I didn't post the stuff, I'm just trying to help get it right now. I've asked that she take down her Facebook post asking for people to get involved and asked her to be patient while we figure out what's wrong with the citations. I don't mind working a bit for this but if you can point me in the right direction, I'd be grateful. Thank Evanvalken (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CANVASS. It was a copyright violation because it copied sentences from the blog word for word. And I didn't call the link an advertisement; I called the content added an advertisement. Do you really think "Bookkeeping is now a highly specialized profession that requires an amazing combination of tech-savvy, business acumen, and people skills" comes close to being encyclopedic? The article is not a recruitment flyer for the job. If you want to update the definition then you'll need to find sources that aren't marketing for the profession. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Still not sure why you're calling it an advertisement. I noticed a few minutes ago that more explanation was sent to her on her talk page and asked her if she'd read it for explanation. I didn't realize she been sent this. She owns the copyright on the article also so that's why she was saying word for word from the article. I much better understand the problem now and I'm sorry I took up your time when she had the information all along. I appreciate your help and I've learned more about editing here. I still believe the bookkeeping page needs to be updated, but I see that its approach needs to be completely different from this one. Evanvalken (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Evanvalken: You don't see why the sentence I quoted above is not completely promotional? And owning the copyright on content is not enough. It must be released under a free-use license (free to use by anybody for any purpose). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @NeilN. How do I go about releasing my words under a free-use license? Also, I don't understand how the quoted sentence is any more promotional than the rest of the page. I am merely trying to explain what qualifications are expected of the modern bookkeeper and how that differs from the expectations for bookkeepers in the past. Could you offer some ideas on how to make it less "promotional?" Thanks again. Ingabird (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:DONATETEXT. Please read what Orange Mike wrote below and please note that other editors will probably be very unwilling to have your text copied into the article even if it is free to use. That's something you will need to work out on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Kindly see this [27]. This is getting out of hand, they have a purpose as a French Organization to remove Egypt. I added 2 documentaries and i can even translate + add Dalida's own Masry (Egyptian Arabic Language) patriotic songs. She made very passionate songs for Egypt, called her self Egyptian and Egypt as her homeland in (Helwa Ya Balady) (Ahsan Nas), yet that team is racist towards her homeland + claims ownership of the page, why?. The head of the team even ignored your message to him on his talk page. This is ridiculous and this is far from truth, the woman was endlessly passionate towards her home and showed that clearly in her art and interviews. Mina Alfonse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

DalidaFan continues to revert without joining the discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks sir! and he even claims edits i did not make ("Orlando"??)! I never added a thing to the article except Egyptian nationality supported by 2 very reliable sources. I also never deleted any of her other identities or been racist to them, i respect all her stages of life and that's what honest people should do. Mina Alfonse (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeilN,

I'm hoping you can help me bring my edits into compliance with Wikipedia guidelines so that we can them added to the "Bookkeeping" page. The changes made are not spam or promotional. The content used from the cited sources is used with the full permission and support from those sources. The article that I cited is a reputable accounting journal, not a blog or promotion. If there is a way to indicate that it is used with permission, please educate me on the proper process.

The other contributors that have been trying to show their support for the change are fellow leaders in the accounting profession. We may not make changes in Wikipedia often, but we know accounting and are working to educate. We would really appreciate your assistance in making this happen.

There is no "sock puppetry" going on here. I am a recognized leader in the accounting profession, acclaimed by CPA Practice Advisor Magazine as one of the Top 40 Under 40 and Most Powerful Women in Accounting. Vanessa Barrett, who added the citation to the Institute for Certified Bookkeepers, is a valuable member of the bookkeeping profession and of the Institute for Certified Bookkeepers. I don't know what Caleb Jenkins posted, as it seems all edits have been hidden. Caleb is a thought leader in the accounting profession, also recognized by CPA Practice Advisor magazine as one of the Top 40 Under 40. We thought that by having other people show their support for the changes that it would lend validity to them, but instead it seems to have detracted from the credibility of our update. How do we fix this?

Please let me know what we need to do to bring this update into compliance and get it published so it will stay.

Thank you, Ingabird (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Ingrid Edstrom, March 22, 2018[reply]

@

conflict of interest guidelines. To use an analogy, what you're asking for is like a company having control over its financial audit. Just as a company only provides information, you should be only using the article's talk page to suggest changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

(

promotional and, frankly, egotistical when you know it comes from practitioners of that ancient and honorable profession. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Expert editors may contain helpful advice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your clarification:

This file {{{this image}}}. Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}. Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=9 May 2024}} Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=NeilN}} ~~~~ Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

edit was not the mere insertion of a space, but rather amounts to the effective deletion of my userpage, since if it would not be there, the content from Wikimedia would show. --Mathmensch (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathmensch: It was an insertion of a space which any editor could have done. You could have undone it or better yet added suitable content. Regarding your posts to various talk pages, the best way to stop being called silly is to stop doing silly things and then constantly posting about the silly thing that you did. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then try to undo it. And if you really want to, you can also stop using the word "silly". Remember, everything you post here will persist. --Mathmensch (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil. I saw your comment there. If you want to ask a polite, logically constructed question, my user talk page is at User talk:John. Look forward to seeing you there. --John (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I don't think you want a "don't abuse warning templates and don't treat good-faith edits as vandalism again or you'll may be blocked" warning given to new editors to be splashed on there. There's no excuse for giving an only warning for vandalism to Johnbod, especially as you are an admin who is supposed to know what vandalism actually is since you have the tools to stop it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You too are an admin and presumably have the ability to look properly at this. I encourage you to do so. As I said at 07:36, my talk page is always open to you if you have any questions. --John (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I did look at the edit - formatting and wording changes you didn't agree with and not remotely vandalism. I see no reason to open a discussion on this matter on a third talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good. So you'll have seen the hostile edit summary he made then. Please take any ideas you have about improving the article to the article talk page; last time I looked I was the only one to have posted there. Please feel free to discuss Johnbod's behaviour with him at his user talk page. Please be careful about making unevidenced assertions about me there, per

WP:ASPERSIONS. And we're done. Have a nice weekend. --John (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@John: Exhibit the same behavior again and you can explain your abuse of warning templates and rollback at ANI. Now we're done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. If you are too lazy to read things properly, stay away from them and let someone with more time and/or ability deal with them. Bye. --John (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you can explain yourself at ANI if you continue to exhibit the same behavior. Then others will comment on your "vandalism-handling" abilities. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 17:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You probably want to fix your first diff (it's the same as the second). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

talk) 19:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for making wikipedia a better place to be. Thewinrat (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

]

An otter for you

	An otter for you!
	Thank you for the revdel on my user talk page EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A concern

User:Yassir_Yusufzai, appears to be removing large chunks of referenced information over multiple articles, using the same edit summary("I removed some incorrect information because although the citation mentioned was a good source, it was inaccurately quoted."). I have posted a warning on their talk page, after asking them to take their concerns to the talk page on Nader Shah.

Considering the vastness of this editor's disruptive editing, some in more modern areas, I have chosen to not revert Yassir Yusufzai in those articles. Although, some of Yassir's editing is extremely questionable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: That editor's contributions are deeply problematic. Although the majority seem to have been reverted by various editors, the rest should be looked at. The warnings/notices placed on their talk page should make it clear that any more disruption will result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Massive removal of referenced information, with the same generic edit summary. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep bringing this up, but could we move towards closing the case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thewolfchild? It looks like the discussion has pretty much died down. –dlthewave ☎ 15:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: Yes, you're right. I've closed it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil N. let me ask you why is someone sometimes keep removing text from Panyd talk page?178.222.124.229 (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "someone" that means you? Blocked again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN,

Sorry about this massage. Because this massage is not part of Wikipedia. I am just infrom you that what pepole think about you? Don't take this serious. Please see (Redacted). I had founded this information, when I was searching your name in Google. When I was reading, I was feeling bad about you. :'( Thank You, Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 13:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Siddiqsazzad001: What was the point of your message? Do you really think linking to a website called "Wikipedis Sucks" is a good or productive idea here? Note to others: if you've visited the link provided please don't post here - email me if you want to know why. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Sorry for post here. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 16:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, concerning the categories on the Stana Katic page, does the term "of XX descent" denote nationality or ethnicity? I assumed it was the latter and if that is the case, then the actress would normally be of Serbian descent. Furthermore, a category exists for the Serbs of Croatia, which would include someone of her ancestry. Abonzz (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abonzz. The category points to the Serbs of Croatia article which has: "The Serbs of Croatia (Serbo-Croatian: Srbi u Hrvatskoj, Serbian Cyrillic: Срби у Хрватској) or Croatian Serbs (Хрватски Срби/Hrvatski Srbi) constitute the largest national minority in Croatia." (emphasis mine) Katic has never resided in Croatia. Furthermore, you removed two categories which do refer to Croatian descent while not touching the two categories that already refer to Serbian descent. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does "of descent" refer to : ethnicity or nationality? Can you please clarify this? Thanks for your time Abonzz (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abonzz: It's whatever the category says. For example Category:American people of Croatian descent has "This category page lists notable citizens of the United States of Croatian ethnic or national origin or descent, whether partial or full" which makes your removal plainly incorrect. This is somewhat disturbing given the article has undergone nationalistic/ethnic disruptive editing in the past. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. In that case, I'll add back the missing category.Abonzz (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abonzz: What missing category? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil. Just a word of warning as you evaluate this block review, the basis for which, for all I know, may be totally legit. I watch this user's page because during the course of a dispute some months ago they led me on wild good chases by lying to me repeatedly. It was a huge waste of time and I don't want to see it happen to anyone else, including you.

They literally fabricated refs out of thin air to sources that didn't exist and when I asked to see the sources they said they would track them down, then never did, then when they finally admitted that the sources didn't exist, they said they were relying on e-mails they received from so-and-so, then I asked them details about the e-mails and they said they would track them down, then never did, etc. etc.

I'm not seeking to get this user in trouble for past behavior, as it was months ago and for all I know an isolated incident, but you should take their representations with a huge grain of salt. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NeilN, my talk page has been vandalized several times in the recent past by IPs. Can you put it under semi-protection? Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thucydides411. Semi-protection of user talk pages is usually kept very short in response to multiple acts of vandalism/socking in a short period of time (i.e., over a few hours). One incident every few days really doesn't qualify. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your response. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you blocked this user a few days ago for his inability to comprehend that Wikipedia doesn't accept. OR. I nominated his Draft:Constitutional (Democracy (Republic)‎‎ at MfD [28], and today he edited there using an IP. [29]. I reverted his edit, with an edit summary saying that he could not edit Wikipedia under any name or using an IP. [30], and I'm about to put the same message on his user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Acroterion. Thanks for adding the message on the editor's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15 days ago in special:diff/828627380 you said:

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in this discussion.

This was an extensive discussion and it is not clear to me what reasons in particular you meant. I don't believe I should be appealing this topic ban any further until I fully understand your thought process. I realize you do not want to lift it unilaterally and instead want it to be a community discussion, but am hoping you could privately help me understand underlying policy here.

Instead of me trying to dig through others' paraphrasing and try to guess at which part you have drawn upon to support your sanction, is it possible for you to link to specific policies and quote the aspect which you think is applicable?

I only just now noticed

Since that ended on the 14th, I've spent a couple weeks just trying to put it all out of my mind, and I can do that a while longer, but today it crept back in and caused me to review this and read more closely.

Part of what bothers me is this "ARBAPDS" issue was not mentioned to me by MrX on March 1 when he initially contacted me. If this had been cited in isolation I think I would have noticed it then. I think it's bad faith to ban someone based on a policy example which hasn't been explained to them.

I'm reading it now. I don't intend to appeal again to lift this until I read it a few more times in coming weeks. I think the last 4 letters refer to "American Politics Discretionary Sanctions". It mentions:

standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.

I am thinking instead of asking that the topic ban be entirely rescinded that I could simply ask it be narrowed to just this? It doesn't appear that this 2015 decision was intended to apply outside of post-1932 American politics. ScratchMarshall (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were topic banned from all BLPs per

WP:NEWBLPBAN. Your appeal was unanimously denied. I will not be modifying the topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I do no not own article Dalida, and I am in conflict of interest with that other user that edits the page. You are right, I musn't use bad language as I used. I said those words because I got pissed of that person who doesen't know the main facts about Dalida even edits main wiki page of her. I can't own article, but I am literally co-worker of Dalida's director, and he is elder man that gives me instructions what to do and how to.distribute her. He is even her younger brother, so I am sad that anyone can just enter and write anything. Okay, so is the valid solution for me just to keep editing Dalida as "French-Italian" each time as that other user changes it? Plus, the cite that the user ads is not valid to prove... — Preceding

@

consensus (and "I know better than you" is not acceptable) or you could face a block for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@NeilN: Oh thanks, I've missed to see the Dalida talk page. My bad.

Hi NeilN, thanks for your protection of The Citadel page. One recent user, Realsnappy18, looks an awful lot like a previously blocked user, Strgzr1. Jpgordon‎ wasn't able to find anything on checkuser, he thinks because the info on Strgzr1 and socks previously tied to him are stale. Would you be able to take a look and see if there's anything more that can be done with Realsnappy18? Billcasey905 (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

diffs showing your evidence). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I sincerely hope to promote reflection, no offense intended. 108.243.118.137 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I usually RBI socks on my talk page, especially those as prolific as you. But here's a response: Unless it involves BLP content or vandalism by other editors, I don't even look at what you're saying. Since you don't care about community policies and guidelines, why should I (or other editors) care about responding to you? Especially as you insist on editing in controversial areas covered by discretionary sanctions. Make a choice - either commit to following all of our policies and guidelines (I suggest no socking for a year and then requesting an unblock) or resign yourself to being

reverted, blocked, and ignored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Just a quick note to say thank you. It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it - and you do it diligently! Scr★pIronIV 19:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrapIronIV: Thank you. Lots of diligent folks here helping out! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil, Could you block 92.27.20.76 who's obviously a sock of Hillbillyholiday, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NeilN. One of our colleagues, @Greg L: seems to be having some challenges with respect to the DS civility thing. [31] SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NeilN, could you block 212.15.182.119 And 212.15.168.19, they appear to be Sockpuppet IPs of Chernobog95 as they both use nearly the same geolocation as the IP he was recently caught socking, 188.129.26.144. Here’s the proof ^{[1] [2] [3]}. SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee
  WP:ARCA
  .

Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Neil. I have concerns (backed by evidence) that someone who has not disclosed their identity or COI is editing an article about themselves as well as whitewashing and disrupting an article about a close business associate. How do I raise these issues for community discussion, e.g. at

@

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

]

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

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

The disruption probably isn't at a level that warrants admin intervention at this point. What's really needed is some assistance resolving nine (9) running content disputes with this editor. A few days ago I posted neutral requests for help on every relevant talk page I could think of, but apparently no one's interested. 9 separate RfCs seems like overkill and might not be appreciated. The best next step I can think of would be

WP:3O. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Take a look at the recent deletions from 72bikers talk.[32] Several editors have been documenting toward an almost certain topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

]

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

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

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

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

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

Hi NielN, I just found Chernobog95 using one of those sock IPs again today, like I said before this ip, 212.15.168.195 uses the same geolocation as the ip Chernobog95 was previously blocked under, 188.129.26.144, here’s the proof ^{[1] [2]} SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

diffs of edits that show similar editing behavior? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@NeilN: Very well:

• One of the first clues that shows that 212.15.168.195 is a Sock IP of Chernobog95 is the tags left behind from the edits he/she has made in the past. Prior to his/her block, Chernobog95 made edits on pages using a mobile device, which left the tags, the two tags read "Mobile Edit" and "Mobile Web Edit" [33]. 188.129.26.144, the sock IP Chernobog95 previously used, also left behind those same tags as Chernobog95 on a regular basis [34], and so does this IP [35].

• Similar to 188.129.26.144 editing the same pages that were previously edited by Chernobog95 with similar content [36] [37], 212.15.168.195 has been editing pages previously edited by 188.129.26.144 [38] [39]. The diffs provided also show that 212.15.168.195 has used the exact same written content as that of the one inserted by 188.129.26.144 months earlier, with the only real difference being the arrangement of words. 212.15.168.195 has also edited several pages previously edited by Chernobog95 in the past:
  Scud[41]

• Chernobog95 used non-native english in his/her edits they made prior to his/her current block [42] [43]; the same went with the IP he/she edited under while blocked [44], [45], [46], [47]. Like Chernobog95 and the previous IP, 212.15.168.195 uses non-native english in the edits he/she has most recently made [48] [49], this is supported by the fact that the geolocation for 212.15.168.195 matches that of 188.129.26.144, the IP Chernobog95 previously used before it was blocked [50] [51], which shows both IPs being located in or just outside of Zagreb, Croatia, a nation where English is not a native language.

• It should also noted that the IP also edits pages under the North Korean Portal and the Rocketry Portal, two portals Chernobog95 frequently edited under prior to his/her block. And like Chernobog95, 212.15.168.195 uses the phrase "[unspecified individual] confirmed etc..." in the edits they make on certain pages [52] [53] [54] [55]. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Is this posting at AN/I by Thewolfchild a violation of the instruction recently given to him as the result of an AE case "not to personalize disputes or to use inflammatory language ('comment on the content, not the contributor')"? [56] His comment was directed at me, and the comment of mine he was responding to [57] was directed at another editor altogether. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added a NPOV tag to a GAC, but the tag was removed per this diff with a snarky edit summary. Just to let you know up front, it is not my intention to get anyone in trouble. I am justifiably concerned that the article was even nominated in the condition it is in. Rather than go into why there are NPOV issues, I'll just say the TP is chock full of them, but the nominator refuses to acknowledge them. Since the article is subject to DS, I'm not going to replace the tag without seeking advice as to what extent I have to go beyond what I've already gone. Also see [58]. We don't nominate articles for GA in order to get a GA reviewer to fix the issues. I believe the diff I provided supports my reason for adding the NPOV tag on the article, and would appreciate it if you would restore it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk) PingMe 21:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

talk) PingMe 01:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You might want to check-out MelanieN's TP where I pointed out the AP correction, and the diffs I added to the article TP dating back to Nov 2017 when I tried to explain the same thing (with RS to support what I was saying). All I got was the same ole

WP:NEWSORG). MelanieN has agreed to withdraw the GA nom, and I have offered my help in getting the article ready to be presented as a GAC. I ask that you please stand down with the PAs, condescension and resistence against what I've been trying to explain to you. It is far more rewarding to work in a collegial environment with editors who are working together for the same goal...and that goal is a quality encyclopedic article, not another coatrack to hang one's grievances against Trump. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) PingMe 03:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You might want to check-out MelanieN's TP where I pointed out the AP correction, and the diffs I added to the article TP dating back to Nov 2017 when I tried to explain the same thing (with RS to support what I was saying). All I got was the same ole WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT routine. Hey, wait a minute! You provided a link to AP's correction to an earlier article of theirs.[59] The correction contained information which is ALREADY in our article, in two places, very explicitly, as I explained to you.[60] Were you still not listening? The information you wanted us to add to the article is ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE and has been for a long time. I seriously resent you accusing me of IDIDNTHEARTHAT; I replied very specifically to your link and suggestion. This appears to be more a case of IDIDN'TREADTHAT on your part. I would like to work collegially with you as you keep saying, but this is no way to start. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

...and start a talk page thread for each one, with a specific explanation of the problem and a suggested solution. No general or vague accusations, just concentrate on improvement of content. --

talk) PingMe 05:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

I noticed them too, but they slid off my radar. Too much on my plate. --

talk) PingMe 22:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

LMAO! Good one. --

talk) PingMe 23:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

Well, your differently spelled compatriot came back today, made a bunch of disruptive edits (unsourced or not supported by source, re-added when reverted, etc.) and got himself blocked topic banned from US politics. What's interesting to me is that in his comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nielen he addressed an appeal to you! [61] He addressed you by name, interesting. And he also, somehow, surprisingly for a brand new user, knew exactly how to post on the AE page. He is now indefinitely topic banned. Wonder how long until it becomes a block as well? --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mind taking a look at this post block conversation [62] He does not want me on his talk page but is busy making demonstrably false statements including that I tried to get him blocked as a sock and that users are working together toward an almost certain topic ban (follow his link). Looks like a civility or BLP violation against me. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

While he has no problem posting personal attacks against me (see above) now [63] followed a number of hours later [64] I'd warn him against clerking and modifying another user's posts but he has banished me from his talkpage. Is this something you can act on or go to AN? Legacypac (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi NeilN. There's this guy. His name is "Factchecker atyourservice". He's been quite uncivil for quite some time on the

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

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

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

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

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

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

I purposely did not ping you to avoid dragging you into this. I don't see any

personal attacks as WP defines them, but uncivil is way broader and clearly fits a lot of the talk page comments from this editor, imo. The fact that MelanieN has reacted by deciding to avoid the typically harsh and unproductive interactions with this editor, regardless of whether she chooses to call them "uncivil" is clear confirmation of the problem that the DS is intended to extinguish. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, the stonewalling at that article is far more disruptive. Editors who bring light to the issues via legitimate discussion are relentlessly criticized by editors who make claims of FORUM etc. Then comes the spinning of what was actually said in response to the FORUM accusations...and quite frankly, the pattern becomes rather noticeable. Factchecker, JFG, and others have provided lists of issues and suggestions - some of us have called RfCs - but we're still dealing with stonewalling and/or attempts to make the opposition appear disruptive. The next thing you know, there's a pile-on at AE to get rid of the opposition (whoever tried to change the status quo), and busy admins are forced to make quick decisions without knowing the full story. I've noticed that tactic used most often by teams protecting Coatracks, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway...with regards to

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

Politrukki (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Step by step I found that f.e. Special:Contributions/38.142.19.186 + Special:Contributions/AlainaP14 could be this user.
• I have the feeling, that it coud be a similar case with this user: IP 96.54.224.159. (User systematically altered informations about identification of weapons in crimes) See [66] [67] [68] [69]. + IP Special:Contributions/70.66.13.54&offset=&limit=500&target=70.66.13.54 has the same edit style [70] and wow Special:Contributions/96.54.224.159&offset=&limit=5000&target=96.54.224.159 IP active mission since 2011 & talkpage ;-) next IP is Special:Contributions/104.128.253.21 with changing weapon info here. + Special:Contributions/104.128.253.2 All this IPs are located in British Columbia, City: Nanaimo & Victoria

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

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

@

tutorial to gain a basic understanding of editing. If you don't understand why your edits are getting reversed, please ask. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

@

consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Using Twitter to make controversial claims about living persons is a clear violation of

Politrukki (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

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

]

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

Politrukki (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I'm disinterested in your content dispute in general, but headlines are not considered reliable sources. It is common that a perfectly fine source uses a headline that is not substantiated in the article.

Politrukki (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Politrukki (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

@

no legal threats policy when using such terms as libel and slander. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

no legal threats policy when using such terms as libel and slander." How about I mind THE LAW when using terms? That would be a refreshing change around here, wouldn't it? Calling someone a racist in print is libelous unless you're ready to back it up in court. And claiming to use articles that DO NOT use that term about him as your basis for using that term only shows that this is nothing but a case of hate-filled people wanting to express their hateful opinions (which is, as I've already pointed out, a violation of the 2nd Pillar of Wikipedia...MR ADMINISTRATOR!!!) QPhysics137 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:LIBEL. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

@NeilN: "Not really a good idea to invoke THE LAW here if it's obvious to anyone familiar with libel laws of the U.S. (which we have to follow) that your basic premise is incorrect." I don't know what law school/bait shop you got your degree from, but I assure you that printing an unsubstantiated claim of racism *IS* opening one's self up for a libel suit. And putting down "references" that do not actually support the use of the term only makes the injured party's case stronger^[1].
Perhaps you'd like to educate yourself before your next fallacious response. (But somehow, I doubt you will.)
Why do you think people are free to publish "Donald Trump is a racist" or "Hilary Clinton is a criminal"? How many of them are stating it AS FACT in a published media outlet AND providing "references" that they are claiming proves it to be factual? (Do you not get the difference between a sign at a rally and a sentence is a newspaper...or Wikipedia article????) QPhysics137 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@QPhysics137: Might want to read more: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76] Bottom line: the article contains no libel. If you want to argue content and sources, don't do that on this talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I don't know if you realize this, but even if you happen to convince NeilN that you're right, administrators are mostly just janitors, and the only thing that going to make a difference in the article is convincing people on the talk page and/or the currently open

WP:BLPN thread. GMG^talk 21:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

@NeilN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry: TL;DR.. Please do not remove the properly sourced material and most important thing do not add unreliable sources. A few days back, you were adding some dubious material on a BLP using some unreliable sources and you admitted your mistake on your talk page [77]. --Saqib (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

[78]

[79]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On WP:AE, when I was appealing the topic ban, I was aware of

WP:CGTW. That's why I didn't focused on arguing the false claims made by Ms Sarah Welch there, although I can do it this now also because unrelated users had also raised serious concerns with their editing per ANI

.

Vastu Shastra: MSW in AE cited own claims as evidence. So far the story is that MSW wanted to remove history section,[80] but the existing version has dedicated a section to history.[81] I made most efforts there. This is where MSW claimed that I don't provide page numbers on talk page[82]

, an odd complaint that I have not seen anywhere else. Google books are digitized and they show page numbers, I had stated direct quotes and other users (about 4 others) could verify the text, only MSW couldn't which seemed to be nothing but deliberate obfuscation on MSW's part.

Bhimbetka rock shelters: Again, cites own claims as evidence. D4iNa4 and Doug Weller also agreed on MSW's contributions as "a sock who was frequently misrepresenting sources,"[83] and "sock misrepresented the text".[84]

Kalki: Again, cites own claims as evidence. Edit warring[85] and misrepresentation of sources was always apparent from MSW here,[86] and usage of sources that make no mention of "Kalki".[87]

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

• "How are the restrictions preventing you from doing what you want to do? What is going to change about your editing if the sanctions are lifted?": I will be able to revert those users again, who are here only for edit warring or they frequently show their failure to adhere
  WP:GAMING is prohibited. Incidents related to Hookah show a user socked and successfully got his preferred version protected.[88] An involved admin (Ohnoitsjamie) had to revert to a version[89]
  that supported my POV, but it doesn't means Ohnoitsjamie was allowed unless the version involved BLP violation or vandalism. Ohnoitsjamie made that edit in good faith and won't ever get admonished for this given the running SPI at the time. I can cite more examples, but this incident is clearly enough to show that how 1RR is not helping.

Sources are sometimes so superficial that they look reliable but after you have spent some time judging them, you find them unreliable or borderline reliable. This happened on

WP:PSCI

, I am sure the support count would be higher and oppose count would be smaller.

You had also asked me to "show how careful ... with sources in other areas",[92] I can cite more examples but this crucial RfC proves that I am careful with sources in other areas as well. Raymond3023 (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is back making erroneous edits to Rugby World Cup articles. I think a permaban may be in order. –

@

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

]

Fair enough. Cheers for the speedy action. –

Jay 20:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And on a lighter note, I'm just laughing away here at the thought of having to give Jimbo a discretionary sanctions notice. [93] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk) PingMe 19:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

...despite being topic banned contributing to AfD. [95]. --Saqib (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

hi NeilN.

You have been told about it by an admin. You need to stop this

Capitals00 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

my dear friend,i'm just asking another admin for an opinion,it's my right to ask a question from admin to help me.i don't think i'm doing something wrong by asking just a question.

talk) 16:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Hi Neil,

I made a proposal on my TP. Please see and let me know what you think.