User talk:NeilN

Today's featured picture The six-spot burnet (Zygaena filipendulae) is a moth of the family Zygaenidae. It is a common species throughout Europe, except the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula, northern Scandinavia and the Great Russian North, and is also present in Asia Minor, through the Caucasus to Syria and Lebanon. It inhabits meadows, woodland clearings, sea-cliffs and area rich in grasses and flowers, up to 2,000 m altitude. The adults fly on hot, sunny days and are attracted to a wide variety of flowers such as knapweed and scabious, as well as the larval food plants bird's foot trefoil, Dorycnium, Coronilla and clover. This six-spot burnet was photographed in Kulna, Estonia. Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus Recently featured: Copper sunbird Sugarloaf Mountain Almond

A little education required

While I hold no sympathy for the subject of the article, I find myself unable to understand why this category exists. Yes, the material is well cited for a BLP, but separating out individuals convicted of crimes by their nationality just seems wrong. The parent category has been in use for over three years, and this was added by both an Admin and one of the most prolific editors here. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! Scr★pIron^IV 19:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: You're talking to the wrong person. Save for WP:BLPCAT violations, I stay away from categories as I think the way we do categories is downright weird, archaic, and cumbersome. I'd much prefer a tagging system but I'm probably in the small minority. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding anyway - I'll check with @Dennis Brown: if he's around. I am sure it's not a violation, as it's been around so long. Just a question of me trying to understand better. Scr★pIron^IV 20:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Neil, it's a minority of at least two, I'll tell you that. And I'd bet money I know of at least 3 others who'd get behind that idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about the category, I haven't really thought about it long enough, although my first instinct is to repel a bit. Honestly, I don't use the cat system here or dabble in it. If I was going to ask an editor around here, I would ask BrownHairedGirl, who I think does a great deal with categories and can probably offer more insight here. Additionally, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is a good way to find out what consensus is on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Dennis Brown.

There are 2 issues here:

1. whether we should categorise people who convicted of indecent assault. I haven't formed a view on that, but I can see a good argument that it is WP:DEFINING, and if pushed at this point I'd probably say we should keep it: a conviction on this charge is a v big issue for anyone's public standing. That's only my initial take, and debate might sway me.
2. whether there should be an Irish subcat. Category:Irish people convicted of indecent assault had only 1 page when I looked at a few minutes ago, but I diffused a few pages into it from Category:People convicted of indecent assault. So now it has 7 pages, which seems to me to justify @Tim!'s creation of Category:Irish people convicted of indecent assault.

If anyone believes that we should not have categories of people convicted of indecent assault, then feel free to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Nomination_procedure, and open a group discussion on Category:Irish people convicted of indecent assault and all its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

PS If the concern is not about categorising people who convicted of indecent assault, but about sub-categorising them by nationality, then the remedy would be to nominate the three by-nationality subcats for merger to Category:People convicted of indecent assault and Category:Foian sex offenders (where "Fooian" is the nationality). I'm less clear about why grouping them by nationality would be problematic, but anyone is free to make the case. Note, however, that Category:Criminals by crime and nationality is a well-developed category tree, so you'd need to make a case why indecent assault is an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

LeGabrie using the F-word against me, is this considered Civil behavior on Wikipedia?

Hello NeilN,

I recommend you look at the language LeGabrie used in talking with me [1] Where LeGabrie wrote

"Is that so fucking hard to comprehend for your brain? The entry is about Medri Bahri as a KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM. No fucking shit did the Eritreans survived the imprisonment of the last Bahr Negash and continued their fighting, but that is absolutely irrelevant."

[2] FYI, I responded to your(NeilN) comment and that you would be specifically only looking at my behavior, however is LeGabrie's behavior and foul language usage accceptable on Wikipedia per Civility guidelines? As for calling LeGabrie racist, it was for his edit summary where he talked about "Eritrean nationalists", Eritreans are human beings too and worthy of respect for their point of view on their own history. So I found it racist(offensive) of him to state that in his edit summary. [3] [4] Uknowofwiki (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Uknowofwiki: First, editors swear on Wikipedia. People may not like it but the community has not banned the use of profanities. Second, LeGabrie did what he was supposed to do to solve a content dispute - he asked for the opinion of a neutral third party. You obviously disagree with the opinion but do not edit war. I don't know what you mean by "appropriate Authorities on Wikipedia" but I pointed out further options available to you. I suggest you use one of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Really the F-word is fine when used in a Hostile combative manner like LeGabrie did in this diffs I showed you, but using the word "Kangaroo Court" is not acceptabale to you? I can tell you don't like me and thats fine with me. But constitency in Wikipedia guidelines being applied would be helpful for editors. According to you, its against wikipedia rules for me to call the bias in Third Opionion I noted as a "Kangaroo court"..but its ok for LeGabrie to be completely UnCivil in responding to me. I kept as neutral as possible. I think you are a Biased Moderator by the way, thats my opinion. And you showed you are biased by using Wikipedia to keep me from even editting but its ok According to YOU that LeGabrie can say "Fuck" and "Hypocrite" and "Eritrean nationalist" editors but I can't call THird Opinion a "Kangaroo Court". Uknowofwiki (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Uknowofwiki: You need to carefully read what I actually wrote: More comments like the "kangaroo court" one may convince the community that you are not interested in achieving consensus, but rather only in seeing your preferred version of the article put in place no matter what. That is, people understand when two editors with opposing viewpoints go at each other. However they start to wonder about POV-editing when a third-party opinion is contemptuously dismissed. You need to stop harping on the supposed biases of everyone else and start focusing on content. Also, I went back to the edit warring noticeboard, the article talk page, and this page and I cannot find any post from me about potentially blocking you or otherwise stopping you from editing - just a statement to stop edit warring. Do you have a diff that says differently? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

[5] where you say "I do not expect edit warring to occur after protection is lifted. Uknowofwiki, I'm looking specifically at you." As if I alone was involved in a an edit war and as for acting civilly you completely ignored LeGabrie's conduct, the community would ignore his conduct and "specifically" "look" at me like you stated...You are a moderator and your tone has made me feel as if you will block or ban me if I even continue editting honestly any article that the LeGabrie editor (who has some kind of prejudice against Eritrean editors) is on. I see that LeGabrie is bent on being the Sole Editor owner of the Medri Bahri article by asking to see how he can get me Banned or blocked in the talk section on your talkpage. Uknowofwiki (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

LeGabrie took the first step by asking for the WP:3O. You didn't agree with the third editor. Instead of edit warring, I am expecting you to take the next step by using one of the other dispute resolution mechanisms I pointed out. Why is this so hard to understand? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not hard to understand, that isn't my issue at this point. My issue is what this talksection is that you made a comment. I responded to your comment, as a moderator, I wanted you to know exactly what was the case. By the way, you have not acknowledged what I stated there, you did clearly state as a moderator that you will specifically be looking at me(punitive) in any edit war as if I am solely the "guilty one". That is what the tone you communicated to me is and as for "edit warring", I already stated that I just won't edit the Medri Bahri article. The problem here is that you are specifically only looking at me and completely ignoring or excusing LeGabrie's behavior. How can I go to the next level of "dispute resolution" when I will be accused and or treated as if I am guilty of "edit warring" solely? Edit wars are a two-way transaction. Uknowofwiki (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Uknowofwiki: Given your poor reaction to the 3O, the note was meant to keep you out of trouble. Question: Have you actually looked at the other dispute resolution options or are you just complaining? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the other dispute resolution paths.Uknowofwiki (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Uknowofwiki: So you've seen options like RFC and WP:DRN focus on content only, not editor behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

water under the bridge.Uknowofwiki (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Tritomex reported by User:Dr.Greyhawk (Result: No violation)

How is this "no violation" if the user keeps reintroducing a false statement despite discussion and warnings?

Read the statement:

...with most in a community sharing significant ancestry and up to 75% Levantine genes

Then read the article that he sourced

Does integrity of information on Wikipedia not matter anymore? There's a huge difference between "Middle East" and "Levant." Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dr.Greyhawk: There was no WP:3RR violation. I'm also leaning towards blocking you as a sock and have asked another admin to look at your editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh okay, so WP:3RR is the only thing that constitutes as a violation on Wikipedia now? But intentionally introducing false information into articles multiple times even after being warned is totally fine apparently. Does this mean that we can stay in an edit war forever as long as we wait 24 hours in between reverts? This is what you are setting it up to be. I already showed you how his contribution and reverts were erroneous even according to his own source that he cited. Also, how will you block me for being a "sock" when this is the first account I've ever had? Just a few days here and I'm already getting a taste of the hypocrisy and bias in the moderation. Going through their history, the users you are protecting seem to have free reign in violating the integrity of information in multiple articles on this site since 2011 and you want to ban me for being objective and rectifying some of their erroneous and misleading contributions? How does that make sense? Even another user is now discussing the same problem in the same article. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Prof. dr. Igor Janev is a very notable person.

Игор Јанев or Prof. dr. Igor Janev is a very notable person. He should be included in that list.178.222.98.212 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:WTAF. We need evidence of his notability and sources for his ethnicity per our policy on living people. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

He Was Advisor of three Macedonian Presidents: K. Gligorov, B. Trajkovski, and G. Ivanov. He wrote Macedonian Constitution and He was expert on Name Issue with Greece. What more you need?178.222.98.212 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

An article which conforms to WP:BIO with reliable sources. I suggest you use WP:AFC to create a draft. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Its impossible to create a draft. It is limited for confirm users. As for ethnicity look at mk.wiki stating that he was or is Macedonian professor, in first sentence, here https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%88%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2 .178.222.98.212 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked per this and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Operahome --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

New user has created a user page that redirects to yours?

Hi NeilN. I've just noticed a user by the name of DattaVaida, who edited a page on my watchlist (Kiss Somebody), and so I clicked through to their contributions. They have only recently registered, and their second overall edit was to create their user page (User:DattaVaida) as a redirect to yours: [6]. Not sure what this is about? Ss112 09:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, Ss112. It's Thepoliticsexpert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by "Prototypehumanoid"

Hi NeilN,

You warned this user several times in the past. You gave him a final warning as well.[7]. He's still at it with his patent WP:NOTHERE nonsense, for I just caught him making another unacceptable edit. With this edit, he just attempted to add unsourced self-interpreted WP:FRINGE/nonsense to the article. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon. As the edit was not outright vandalism I cannot take admin action as I was directly involved in a content dispute with them. Your best bet is ANI or another admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Aight. Problem with such "editors", other than the malicious nature of their edits, is that they edit quite irregularly as well. So I guess we have to wait for him to make another edit before reporting. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Replacing deleted PROD tags, and likely associated shenanigans

Howdy, NeilN! I'm hoping you and/or your TPSes have some thoughts on some weird doin's at, e.g., Aylesbury child sex abuse ring. A user who has theoretically only been active since January 15 has replaced PROD tags here and at Banbury child sex abuse ring that were initially placed by a user who has been around since February 7 (the tags were removed by uninvolved folks with valid rationales for same). Both new users appear to be fixated on the child-sex-abuse-ring topic area, have both voted at the AFD for Halifax_child_sex_abuse_ring, have exchanged user talk page messages that are a little suspicious, and are generally setting off alarm bells of a type that I can't really put my finger on but that involve ponds and feathers and concomitant unpleasantness. Unfortunately I am about to get on a conference call and will be getting the heck out of Dodge for the holiday weekend thereafter, and don't have time in the next 3 minutes to (a) set up AFDs (which would hopefully result in SNOW keeps), (b) engage in user education regarding not replacing PROD tags, and (c) put together an SPI if appropriate. While I am happy to work on that come Monday, this is likely going to need some admin intervention anyway and I invite any thoughts y'all have. Thanks in advance! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: I've opened a SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RomanskiRUS --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! My colleagues and I didn't accomplish anything nearly as useful or satisfying in that hour. Have a great weekend! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Good instincts. Both blocked as socks of another editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You have my thanks as well. It looked fishy to me, too, but I didn't have the experience to know how to follow up. --Mark viking (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I deleted two AFDs. The third one has to continue because of outside participation but I've struck the sock !votes. You may have seen the articles created by the socks - those are gone too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima, Mark viking, Dayirmiter, and Flyer22 Reborn: We might get more sock/meat puppets. [8] Please report as necessary and if it gets too disruptive, I will look into protecting the articles. Editors might also want to look at references, making note of WP:DAILYMAIL: "Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

And semi-protected. The sock/meat puppets may have a point, but the way they're going about editing is disruptive. Editors should be discussing and looking for replacements first, rather than playing the "editors are autistic and racist!" card. [9] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

May? considering WP:DAILYMAIL. Wikipedia has a clear written policy against using the Daily Mail as a source, in light of their history of fabrication. Since they are simply removing that information sourced by it they are actually improving the article within the guidelines, unfortunately as an administrator you are unfamiliar with this.139.5.177.69 (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool story. "They" should be discussing whether to remove or replace and "they" should explain why they're removing other sources [10] and "they" should be requesting an unblock from their original account, instead of canvassing offsite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So you acknowledge your reverts were incorrect? gottit, it's not policy to discuss whether it should be removed, WP:DAILYMAIL explains clearly it shouldn't be used as a source, period. Whether it is "replaced" should be up to the next editor to find a better source, simply restoring the article does not improve it.139.5.177.69 (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't. Editors in good standing can decide what to do. Go away now, thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Correctman's return from a block is not yielding constructive edits

I see you had blocked this account for one week, and 2 of the user's 3 edits after returning have been highly unconstructive. One edit added blatant OR / false information to an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=824060537 and the other removed sourced information and completely ruined an infobox by removing a whole chunk of the infobox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germans&diff=prev&oldid=826097888. I'm wondering if this should be acted on before it gets worse. I wasn't sure this required more stern measures so I am coming to you. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 05:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: I'll keep an eye on them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Wickfox

Hi Neil,

I know you warned Wickfox about 1RR sanctions in the SCW topic area. The user makes some pretty harsh PAs towards me (see: [11][12]). I warned the user about it, but the attacks continued even after the warning. Let me know what can be done here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please elaborate the harsh comments. You wrote to my talk page and I responded. Stop reporting everyone who makes reverts on your false statements. I am just trying to keep Wikipedia neutral. Be civil.Wickfox (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You claiming that "I hate Turkey" or that "I hate Erdogan" is a personal attack. See WP:PA. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, looking at your talk page; that is a fact yourself mentioned a few times. I am just saying that you are provocatively editing articles and constantly giving trouble to people who are trying to prevent this. Looking your contribution history and the sources you are constantly adding to the articles; this is very clear. Stop being provocative. Again, Wikipedia is not a propaganda portal, it is an information portal. We are not running a propaganda war here.Wickfox (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wickfox: You've already skated on a WP:1RR violation so I'm not minded to give you much more leeway. Comment on the content, not the contributor. If you think EtienneDolet consistently edits Turkey-related articles in a non-neutral way then present solid evidence to an admin or admin board and ask for sanctions. If you cannot or will not do this, then stop with the accusations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @NeilN, first of all, I only have a single violation which is already not an indication of being right or wrong in this situation. I am sorry about that WP:1RR, didn't really knew about it. Will make sure not to do it again. I will post my findings about his non-neutrality to the board soon. Just a latest example here: [13]. While the reliability of certain resources is being discussed in the talk page, he makes edits in the article because he -doesn't feel like it-. EtienneDolet is already reported here by another user. In addition to this, he started making personal accusations on my talk page here. Without any evidence, he is saying that I have created sock accounts (despite I have a single account which is connected to Global and Turkish wikipedia). Please warn this user; so it won't happen again.Wickfox (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: I don't quite understand the socking allegation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ll have to explain that to you privately. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMAIL WP:RS

You do know that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source? "Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate." As per this, as a volunteer I am removing the information cited from the Daily Mail only. Good day.185.174.157.36 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEAT. User_talk:NeilN#Replacing_deleted_PROD_tags,_and_likely_associated_shenanigans. "remove/replace them as appropriate" - not blindly remove them as part of a meatpuppet campaign. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

nazi party page

This statement, that the Nazi Party was a party of the right right, has no place in the article. I have posted the reasons for this on the talk page about this page. There seems to be no possibility of compromise on this point, judging by the history of contention over this false claim's inclusion in the article. This statement adds nothing, and its purpose is merely to denigrate the modern political right. Dsteakley (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dsteakley: Thank you for stopping reverting and posting on the talk page. Others will respond and make their arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please do not re-revert until this discussion is concluded. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

well, my interlocutors on the talk page basically told me to fuck off. does that conclude the process? can i resume reverting? Dsteakley (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dsteakley: Only if you want to be blocked for violating WP:3RR. The process doesn't conclude in a couple hours. Give it a couple days so that all interested editors have a chance to comment. In the mean time, look through the archives for past discussions. If you can't find what you're looking for, WP:DRR has other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

ok, thanks. I thought statenments on wikipedia have to be factual, and have to be substantiated. This "nazis are right wing" is inherently opinion, and cannot be substantiated as fact, QED. Dsteakley (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dsteakley: I believe the editors there are probably using WP:ASSERT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

ok, but the article doesn't attribute this opinion to anyone, and doesn't give any source for the opinion. certainly this opinion is widely disputed. it is equally dumb to say the nazis are a party of the left. this just doesn't belong in this article. Dsteakley (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dsteakley: it is definitely sourced, throughout the article. In the lede, common knowledge facts aren't usually sourced. More sources are in the Nazism article. Dave Dial (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

no source is EVER given for the claim that the Nazis were a far right party. If you can escape the duty to treat opinions as opinions by claiming that your opinion is common knowledge, then i don't think this policy of Wikipedia has much effect. Dsteakley (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Trying to correct misleading information

Trying to correct misleading information deliberately placed on the bio of a person, it seemed to be that people can place harmful information on someones page without challenge but then I spoke with your community and discovered the process to address this issu. I am trying to get caught up to speed on how this site works but it is confusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcwilliams2004~enwiki (talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rmcwilliams2004~enwiki. I've added a welcome message on your talk page which links to all kinds of helpful information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Perky28 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Being worked out on talk page)

Hi NeilN,

About a month ago, I was shocked to see the total disappearance of S. L. Thaler’s research from the WP page on near-death experience, along with all its supporting references. Knowing that for years this article has included his work, and then reading the personal attacks on the talk page, I was especially motivated to reintroduce his work. Then, after two reversions, I attempted a compromise, simply adding references to the article so that readers would have the option to dig deeper into this highly relevant research. However, even that minor addition was rejected by Jytdog, who seems steadfastly resistant to any mention whatsoever of Thaler in this article.

In defense of Thaler, please allow me to elaborate on what I believe to be the valid references that have been removed:

Secondary references:

1. Young-Mason, J. Patient's Voice: Experiences of Illness, F. A. Davis. Dr. Young-Mason is a Distinguished Professor from the University of Massachusetts, publishing with F. A. Davis. From what I can tell, WP has not challenged her reputation or that of her publisher. I would think this to be a reliable secondary source.

2. Högl, S., Near-Death Experiences, Religions and the World Beyond, Tectum Verlag, 1996.

3. Yam, P., "Daisy, Daisy" Do computers have near-death experience, Scientific American, May 1993. I believe this article to be on par with the SciAm article by Charles Choi that is currently listed as a reference in the WP article, "Peace of mind: nde now found to have a scientific explanation." (Note – Yam, the SciAm writer did connect the artificial neural network's death with that of the brain. So, it's not computers that are dying, but the neural simulations that are running on them.)

4. Ricciardiello L, Fornaro P. Beyond the Cliff of Creativity: a novel key to bipolar disorder and creativity. Med. Hypotheses 2013;2012(80). 534–453. This is a pubmed article that discusses the link between near-death experience and creativity. This journal’s advisory board includes such notables as neurobiologist V. S. Ramachandran and behavioral neurologist Antonio Damasio, so I wouldn’t discount the journal as Jytdog has.

I would also recommend the addition of the secondary source, Gunn, S., Can Artificial Intelligence Have a Near-Death Experience? A Critical Look at the Ultimate Text, March 1998 Journal of Near-Death Studies 17(1), DOI10.1023/A:1022938101875? In all fairness, this paper should also be mentioned because it is a rebuttal to his work and adds balance.

Primary references include these peer-reviewed articles from Journal of Near-Death Experience and are cited by the secondary sources:

1. Thaler, S. L., Death of a gedanken creature, Journal of Near-Death Studies, 13(3), Spring 1995.

2. Thaler, S. L., The death dream and near-death darwinism, Journal of Near-Death Studies, 15(1), Fall 1996.

3. Thaler, S. L., The emerging intelligence and its critical look at us, Journal of Near-Death Studies, 17(21), 1998.

I see three references to Journal of Near-Death Studies in the WP article as it now stands, so I would assume this journal to be a reliable source, especially since its editor-in-chief is Bruce Grayson, an NDE notable.

Another primary source is:

Thaler, S. L. (1995) "Virtual Input Phenomena" Within the Death of a Simple Pattern Associator, Neural Networks, 8(1), 55–65. Note that this is the official journal of the International Neural Network Society, published by Elsevier. This is the reference that one editor described as “weird” but the connection to near-death experience is clear since it describes the destruction of artificial neural nets to simulate the effect of neuron death within the brain. The conclusion of this research is that cell apoptosis and synaptic disconnection in the brain generates hallucination.

And yet another important reference is:

Thaler, S. L. (1993) 4-2-4 Encoder Death, WCNN'93, Portland: World Congress on Neural Networks, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, July 11–15. Volume 1. Note - This is the primary source that Young-Mason (above) drew upon.

In my honest opinion, the total removal of Thaler’s labors from this page is excessive and I respectfully recommend that his contribution be restored under the Computational Psychology section where it has existed for years.

Thanks!Perky28 (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Perky28. Administrators don't decide what goes in or out of an article. You need to engage other editors working on article content using the article's talk page. If you're stuck there, see WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	They didn't have a barnstar for patience, so I picked this one for you. © SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks

The IP you blocked (209.93.13.37) did not learn anything from the block for personal attacks and now he is touting his ability to WP:SOCK. See Talk:Timeline of Romanian history#Original research?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Blocked two weeks now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

When can I become like you

When can I become like you and get more credits Roshani kulal (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roshani kulal: Wikipedia does not have the concepts of seniority or "credits". If you're asking how you can become an administrator, stick around a couple years, make thousands of productive edits, participate in discussions, and gain the trust of the community that you know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and won't abuse the administrator tools. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And stop doing stuff like this before you are topic banned or blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Kulala page

Dear Sir/Man,

The first person who created the page was the original one.But after several edits it has become a false page. source citations is also false. Kindly consider my suggestion or please revert the page back to original ,the way original author has written. Roshani kulal (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roshani kulal: The original version had zero reliable sources. Please read our verifiability policy which all content needs to adhere to. If you have an issue with the current source use the article talk page to explain why with details. Posts saying "it's wrong" will simply be ignored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sir madam can I use website as reliable sources.can u helps me Roshani kulal (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roshani kulal: Please use the article's talk page to discuss sources. You have an answer to your previous question there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank u Roshani kulal (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

But there is none except slush in articles webpages.talking to that person is vain Roshani kulal (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roshani kulal: First, please learn how to use talk pages (stop creating new sections every time you post). See Help:Talk pages for more help. Second, if no one else is participating you can ask for a third opinion by going to WP:3O and following the instructions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sir can u become Wp:30for the page.I would be pleased if you help me.Thank you sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshani kulal (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roshani kulal: No, sorry. Given that I use my admin tools in the area it would not be appropriate for me to weigh in on content disputes. See WP:INVOLVED for more info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@nine do you invest all your time in Wikipedia.you earn from this page??.what is the easiest way of learning Wikipeding.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshani kulal (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC) @Neill can I become admin for this page instead of some other person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshani kulal (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Roshani kulal: We don't get paid for editing Wikipedia. There's a welcome message on your talk page with links you can go to for learning about Wikipedia. See also Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia. I've answered your question about administrators in the above section. Stop asking about it - you'll never get "control" of that page. Stop looking for workarounds to presenting reliable sources. You've been told multiple times what you need to do. If you can't follow this advice then I will topic ban you. Enough with the WP:IDONTHEARTHAT please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@ nine please don't be angry .currently I am into Wikimedia to support our culture.can you support me for Wikimedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshani kulal (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Question.

There is a talk page thread here (or possibly here if the edit warring has not stopped) in which MrX has chosen to assign a motivation to my position which I find rather offensive, and we've gotten into a brief edit war over it. I'm done reverting because it's not really worth it, but as I said, I find this gross mischaracterization of my motivations offensive and I'm wondering whether you think it's acceptable to misrepresent another editor's motivations in a thread title, even on user talk like that. Thanks. For the record, I denounced that motivation explicitly here in an edit that I know MrX saw, and I've explicitly spelled out my motivations here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: I saw the back-and-forth reverting and was really hoping the issue would die down. You are not specifically named in the title so I would leave it alone and make your rebuttal in a post as you have. For the record, there have been threads opened with titles like "NeilN is censoring x" or "NeilN is a shill for y". Obviously not my motivation but it's easier to point out the (sometimes deliberate) mischaracterization than to go back and forth over the title. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm done there. It was pretty obviously referring to me (there's literally no-one else it could have been referring to), but the gaslighting-like behavior and numerous false statements of the two opposing me just scream "there's no point to engaging these two any more!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Note

in regards to what did i get a discretionary sanctions note? עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@AmYisroelChai: You have edited in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The note is designed to make you aware of that and provides links to more information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks just noticed it was from feb 5 עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

I have a question regarding the user you just blocked, "Pam-javelin". There has been an ongoing issue with respect to their editing out female pronouns on ship articles, contrary to SHE4SHIP. I know I've notified them about this several times, and have tried to engage them on talk pages about it, but they refuse. Looking at their history, this has been an ongoing issue for some time, and other editors have also notified, warned and tried to engage them on this. It's now at the point where "Pam-javelin" tries to hide the changes with deceptive edit-summaries, or as part of some other innocuous or unnecessary minor edit. Other editors have raised this issue about the abuse of edit summaries well.

Now, to be fair to this editor, it appears that for the most part, they seem to make worthwhile contributions and I'm not aware of any other conflicts with editors or disruptive editing. So with that in mind, I'm just looking to address this disruption on various ship articles (and perhaps the abuse of edit summaries as well). Once their block expires, would it possible to enact some type of restriction against this editing behaviour? I'm not at all familiar with the various types of bans here on the project, how they're proposed or imposed, so any information you could provide would be appreciated, and any action you could take toward this end would be greatly appreciated. Thank you & Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 21:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Ship articles are not under discretionary sanctions so a single admin cannot unilaterally topic ban an editor from them. The ban has to be proposed at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and gain consensus. However before it comes to that let me see if I can get some sort of reply on their talk page. --Neiln't N ^{talk to me} 23:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked at their previous account. Seems this behavior is not new. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know they had a previous account. I just know of the on-going issues with this one. Anyway, if you want to try talking to them and see if you can get them to commit to more engagement and less disruption, I'll leave that to you. If you think this should go another route and you need anything from me, just let me know. Oh, that you were damn fast with that last block, thanks for that by the way. - ^theWOLFchild 23:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Follow up - just had a quick look at this previous account, and I'm not surprised they changed. The tp history is full of notices and warnings about edit-warring,
  

disrupting articles, refusal to engage in discussions, policy & guidelines violations, and... multiple complaints of abusing edit summaries. Where on their current account they dismissed an admin's warning as "rubbish", on this other account they dismissed another admin's warning as "pointless drivel". Also, the persistent disruption of ship articles goes as far back as 2011. I really hope you can get this editor to have some meaningful dialogue with you (if you still intend to go that route) and there is some changes made to their editing and attitude. I have thousands of ships articles on my watchlist and don't relish the thought of having to deal with anymore of this behaviour. I noted a lot of familiar names in that history that are regular editors on ship articles and I'm sure many of them feel the same way, judging from some of the comments. Anyway, thanks again - ^theWOLFchild 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I posted on their talk page a while ago. As an aside, is there any reason why your signature has a space between "[[User:" and "Thewolfchild"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

About the post; thanks again, I'll guess we'll wait and see what happens.
About my signature; Ah, it's never come up. It links right where it's where it's supposed to. (how did it come to your attention? is it a bad thing? do I need to change it?) I just never noticed it. Don't know what to say... - ^theWOLFchild 01:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I have a script that autocompletes the name of any editor participating in a thread when I type the first letter and hit Tab (handy for pings and mentions). The space makes it not work with your name. Not a big deal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No big deal for me either, 2 clicks, 2 seconds... should be good now. I didn't know it was there, and didn't realize it affected any auto-fill codes. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 01:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Thank you! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Rome Viharo WWHP

If you want to collect those socks at an SPI, I believe the master is Rome Viharo WWHP, blocked last June. General Ization ^Talk 02:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@General Ization: All blocked so there's not much point as it's obvious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Rome Viharo 2018 is only temporarily. Sro23 (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sro23: Thanks. Don't think I've blocked so many accounts so quickly before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI

This [14]. ??!!?? Wow! Someone must be bored. Jbh ^Talk 14:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Saw that. It's a copy of a previous "complaint". Guess she has nothing better to do with her life. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If you annoy the trolls that much you must be doing something right Jbh ^Talk 15:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Asdisis

Remember indef blocked Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He seems to be back. Same pattern of thinking his nationalistic opinion is what matters diff, walls of text without sources Talk:Chetniks#Chetniks_displayed_as_Nazi_Collaborators, followed by immediate attack of me when reverted Talk:Chetniks#User_FkpCascais_can_Not_be_allowed_to_edit/review_articles_relating_to_Serb_fascists. He is simply unable to hide his hateriot of Serbs and bias. FkpCascais (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: I see the IP has been blocked. Let me know if they return. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it was solved. Thank you very much. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, you are obsessed with Asdisis. This ip shares no similarity with Asdisis, but whatever. 89.164.229.100 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

PROD of Goss.ie

Hey Neil, I stumbled upon this article, Goss.ie, while doing recent patrolling and proposed it for speedy deletion under A7. The creator Gossgal (talk · contribs) has a pretty obvious COI and another editor Goss ie (talk · contribs) is also an obvious COI. These two users have made no contributions to Wikipedia besides this article, which they have each edited once. Before a new user edited it today the article was very promotional with no sources [15]. I have since removed my deletion tag as I believe I added some content showing noteworthiness but it would be helpful if you could double check to see if it still qualifies. Thanks, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: The two accounts have been blocked by another admin for COI/UPE issues. The website might meet WP:WEB if you squint and so the article should be taken to AFD if you still think it should be deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

PAKHIGHWAY

Who predicted that? NOT ALL AT ONCE! Aaaargh! (dies in stampede) Guy (Help!) 19:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: It's quite a surprise to me. I thought everyone respects their blocks and only start editing again when their block expires or is lifted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Inorite? Guy (Help!) 20:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Raifujimaru

New sock is User:MenWhoCries (please see "contributions" here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MenWhoCries, continues to write "fixed typo" in summaries 99,99999999999999999999% of the time to mask their vandalism, which consists mainly of inflating the Spain national youth football team statistics in various players' infoboxes. Well, i have now reverted EVERYTHING in what concerns those actions/areas (maybe everything could/should be reverted?)!

You have been "heads upped", cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Quite A Character: Sock blocked indefinitely, master blocked a month. I don't know if the remaining edits are "good" or not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

From what i have seen in past accounts, most are not. Thanks for the block (but of course, another sock is afoot i fear) --Quite A Character (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Steven Damelin's Wikipedia page

Thank you for the changes you made to the Wikipedia page of Steven Benjamin Damelin.

The page has been edited and proof that Doron Lubinsky was Steven Damelin's PhD advisor was inserted. Stevenbdamelin (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hi NeilN. I've taken this to COI noticeboard and explained the concerns to our autobiographer. I've also pinged Drmies, who worked to de-puff this in 2016. I have questions as to the subject's notability, and the possibility of AfD. Thanks from 99, 2601:188:180:11F0:9003:D040:24F8:507F (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Niel

There is nothing on this page which is not accurate. Every statement is validated by links to pertinent proof. If further links are required then we would be happy to provide them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenbdamelin (talk • contribs) 02:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stevenbdamelin: The person using the IP address is not me. You should be making your points on User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:9003:D040:24F8:507F. By the way, who's "we"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Caste General Sanctions Question

It appears that there are some sort of community general sanctions having to do with South Asian social groups, which includes caste. My question is what the effect of these sanctions is, since this is also covered by India and Pakistan ArbCom discretionary sanctions. If I encounter disruptive editing in an area that is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, I generally find that Arbitration Enforcement is quicker and more effective than trying to mess around at WP:ANI. In the past, it has been my experience that community general sanctions regimes usually did not work quite as harshly and effectively as ArbCom sanctions (which is why, for instance, GamerGate was upgraded from community sanctions to ArbCom sanctions). So, if I encounter disruptive editing about caste, am I better off to use the community regime, or to take note of India being the government (and culture) of most of the geographic region of South Asia, and the part of it with which caste is associated? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert. That's an interesting question. One could also argue that that AP2 DS is largely superfluous as most of the editing falls under BLP DS. I think the narrower focus makes it clearer for new editors that we won't tolerate any disruption in a specific area and makes admins more comfortable when levying sanctions. I would feel silly invoking DS if an edit war broke out on Curry. Yes, it's technically covered by ARBIPA but really? However if an edit war broke out on a caste article then I would have no problem reaching for sanctions as that specific area is plagued by disruptive editing. Most of the sanctions in this area are levied by three admins - SpacemanSpiff, Bishonen, and myself. Approach any one of us and you'll usually get a quicker response than going the ARBPIA-AE request route. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, not all of AP2 has to do with specific living people with names, and BLP only kicks in when the people have names. It is true that most of AP2 involves politicians. However, the other tragic divisive area in American politics is, tragically, the same as the tragic divisive area in Indian politics, the original sin of a nation, in each case involving hereditary injustice. In both nations there are efforts to correct the injustice and efforts to retain the injustice. In the United States, where it is called race, there was a complex history, in which some people were treated less well than animals. In India, where it is called caste, the rules have been even more complicated, and some people were treated less well than animals. An American should understand that caste is India's race problem. An Indian should understand that race (and the history of slavery) is America's caste problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There is also sometimes disruptive editing about Indian languages, and caste sanctions do not apply, but one should not hesitate to use India ArbCom sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I find WP:GS/Caste easier to enforce than WP:ARBIPA as there's a lot less paperwork. Besides, we did add GS/Caste elements to ARBIPA a couple of years back when we experimented with the 500/30 rule, way before it became an accepted practice. I use GS/caste when the disruption is only around castes while I prefer ARBIPA when there's broader disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 03:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN, User:SpacemanSpiff - Is there a required warning for WP:GS/Caste to be imposed? I know how to give the warning for ArbCom general sanctions, which makes them easy enough as an editor.

There is sockpuppetry in the Kulala dispute. I always half-expect sockpuppetry in any warzone, and so does the community and the ArbCom, so that Extended Confirmed Protection is the usual defense against areas where there is sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: "Prior to being sanctioned, editors can be notified of these sanctions with the {{subst:Uw-castewarning}} template." Note it's can be not are required to be, although I will rarely impose sanctions if the editor hasn't been notified in some shape or form. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• {{subst:Uw-castewarning}} can also be added to twinkle as a custom warning, unlike the DS-Alert (which was on the list of things to do for MusikAnimal sometime back). I don't take actions on editors unless the warning has been given in some form, not necessarily the template but even a written note is fine in my book. Also note that the geographical scope of the two is different, GS/Caste includes Nepal/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka too while ARBIPA doesn't (except pre independence Bangladesh). A classic example would be Chhetri. —SpacemanSpiff 17:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sri Lanka. Yes. Sri Lanka. An odd historical tragedy. The tragedy of Sri Lanka is not simply that it was colonized by the British, which was on three continents a mixed blessing. It is that it was a crown colony of Great Britain, as opposed to part of Imperial India, also known as the British Raj. As a result, when it was decolonized, it became a nation, and then was torn apart by the civil war between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. If it had been part of Imperial India, it would then have become a state of the Republic of India on decolonization. If so, the disorder would have been dealt with by the Indian Army under President's Rule. But Sri Lanka is a nation, and has an odd historical tragedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Steven Damelin's Wikipedia page

The new Steven Damelin's Wikipedia page reflects according to Wikipedia policies. All content is further validated by proofs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenbdamelin (talk • contribs) 03:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Steven Benjamin Damelin requested this article re him be removed.

Hi Niel Steven Benjamin Damelin has requested this article re him be removed. His many accomplishments are well documented but this editing war from an unscrupulous anonymous source is neither appropriate or ethical.Stevenbdamelin (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: I've softblocked. Never got an answer to "who's we?" up above? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. In both cases it's most likely just stilted wording but it needs to be clarified per Wikipedia:Username policy. Sorry it had to come to a block -- we could use more math folks. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

IndyCar page

I am genuinely begging you to take mercy on me just once and let us handle this internally, without dispute resolution. Just let us change the page back to the way it was, with colors, and open a discussion on the talk page to form consensus. I am not demanding that I am right, I just want to hold a discussion before changes are made. If consensus is "no colors at all," fine. I would obviously accept that. I just want to have what should be a reasonable discussion without the confines of dispute resolution. I want to set the standards for how major changes should be handled in the future.

I cannot edit on this site if editors like Tvx1 continue to get their way. They will always win. They know how to game the system. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: Why does it matter if the current version of the article has the colors or not? Forget about the current version. Argue what the "permanent" version of the article should look like. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Because arguing that the current version should be changed is a heck of a lot harder than arguing that the current version should be kept. He knows this, and that's why when he made this change, he instantly made it across every season article. One of his common retorts is "are you going to re-add colors on every page?" which is obviously something I can't do while I'm out here getting reverted every time. In short, if we don't revert to the version prior to his changes, we are tilting the discussion in his favor and rewarding him for his behavior.

I know you probably don't edit the racing articles a lot, and thus have no way of knowing this, but this guy has driven away countless editors from these articles. There used to be so many more people around, and they all left, because you can't do anything unless Tvx1 approves it. He knows every detail of Wikipedia bureaucracy, he knows how to navigate ANI and RFCs, he knows how to rile people up and then pounce on them for getting angry, and he knows how to smile and turn polite the instant admins are involved. He knows how to quote Wiki policy at a drop of a hat, even when it's totally irrelevant or actually works against him, because he knows it intimidates newer and less experienced editors into giving up the fight. If these behaviors sound familiar, it's because they are the exact commonly documented reasons for Wikipedia shedding editors left and right. All of this is enabled by admins who refuse to see these editors for what they really are, and refuse to directly hold them accountable for what they're doing.

This doesn't get fixed if it goes to ANI or RFC; that's exactly what he wants, because he knows how to win those, even if he's wrong. This gets fixed if you fix it, period.

And let me be clear, yet again, that I am not simply asking for my version of the page to permanently stay. I just want to have a FAIR discussion around how the page should be organized, and I want to set the standard for how those discussions should occur in the future. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think your confusing me with someone else. I never even wrote the comment "are you going to re-add colors on every page?". I don't edit articles on American open wheel racing that frequently either, so I don't know how I would have driven anyone away from here. You really have a wrong impression of me.Tvx1 00:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

IP Edit warring on Joseph Kahn

Hey Neil,

I see you blocked this IP 2600:6C56:7180:1A85:F9B8:1F2E:5186:38AE (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Well this IP 2600:100C:B204:FDFE:E0BA:7E1A:346:8081 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just added back the same (unsourced) content. Block evasion? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Different ISP but no new editor is going to make that unsourced "anti-pitbull activist" edit. So either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. IP blocked, article semied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for being a fair Admin, while you did block me you were fair in your decision. Thanks for being a great Admin. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 09:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Homosexual behavior in animals article

Neil, will you have a look at Homosexual behavior in animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? The article usually is not actively edited, but there has been a recent influx of editors at the article, and Путеец and Миша Карелин are edit warring there. A note about the article was left at WP:LGBT, and I know that editors have been concerned about it. When it comes to Путеец, he has been involved with homosexuality topics before, particularly in relation to medical issues, and Jytdog, Doc James and myself have been concerned about his editing at times. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Do not worry. As you can see, I avoid war, and I conduct a constructive dialogue. To assess the quality of my contribution and the war of canceling an opponent, consider the dialogue and editing. I can not express my thoughts in English, but I quote the exact quotes. Путеец (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Added article to watchlist. Путеец, I recommend stopping reverting until you gain consensus for your edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I will avoid changing the article until you are convinced of my rightness. Путеец (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Please take a look here the articles in question are still continuing vandalized by an IP that probably its the same User wich was blocked from User:Oshwah. (Bes-ARTTalk' 21:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC))

@Bes-ART: Latest IP blocked, articles semi-protected for two weeks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comment at Darouet's talk

As long as you've chosen to get involved with this, I'd hope you would also consider reminding this editor to cut out the ad hominem and irrelevant disparagement of me all over the place. Substantive discussions of content or editing style are always welcome on my talk page or (when appropriate) on article talk pages. But the fact is this person has been gratuitously smearing me with personal comments for quite some time now, and it would really be best to concentrate on the substance of their concerns. Ultimately, their personal disparagement is going to do nothing to help improve articles. I presume that is their ultimate purpose here. As you may have seen, this out-of-context dredging up of other editors' long-past personal histories got a couple of editors sanctioned recently at AE and it's just about the ultimate degree of foolish behavior. Moreover, in the present case of Darouet -- Darouet goes on an article talk page to falsely accuse me [16] and ping you to an article talk page!

And Darouet knows that I welcome visits from everyone on my talk page and that there would never be any problem bringing a concern there. In fact, Darouet popped in at my talk page for a guest appearance on an unrelated thread from another editor here [17]. Daouret's complaint there was quickly refuted by an talk-page observer. NeilN, we're all volunteers here, and I know you are tireless and volunteer plenty of your time and attention to Wikipedia. It's really unfortunate to see Darouet make unfounded allegations instead of looking up the facts and then notifying you to see whether you'll come in -- either expecting you to take the time and effort to research all the context and detail, or perhaps figuring that you might not -- so as to enable Darouet's harassment and disparagement of me. I've told Darouet many times before not to make these personal attacks against me and look at the result -- this time there's even some sort of detail Darouet must have taken the time to research, while at the same time not taking the time to research details actually relevant to the current situation. Bad behavior from Darouet.

I'm not asking you to do anything about this or to reply. I just find it offensive that Darouet would rely on half-truth and personal disparagement and drag an Admin into a trivial edit dispute. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The problem is that you do much the same thing as what you're taking issue with, with making "unfounded" accusations of bad behavior without providing diffs to back up your claims. Look at what you wrote above: "ad hominem and irrelevant disparagement of me all over the place" with no diffs. If this continues to be a problem then I might consider putting a restriction on various editors - "no accusations of bad behavior without providing diffs that back up the accusations". You also really do need to stay off of Darouet's talk page and both of you need to give each other more space. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi NeilN.-- Darouet knows very well what I was referring to and did not ask for diffs, NeilN, and of course you yourself are "doing the same thing" here if you mean to be making a statement about anything more general than Darouet's recent complaint. Once again, I was/am not asking you to do anything or to spend any more of your time and attention to this. I just think it's a sad spectacle to see Darouet drag you into something where Darouet and I know the facts, you don't know all the facts, and you should not be expected to research them in order to give a fully-reasoned response. So your concern that I didn't provide diffs is actually a situation Darouet created when he involved a third party who did not know the diffs. Darouet knows the diffs and didn't ask for them. And I did provide Darouet a diff of when he smeared Volunteer Marek for something from the distant past. However I acknowledge your request that if I ever need to give Darouet a warning I will ask an Admin to mediate that notice so as to avoid Darouet's charges of talk-page trespass and subsequent pinging of Admnins who do not have all the facts and circumstances at their fingertips. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Honestly, Darouet's not the only one who could use some space from SPECIFICO's gaslighting (and here's the dif: [18] in which you can see what it was in response to directly above the added text. Also there's this pointless insult going on there, and of course the way they're trying to turn it around on you just above.) Expand the collapse below if you want to see a timeline of the whole interaction that led to those two diffs, which is far more bizarre and disturbing than what I've mentioned here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your input over at ANI, I have taken your comments on board. I'm done replying to the ANI now, I can already see how it's going to play out. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Terri Dotti

As you've already stepped into this, I thought it would be best to see if you have any ideas. The ANI report seems to include clear outing of the two editors - links to Twitter accounts and the repeated use of their real names. Is it worth an attempt to reboot? I'm especially uncomfortable with claims that they were intending to dox Mizuka, while at the same time Mizuka is publishing off-wiki details about them. The problems being raised need addressing, but perhaps without the outing. - Bilby (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bilby: The report really doesn't work without referencing the Twitter thread (which one of the problem editors linked to). Remove, revdel, and toss it via email to Arbcom? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I've emailed the Arbcom list. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this - I've used revdel and emailed a summary as well. I figure that it isn't hard to reverse my actions if I stuffed up, and it is better to be overly cautious. - Bilby (talk)

The article talk page also needs revdel. The COI template contains the same OUTING Twitter links. Jbh ^Talk 06:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how this needed revdel. Oshwah, care to weigh in? Killiondude (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll email you privately. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Problematic user #2

I see that one of the problematic users has been dealt with, but what about the other one? Once the protection expires, I'm sure that user will keep smearing the article in accordance to the subject's wishes. I'm not exactly sure what all this "Arbcom" business is, but I'm wondering if any action will be taken against the other problematic user. MizukaS (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

MizukaS, the issue is being looked into. In the meanwhile, please try to discuss off wiki information privately. Thanks, Alex Shih (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I only contact other users on site, so I think I am going to abstain from discussing off wiki info and let the staff handle the situation from here on out. MizukaS (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Sport and politics

User:Sport and politics came back and responded to our only warning. The response she gave was not in keeping with the warning and I was left with no choice but to block her. Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Good block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hated to do it, but she really left us no choice. Completely unapologetic for her comments and stood by them. Not acceptable. Canterbury Tail talk 14:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

And now she's asking for an unblock and doesn't get why she was blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 14:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My IP edits

Dear Neil. I'm not going to make any more edits from 78.16.237.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but can you please explain to me why you blocked my old IP? I'm really upset about this as I made all of my edits in good faith, and I have never been banned before. The reason you gave for the block was "Block evasion", which completely stumped me as I've never been blocked before. If I create an account, can I restore my edits, which were made entirely in good faith? Thanks and I'm sorry if I did anything wrong. 78.17.145.72 (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why the diff you provided includes a photo constantly added by a blocked editor and his many sockpuppets. Also pinging Chrissymad. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't add any photos, I only changed the captions of the thumbnails on the page. I had no idea that photo shouldn't have been there. Here's the diff between the edit before mine and my last edit. I did not add that photo back, here is the diff that last added the image. 78.17.145.72 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I've provisionally unblocked you subject to Chrissymad's input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

NeilN I have no objection to their unblock or restoration of *other* edits but I fail to see why they all needed to be re-added especially given that the socks added the Karia picture (so that needs to be removed.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: I believe what the IP is saying is that they didn't notice the picture was in their diff. I still have some doubts as they were able to change IPs pretty quickly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have my doubts too as that same range was on simple (if I am remember correctly at the moment) doing similar stuff as the named accounts. In any case, could we please remove the Karia photo? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Was it re-added? If so, yes (I can't see it). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit

Hi there! I'm going to edit the page that was plagiarized.:)

A goat for you!

Thank you for your help!!!

Higginsal (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Stonewalling

What does one do with stonewalling like this? Talk:Tourism in India. It is quite clear that this is a throwaway sleeper that someone just reactivated. Elektricity (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

How about we topic ban this very new user Elektricity who has been an overall disruptive account, warnings all over his talk page and surprisingly sharing traits of disruptive editors who call others a "throwaway sleeper" for evading their own problems? He wikihounded me to that article, failed to understand copyvio and now he is exhibiting failure to understand many things but most striking is that he is not willing to agree that Gyan Publishers is an unreliable self publishing source, it is because he is very rigid with POV agenda driven editing and not going to give up unless forced. — MapSGV (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It is indeed a very strange reactivated account. Js82 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes can people leave Wikipedia and come back. Unlike you who create socks for avoiding "reactivation" or I guess you never had that opportunity since your own account was blocked. — MapSGV (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• We are fighting over a sock who succeeded in his mission to waste others time. NeilN can you check the SPI? OP has mentioned you there as well. This account has been abused on numerous on going Afd and other types of temporary discussions that are about to get closed. — MapSGV (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @MapSGV: I will do an analysis in the next few days if another admin doesn't look at it first. I've also moved your comment out of the admin section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Abhinav686

Abhinav686 (talk · contribs) needs blocking for disruption. Just come off a block and they're even worse than they were previously. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed by Waggers, looking to see what else needs revdels. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Birth as an American Rite of Passage

Hi NeilN. I see you have in the past edited Birth as an American Rite of Passage. Looking at its history I'm surprised by the number of vandalistic or stupid educationally creative and experimental edits it attracts ... what do you think is going on? Is it on a list for newbies to go and play with, or something? I don't think I've seen such an unimportant article get so many less-than-helpful edits! Any ideas, please? Thanks DBaK (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

PS I should perhaps add that I have nothing invested in this and wasn't planning to start a crusade for the article to be "right" ... just that I am a touch gobsmacked and/or suspicious about its recent history. If it gets too crazy I will just unwatch it! Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I found indications it's been used as a school assignment in the past. Probably the same course/teacher keeps assigning it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, right, thanks. Gosh. Rather them than me! Thanks for the thought. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Editor9392

Neil, I'm sorry to bother you again but could you please have a quick look at, or keep a friendly eye on, Editor9392. They have been editing at a surprising speed with many bits of overlinking and some annoying instances of carelessness. I've left them a welcome and a couple of pointers but I cannot keep up with their work rate if they continue to edit like this! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:RoguePilot

Some things will never change [19]. RoguePilot (talk · contribs) had been blocked for WP:BATTLEGROUND. I post this here because you were the admin who unblocked them.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: MaxSem accepted the unblock request [20]; I pushed the button. I guess I'll go have a word. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Mitragyna speciosa

Please revisit Mitragyna speciosa. Thank you. --Zefr (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zefr: "New" editor blocked as a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you. Because the Augean Stables of Wikipedia will apparently never stop needing cleaning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: The day I'm called upon to handle actual crap is the day I hand back my bit. Changed enough kid diapers. Don't need to do it for (supposed) adults. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:IndianBio

NeilN, I think the attack on my talk page might be stemming from this IP recently blocked: 216.221.38.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can you confirm? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Yes, same type of edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

IP block

Hey NeilN. Any chance you could block this vandal? Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Toddst1's Edit Summary

What you make of this[21] edit summary? -Rogue1 23:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@RoguePilot: It means you shouldn't be asking other editors to point out your personal attacks when you've written things like "you pathetic moron!" and "you can't stop being a nuisance!!!". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your BLP warning on my talk page

Please restore my original comment that you blackholed and add this RS under it.

"She had an abortion, stopped talking to Gjoni, blocked him on several forms of communication, and didn’t speak to him until the “Zoe Post,” as he titled it, went live."

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/zoe-quinn-surviving-gamergate.html

The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@The most effectual Bob Cat: No. You are perfectly capable of adding the above yourself. Plus, from what I recall, your original comment had additional unsourced assertions. I cannot check because my revdel was subsequently suppressed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I can confirm that there were additional, defamatory and privacy-violating claims that I shall not repeat. @The most effectual Bob Cat:, if you think that an anonymous blog called “OneAngryGamer” is an acceptable source for claims about living people, you lack both the critical thinking skills and policy understanding needed to successfully edit articles related to living people. As NeilN suggested, you need to review policy before editing these articles, or simply not edit them at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"I can confirm that there were additional, defamatory and privacy-violating claims that I shall not repeat." Nonsense. I have submitted the Mew York Magazine article which meets WP:RS, the truth as stated publicly in a national magazine, by the subject, cannot be deemed private or defamatory. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@The most effectual Bob Cat: We're talking about your initial post which is now removed from history. I told you to drop the matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw the oversighted edit too. ex post facto justification is no defense, and you posted a lot more than you'r claiming here. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I liked the reference to "the Mew York Magazine" supplied by The most effectual Bob Cat. Cheers. 92.19.174.150 (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Final Thoughts

I apologize you have to deal with my poor behavior, and unacceptable actions. It seems that you are the only one who has faith in me when it comes to editing. But I don't have faith in myself. After careful consideration, I have decided to give up editing. I may contemplate on returning, but after what has occurred, I believe it would be in my best interest to give it up. I hope you can forgive me, and I hope you can see that I have corrected my course of actions by apologizing to Jetstreamer and CBG17 as well. Goodbye, and I wish you the best...

-Rogue1 01:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@RoguePilot: I hope you do one day return to edit, keeping in mind WP:CALM. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

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

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI

You've got mail - wolf 03:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You've got more mail - wolf 22:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What is consensus?

Define consensus, Neil.

• Why should disputed material remain in place for any given side, especially when some material is officially noted to be regarded as "pejorative"?

• Especially, why should vacuous "I disagree." rebuttals override logical arguments with explicit references and comparisons?

Mfwitten (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mfwitten: I'm not going to argue with you about your misrepresentations. You can either follow my advice about WP:DRR or be topic banned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

So, basically... "I disagree." Mfwitten (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Are we there yet, Neil?

My arch nemesis, Edward, has agreed that the article in question should, in fact, not be categorized as it is:

"Taking a look at Category:Pseudoscience, it is supposed to be applied to articles about pseudoscientific theories, which means that it would not apply to this article."

I couldn't have said it better myself (well, I could have, and did); may I remove that category now without twiddling your administrative bits? Or, must we continue to pray for some Messiah to deliver unto us in the remote future an undeniable verdict on the matter? Mfwitten (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mfwitten: And you pointed out the category they preferred was invalid. Stop playing games. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

That is, of course, totally and utterly irrelevant; there is agreement that Category:Pseudoscience should be removed—any dispute about some other category is totally orthogonal. Mfwitten (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Redv on IP talk page

While this is likely 99.9% fake, should this be redvl? [22] HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, another admin took care of it. Thanks @Dlohcierekim: HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

yeah. email sent too. One never knows.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Insertion of "Hindu India"

Hi, I cleaned up some POV-y insertions of Hindu before the word India yesterday. They had been added by 120.60.155.33 (talk · contribs) and other people had also cleaned up some of the instances. Today, I've just cleaned another three similar instances at Bhaktivinoda Thakur, together with some other POV-y changes. The IPs on this occasion were 120.60.146.169 (talk · contribs), 120.60.148.56 (talk · contribs) and 120.60.154.149 (talk · contribs) - obviously the same person, moving quickly through different addresses.

I've now done a search for the phrase "Hindu India" and am seeing a lot more, eg: this by 120.60.128.13 (talk · contribs). I think we have quite a problem with a Bengali pov-pusher but I have no idea how to deal with it. I know little about range blocks but suspect that is the likely way forward. Any ideas? - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to clean them all up because it makes it harder to show just how many articles are affected but I've just reverted edits by 120.60.139.90 (talk · contribs), by 120.60.141.211 (talk · contribs) and by 120.60.128.191 (talk · contribs). I notice that Materialscientist has been reverting some examples also. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: The range isn't that busy but it's still has some good edits coming out of it to make a long block undesirable at this point. Blocked for 72 hours and hope the person gets the message. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll clean up what I can. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like they have sidestepped the range block - see here. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Blocked. We'll have to see if more IPs pop up to calculate a new rangeblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There were a couple of others - see my rollbacks between 14:35 - 14:36. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: New rangeblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll check what the others have been up to in that range. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Bozalegenda

Yugoslavia or Serbia - FIBA Basketball World Cup and Eurobasket Yugoslavia [23] Serbia [24] Serbia Nationalista User Bozalegenda promotes war pro editions Serbia. User:74Account

The articles correctly can only be edited by administrators, but the current editions are poorly edited because the editions of Bozalegenda User talk:74Account) 2 March 2018 (UTC)

cyberpower678, you fully protected both articles indefinitely? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because it was formerly fully protected for 4 days for constant edit-warring, and during those four days the involved editors went to ANI, 3 times, complained about the articles, the editors, and me for protecting the articles, in all cases were advised to discuss on the talk page or seek WP:DRN and when the protection expired, immediately went back to edit-warring, with not a single effort to discuss. So I'm keeping it protected until they start discussing or they're TBANned from the articles. Their editing is seriously getting disruptive, and it's sadly not limited to two users.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Please reconsider. Indefinite full protection is highly unusual. Full protection for a lengthier time yes, with warnings blocks will be imposed if edit warring continues. I've blocked one editor for violating 3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, based on what I've observed, the edit-warring will not stop. Those users waited until the protected expired and went right back to their edit-warring. I currently see the protection as a preventative measure. I'm open to better solutions.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: The problem is if they don't discuss, the articles will remain fully protected indefinitely, inconveniencing other editors. If these editors can't control themselves after a clear warning, block them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I've reduced it to three days.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Thank you. I suspect more blocks will be needed or, as this area is covered by discretionary sanctions, topic bans. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It is? That makes it easier. I was considering topic bans as the next step, and I was going to start a discussion at ANI if they keep going after this.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: This falls squarely in the Balkans topic area. Editors just have to be notified of discretionary sanctions (I notified a couple of them) and then you can topic ban if necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly not limited to two users, who are more diverse than Bozalegenda, because Bozalegenda first edits and then begins to reverse several articles of competition in which it was Yugoslavia to belong to Serbia, which only came into existence in 2003. And all blocked articles keep the radical vision of Bozalegenda. Bozalegenda is that it made war of editions against several users just look at the history of the articles. User:74Account

@74Account: Please fix your signature so that it includes a timestamp. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@74Account: Then start talking with the user and stop dragging every administrator you can find into this content dispute. The protection duration has been reduced to 3 days. I expect a full discussion and edits being made with the summary "per talk". If I see edit warring again, I will be issuing blocks.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Where dozens edited, Bozalegenda comes and reverses, going against the official articles, and if you block the article for the view of it, it is because the blocker has a side, the side that everyone already knows, but that is not the official one. Yugoslavia or Serbia - FIBA Basketball World Cup and Eurobasket Yugoslavia [25] Serbia [26] User:74Account 11:59, 2 March 2018, Brazil (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the subject of those articles. What I do care about is that articles are not being treated as battlegrounds for a content dispute and that articles are built with a consensus among editors, which in turn results in high quality articles. Now go discuss.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to chip in. The mentioned user has displayed a similar behavior on the articles dealing with the olympics delegations of Yugoslavia and the ones registered following the end of the former delegation's existence. In that case, a constructive was held at WT:Olympics and consensus was actually achieved. However, the now blocked user flatly refuses to accept said consensus. I really what more we can do discussion-wise. That being said, a discussion is underway at Talk:Yugoslavia national basketball team and could do with more input.Tvx1 15:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: In the articles linked above, I've seen no evidence of discussion. I can only gauge what I see.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, Regarding FIBA Basketball World Cup that is true. However, there is discussion on Eurobasket. Moreover there was discussion on WT:Basketball. Do you expect us to have new discussions on the individual article's talk pages to merely reaffirm the consensus achieved at Wikiproject level.Tvx1 18:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And actually, there is a consensus at WT:Basketball as well, which is also rejected by this user.Tvx1 15:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Pelmeen10, friend plus a forum about the subject

Anaxagoras13, friend plus a forum about the subject

Tvx1, friend plus a forum about the subject

I personally tired, I saw that it spread, several Serbs in several IPs did this in various articles, on behalf of the great Serbia, to take conquests from Yugoslavia and to give to Serbia. User:74Account 12:52, 2 March 2018, Brazil (UTC)

@74Account: Comments like the above are going to get you topic banned sooner than later. Cut out the nationalistic rhetoric. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. There were two discussions about Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro/Serbia national basketball teams here and here. Both times this user continued the same rhetoric that "HTML table is not reliable" or "FIBA doesn't decide this". I suppose a topic ban would be appropriate. Furthermore, similar behavior can also be seen on other Serbia-related pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, Bozalegenda has restarted their edit-warring on Yugoslavia related sports article [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. In this edit summary they show a clear refusal to accept sports results as they have been officially credited by a governing body.Tvx1 21:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks under discretionary sanctions, largely because of that last edit summary. Pinging my partner-in-arms, cyberpower678. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they disrupted two further related articles tonight. [33], [34].Tvx1 21:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the block.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Olsen24

@NeilN: User:Olsen24 has removed the block notice from his talk page before his block expired. SportsFan007 (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

@SportsFan007: They're allowed to do that per WP:BLANKING. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok, thank you!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Some insight on Noble lie

Hi Neil (or friendly talk page stalkers),

I want to begin a discussion with an editor on Noble lie who wants to place a warning tag in front of content that suggests certain religious content are being labelled as false; like a disclosure or a spoiler alert to not upset anyone: [35],[36]. I completely understand why they feel this way but I am also pretty sure that's not how Wiki does it. Before I start a discussion I want to make sure I have the right policies. I don't believe this falls under censorship so what would this be called? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4. We actually have a alert for that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Idumont and past creations of Lacework

Hi Neil, I noticed that you recently deleted Lacework after I tagged it for G5 and G11. I was wondering if you could inform me which editor created the Lacework article that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lacework on 6 February. I am concerned that User:Idumont was spamming information [37] [38] about Lacework last September and November. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: It was the same editor who recreated it. I should actually restore the redirect that was wiped out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Neil.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, NeilN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.KNHaw ^(talk) 01:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested a Wikipedia:REVDEL.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 01:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply. It seems one slipped by, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr._Garrison&type=revision&diff=828520946&oldid=828520762

--KNHaw ^(talk) 02:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. Must've been lag. Thanks, again! --KNHaw ^(talk) 02:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@KNHaw: New IP. Blocked and article protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah. That explains it. Thanks, again! --KNHaw ^(talk) 02:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Electricbassguy sock

Could you take a look at Crack Stuntman? This user gave WikiLove to a blocked IPsock, significantly contributed to an article started by Electricbassguy, and restored edits done by previous socks. Sro23 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sro23: Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

i would just like to inform you that i see a potential edit eat between me and SportsFan007 brewing. I havent yet and don't intend to violate 3RR however an edit war complaint was filed and i dont see why considering talk pages were not used yet. Olsen24 (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to add that i left him a message on his talk page and he/she didn't respond and deleted the message. Olsen24 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please check

Please see the issue here. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 15:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Do you have the right diff? The editor claims to be Soler. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ooppss... I missed that. I keyed on the 'you apparently are...' part. Thank you for checking. Jbh ^Talk 16:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Mfwitten

After you declined their unblock request last month and tried to explain why to them, they're back and pushing again at Talk:Daniel Amen. At least twice now, they've attempted to issue an ultimatum: explain why they're wrong to their satisfaction within 24 hours or they'll start edit warring again. Over the night, they've managed to stumble upon an accurate point (about categories), which is dismaying, because it seems more likely to encourage them to continue fighting with others rather than cooperating, discussing and listening. I'm not suggesting that they need to be blocked again (not yet, anyways), but I'd dearly love if an admin were to keep an eye on things over there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: See User_talk:NeilN#What_is_consensus? above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm just gonna leave this here... Personally, I'd take some Arch Enemy over an arch-nemesis, any day. Damn good stuff, that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Running to teacher?

The thing is, my argument hasn't changed in nearly 2 weeks; the only thing that happened last night is that one of your tribesman finally agreed with me. Think about that. Mfwitten (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

If your argument "hasn't changed in nearly 2 weeks" then you're claiming that there's another editor there agreeing that Amen is not a practitioner of pseudomedicine. [39]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:יניב הורון

Hi NeilN, I see you warned this user recently. This account is only 4/5-day old but it is making edits like an experienced user. User:Premium Astroboy is also suspicious. The latter can be a sock of banned user Swingoswingo. But do you have any idea about User talk:יניב הורון ? -AsceticRosé 04:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

198.13.62.106

Geolocate[40] says this IP is based in Japan by a company called Choopa, LLC. If you have blocked this IP on the basis that they are who I think you blocked them for then this differs to the previous location where probable IPs but not linked publicly by CU were shown as Sky Broadband IPs in the UK. I have put in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. My knowledge of proxies is limited and I was waiting to hear back from them about what they said before requesting a possible block, even still it is worth keeping in mind this possible proxy usage. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Webhost. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And used by a popular VPN proxy service [41] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I thought I would give that IP the benefit of the doubt, but now we know that they have resorted to proxy usage I will report them straight away. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

AE climate change

Hi NeilN,

FYI: You recently blocked MaxMedia (talk · contribs) for AE for climate change. He's a sock of someone or other (I can't ever keep them straight), and he's gone ahead and created his next sock: Touch Points (talk · contribs), two of the first four edits involve re-instating some of MaxMedia's reverted edits.

All the best, JBL (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: Technically I haven't blocked MaxMedia, only notified them. I'm waiting to see the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby before taking action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, MaxMedia isn't currently blocked, but according to his block-log you did block him on 2/28. Anyhow, since it's at SPI then that should take care of it. Thanks, JBL (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

mining links

this user is adding mining links, you should take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/119.94.207.105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.130.87 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. However they might continue after the 31 hours block time is over, after all they get money whenever someone clicks the links they change on wikipedia so that is why there is such a strong incentive to do that. is someone going to be watching over him and to be blocked him again in the future if he does it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.130.87 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The IP addresses people use often change so we usually don't place a lengthy initial block. If the same activity resumes from the same IP address then we know the IP address is somewhat static and a lengthier block can be implemented. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

We missed one...

MaryLowe Look what they uploaded. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Account is globally locked by freshly minted steward There'sNoTime. I've nuked the upload. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

;) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

As predicted...

This is the kind of pile-on personal attacks that I was asking for intervention to put a stop to. If one editor gets away with it, others figure they can too. As I said, a productive discussion is taking place and a small group is bent on derailing it. Is this going to be allowed to continue escalating? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: I suggest you stop looking for sanctions on editors that say anything remotely negative to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"Remotely negative"? According to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, calling someone "pathological" constitutes a personal attack. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is a personal attack. I have repeatedly asked this person to stop making false claims about my intentions, or at least provide diffs to justify it. Aside from the personal attacks, taking a civil, productive discussion and attempting to provoke bickering is disruptive editing. This tactic has succeed in discouraging new editors from continuing to work on this article.

And then there's the harassment. Re-posting the same unfounded accusation again and again.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] Prior to this obsession with accusing me of wanting to rename the article and change the subject entirely, this editor hounded me and repeatedly asked me to admit that I knew the Tesla car is not in Earth orbit, which I did agree to, again, and again, but he kept asking. This harassment is apparently a favorite tactic.

I do not look for sanctions every time any editors say "anything remotely negative". I ignore this kind of thing every day. But when it comes to this, this ongoing escalation, this focused harassment, and editors who think they have been given permission to bully others off an article, it is appropriate to ask for intervention. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Karl.i.biased And article alina zagitova

Hey Neil I started the talk on Alina Zagitova and who you blocked revert the edit while the discussion is on going after another user User:Karl.i.biased told her on her talk that she should leave it for now. She has been very disruptive on Wikipedia. Can you do anything? Btw I’m coming to you so as not to violate 3RR again. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 06:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@TucsonDavid: I've blocked Karl for edit warring on yet another article. I would probably leave the infobox alone as the current consensus in the ongoing discussion does not seem to support your position but it's up to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello admin

• User_talk:NeilN/Archive_24#Congrats!
• User_talk:NeilN/Archive_34#RFC_closure_at_Trump_BLP
• User_talk:NeilN/Archive_39#AE_again
• User_talk:NeilN/Archive_41#Exiled

Tip of the iceberg?

MrX did an overwhelming scattershot of claims which will take a long time to address individually. He clearly has much more time to dedicate to harassing someone who doesn't cow to his bullying than I do to stand up to bullies.

I am wondering if you are willing to concisely address individual issues in conversation with me to establish some form of understanding, faith or goodwill going forward. I don't want to spend time explaining things if they aren't actually interested in understanding.

Before I address any of the new allegations, I want to discuss the original dispute which happened before it.

I would like to know if you have fully reviewed this segment of history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Hogg_(activist)&offset=20180304&action=history&limit=20

If you can confirm this, I will offer further comments. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

ScratchMarshall, you are topic banned from BLPs by consensus of the community. You are violating the topic ban by continuing to discuss David Hogg. Please cease and desist, and avoid BLPs 100%. Otherwise, you will be blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Cullen's comment has me very confused. Neil you said you will explain how to appeal the topic ban.

How is it possible to do this when I am not allowed to discuss the edits where I am alleged to have violated BLP policy? ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: The topic ban is very much needed and I will not be lifting it. So a stage 1 appeal as outlined in Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_by_sanctioned_editors is denied. You have stage 2 open to you. If you have further questions about a stage 2 appeal, please ask. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you know it isn't needed, but I acknowledge your refusal to let me appeal directly and your minimization of involvement to that of directing me to other processes.

Regarding stage 2:

request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN");

Would I be correct in thinking the former (AE) rather than the latter (AN) is the appropriate place? This was suggested on my talk page by Beyond My Ken, after attempting to discuss it with you. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: It's up to you. At AE, uninvolved admins will decide the outcome of your appeal. At AN, the discussion is more unstructured and a wider consensus can be sought with non-admins having input into what is consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

What am I permitted to mention in the appeal at either place? Cullen has alleged that mentioning the name of the BLP article at all is violating a topic ban. Do you agree with that? If so, I require suggestions as to how I can appeal without being able to link to a history page showing my edits were deleted so that people can read what was deleted.

Please instruct me: does the topic ban you have instated even prevent me from linking to the history of a talk page of a BLP?

This is why I'm thinking AE would be better than AN, because while I would love to have non-admins provide some input, they wouldn't be able to see the deleted edits, so until I can appeal to have them un-deleted, it would not be an informed decision. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: In your appeal, you may:

• Link to any diffs you wish
• Mention any BLP articles
• Explain how your edits did not violate BLP

You may not:

• Advocate for your edits to be reinstated
• Introduce new BLP-related material

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_ScratchMarshall and am posting to notify you about this. I interpreted "new BLP-related material" as not extending to the already-mentioned sources because they are not 'new'.

I have linked to history where linking diffs is no longer possible. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

I have no idea what this [50] is about, but your name was in it, so if you're interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It's Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Karl.i.biased

Hi there. Sorry to be another person to bother you about him, but I'm currently involved and can't take administrative action myself. I was wondering if I could ask for your assistance/input, since you've intervened recently.

Anyways, as you pointed out, he's got 5 blocks for 3RR/EW, and he's being rather disruptive with his reverts at Kingdom Come: Deliverance. If you look at the page history, you'll see a series of reverts. the page history. To summarize what's going on:

• I made a variety of changes to the controversy section.
• He reverts all due to a "per talk page".
• I restored it because there was no such talk page consensus against any of it, and a number of the changes are irrelevant to anything being discussed on the talk page currently.
• He reverted me again, without any edit summary.
• I went and made an edit completely unrelated to the controversy section.
• He reverted me again, telling me not to remove sources from the controversy section, which is insane, because I was adding material to a different section.

• I've left 2 comments on his talk page during the whole exchange, of which he's refused to discuss. I'm also actively discussing on the talk page, where he continues to vaguely allude to, but has yet to actually participate.

So, to summarize, after 5 blocks over edit warring, he's reverting with misleading edit edit summaries and refusing to discuss. I defer to your judgement. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Indef blocked this time. They need a WP:1RR restriction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Much appreciated. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Related?

Not familiar with this sock/master but this popped up today and seems suspicious. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: I don't see a behavioral overlap. The puppet I blocked and master were just vandalizing. The socks in the SPI were doing dumb stuff to their user pages. Where's the list on Oldest people lists' user page coming from? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	You beat me to it! :D https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Front_Line_Systems,_Inc.&action=history ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Based on your report to WP:UAA :) Thanks for your patrolling here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of notices

I would like of know the purpose of the notices to me. I have made very appropriate edits and changes on articles and provided multiple valid citations and references. Let me know the reason for sending me these notices. ---User talk:Truthteller301

@Truthteller301: You have edited in two areas covered by discretionary sanctions. The note is designed to make you aware of that and provides links to more information. In your specific case, no, you haven't made "very appropriate edits". For example, your "Allegations of being Anti-Hindu" section decidedly violates WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Two other editors have told you much the same on your talk page. Please go to the links, read them, and modify your editing before you are sanctioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Accepting User:Commdiratsdt

I don't think that this name meetings the user name policy either, specifically "Usernames that are names of posts within organizations, such as "Secretary of the XY Foundation", are not permitted, as such a post may be held by different persons at different times." (Commdiratsdt = Communication Director at Sigma Delta Tau, see last entry at https://sigmadeltatau.org/meet/our-leadership/national-office-staff/ )Naraht (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were the one who accepted.Naraht (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Problems at Ramdasia

Hi, I left a note for a user on 1 March when they did a poor article move. I also reverted the move at that time but they have just sent Ramdasia back to Sikh Ramdasia again and this time I cannot revert it. They've also been making a mess of the article content today. Can you please help? - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Mess is right. Moved back the article, move-protected it, fully-protected it for one week, fixed the talk page, warned the editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You've been busy. Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, Chamar may need protection also. They're doing similar things there, oblivious to the sourcing. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Let's leave it open for now, to see if they get the message about their editing. If they don't, it's no use putting off sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Care to block?

It's our favorite political expert (they haven't edited here yet but their xwiki contribs make it obvious and I've asked for a glock + cu on loginwiki.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Done. If that person actually is Karia they need a better way of stroking their ego. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

NeilN Honestly outside of the "articles" and garbage they keep reposting I can't find evidence he actually exists. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

NeilN Rather than give them the glory of AIV, mind blocking 94.9.105.60? It's more RK spammy crap (re-adding a now deleted photo uploaded by an RK sock.) 12:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: What'd ya think about this? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Lol, looks like we had the same thought. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Yes. Maybe ask for a CU to check for sleepers? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Given the x-wiki socking, I'm just gonna ask for a login cu. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Not sure why CU would have missed this account but Hairygrim? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

They might have missed it as it was an older account created way back in 2014 but only begun editing recently. Their userpage says "This user is an expert in Political science." which sounds similar to the username thepoliticsexpert and their edits seem similar too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

NeilNSpeak of the devil... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: The last CU was done yesterday. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Curious... and curiouser. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: No idea about the registered editor. The IP was probably them before the more recent edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Путеец

Dear NeilN, sorry for disturbing you. But please pay attention to this issue. Again I have to ask you to see what the User Путеец does in Homosexual behavior in animals article. One example: when the user Flyer22 Reborn made very normal suggestion about article's development, User Путеец made this statement. Please pay attention to his words "After all, scientists also fall into two categories - homosexual and heterosexual" or another one statement "In addition, one-sex behavior of animals is used in politics, to protect the rights of LGBT people, legalization of same-sex marriage, as one of the evidence of the normality of this behavior" . Now, I hope, you see that this User is not in Wikipedia to make the articles better, he is here to push his agenda. Let alone, that many statements of the User:Путеец are against science, (for example, see Petter Bockman's respond), now Путеец are openly admits, that he is here to push some agenda, but not to make the article better. Please, take some actions. Regards. M.Karelin (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I ask you to evaluate my opponent's contribution to the work on the article. Basically, this is an unjustified cancellation [51]. He does not have sources, he asks other editors. Constructive editors, reached a consensus [52], and agreed with actions that will improve the article. Regards. --Путеец (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I revert only edits which you made without consensus (despite the fact that NeilN asked you to not do that). Your POV-pushing and Modus operandi are already made an Administrator in Russian wikipedia to put a topic ban on you. Your statemet and actions in article prove that you are not here to make this article better, you are here to destroy it and push your agenda. I wish other active editors in the article (FrankP, Flyer22 Reborn, Petter Bøckman) also tell their commetns about this situation. M.Karelin (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The ban in Russian wikipedia is contested, it will be exchanged, because the author of the number 1500, thanks to me admitted his mistake [53]. And you do not have sources, cancel edits, not knowing what is written in the sources themselves. This proves my careful study of sources. --Путеец (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure it will be "exchanged" ?? Your statement on Talk page (see above) proves that you do not assume good faith editing the article. Besides, your comments about me are not ethical at all. M.Karelin (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure. Those who imposed the ban, did not believe that I was right, but the Petter Bøckman and Миша Карелин is wrong [54]. Baily et al says: "For many people, the issue of same-sex sexual behavior in animals is more than just academic. Bagemihl’s [16] compendium documenting same-sex behavior in nearly 450 species has been frequently cited in media articles and websites dealing with gay rights issues in humans. First, greater communication between researchers working on human sexual behavior and researchers engaged in non-human animal work would enhance the research programs of both. These two fields can most effectively communicate with each other if efforts are made to avoid politicizing research results and drawing parallels between human sexual identity and animal behavior when they are clearly not merited. " [55] This quotation confirms that I use scientific sources, and my opponent does not read them. Please evaluate my contribution to the article and his. --Путеец (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Миша Карелин Concerning additional data on political use, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the latest scientific work. [56] --Путеец (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If you think, that all those works say that "one-sex behavior of animals is used in politics, to protect the rights of LGBT people, legalization of same-sex marriage, as one of the evidence of the normality of this behavior", you are absolutelly wrong !! No one оf reliable sources said such things. Those are only your words, do not try to prove us that some reliable sources said the same things. Once again - your statement proves that you do not assume good faith editing the article. All your comments here show the stile you work with sources - you quote different people to justify your statement, although they meant quite different things, and not what you wrote on Talk page. M.Karelin (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

NeilN Please consider his accusation in fraud. [57]. Another user, not I, made a statement to administrators in RuWiki [58]. "An attempt to discredit a participant outside the Ruwiks by distributing diffs from Ruwiki with a distortion of the meaning of the said in these diffs to create a negative image of the opponent." In the cited references, there is no charge of fraud. I said that the organizers of the exhibition had juggling values the number of species of animals (indicated 1500 instead of 450). This not mean fraud. It can affect my reputation, and the reputation of Petter Bøckman. I found an error in an article that exists since 2007 [59]. The author of this error recognized her [60]. If it requires a call to administrators, tell me where to turn. Other my addresses and explanations here.[61] Help me please. Characteristic behavior. Stop work without argumentation and reading sources. [62] --Путеец (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• All my reverts are clearly justified on the Talk page. I'm not the only one who makes remarks about your edits. Many other editors do this, but you do not listen to anyone. Thank God, everything is clearly written on Talk page. M.Karelin (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Does this user violate WP:CANVASS Special:Contributions/Shahin.shn? Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hhhhhkohhhhh: The message was neutral and the criteria for picking the editors seems reasonable. [63] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your buddy...

...appears to be back from his coffee break. GMG^talk 20:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Blocked by TNT. I hope we're ready for the avalanche of press and public inquiries. [64] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up. GMG^talk 20:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

StewieGriffin1998

They're back edit-warring over categories at least on Sleepy Hollow (film). Still no talk page posts - article or user space. Ravensfire (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Indeffed until they start talking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Feeling that they are CensoredScribe is still there, but some digging didn't turn up enough for a SPI. The Stewie account was created before some of the latest socks were blocked, but it's the same behavior. Appreciate you stepping in. Ravensfire (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

And now editing as an IP - 78.150.147.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Edit by IP and edit by Stewie. Ravensfire (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Put a cork on?

I thought that was a bit strong. I hadn't thought of interpreting as a suggestion he'll be leaving, however. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Sorry it came across that way but the legal threats comment seemed to come out of nowhere. The editor was pointing out (very rightly) that MjolnirPants' talk page edit notice can be considered uncivil and if it's acceptable then it's indicative of "what kind of community [we] want to have" - one they don't want to be a part of ("[they've] been absent for a couple of years because of incidents like this"). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Late reply. You'll see I struck my comment. They've dropped out of the debate. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Christian rock bands

Then where is the place to get assistance with it? 2600:1702:1690:E10:5DB1:E494:B72E:DDE8 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Please look at the article content section of WP:DRR for various options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear NeilN, thanks for your today's involvement in the situation with the Homosexual behavior in animals article. More than 20 days some Users (including you) and I asked User Путеец to work in the style that you demanded him today (preliminarily discuss the edits on the article's Talk page). You do not imagine how much efforts were wasted simply to asking him not to make edits in the article without preliminary consent. After 20 days, it finally happened, and only after your involvement. I hope, now the situation will be more or less corrected. Thank you. Sincerely. M.Karelin (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

National AntiVirus

User:National AntiVirus is back to their old tricks. See Special:Contributions/National_AntiVirus - Eduard Shevardnadze and USSR–USA Maritime Boundary Agreement‎, for instance. It might be time for a longer block. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fiachra10003: They haven't edited in a couple weeks so a block would be punitive now. I'll remind them again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Violation of WP:CIV

Dear administrator, please look at those two remarks of the User Путеец - [65] and [66]. Please do some actions, I cant work in this conditions. M.Karelin (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Миша Карелин and Путеец: It looks like you two would really benefit from using the dispute resolution board where you would be forced to remark on content only. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you so much for the vandal warning template! :) TheMitochondriaBoi^{(Wanna talk?)} 20:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for CL's TP

If a sockpuppet appears, might I suggest a semi-protect? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Yes, if one more appears I'll semi. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

RE: White Genocide

Good evening.

I did not include that paragraph for some sort of racist or malicious intent. This event is actually happening, and the South African parliament is legitimately considering this motion.

Here is a Reuters article discussing the provision.

The inclusion of that last paragraph was an attempt to observe a neutral point of view. You are incorrect to say that South Africa's ruling party is not aspiring to steal Boer lands. They are, and they may pass the bill.

I am insulted that you removed my changes on the basis that you disagree with them. A Reuters article is not original research.
--2602:306:39D6:CBA0:D835:9D67:6048:D2EB (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Good evening.

I received your second message and wish to reply. The inclusion of the South African bill propsing land theft of Boers was added into a section discussing allegations of Boer persecution in South Africa. To counter the citation from the left-wing Africa Check organization, I added a documented example of an attempt by the ruling party of South Africa to actually persecute Boers.

As the White Genocide article concerns persuections of whites in the South Africa section, I believe that a well-sourced, documented reference to the SA land theft attempt against Boers is pertinent to the information in the article.

This paragraph was insulting removed as "original research", despite citations. Reuters is not original research.

--2602:306:39D6:CBA0:D835:9D67:6048:D2EB (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, the source makes no mention of white genocide. The article isn't about "persuections of whites". It's specifically about the white genocide conspiracy theory. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The notion that Boers are perseucuted in South Africa is a key part of the White Genocide claims when South Africa is brought up. In the section of the White Genocide article, the left-wing nonprofit, Africa Watch, is cited, providing a counter to allegations that Boers are being slaughtered and persecuted. The persecution of whites is mentioned by name in that section.

I am not participating in disruptive editing. You are also reverting legitimate content because of your political beliefs. You are consistently rolling back a documented and sourced paragraph, which has three references, including one from Reuters, because you disagree with it. I am insulted by your arrogance and I ask that you permit the dissenting paragraph to be allowed. Wikipedia is intended to be neutral, and part of neutrality includes both sides.

I'm not sure what constitutes original research in your biased mind, but the last time I checked, I am not a reporter at Reuters! You need to check your own biases and opinions before you threaten me with blocking for daring to include a relevant article discussing attempts of Boer persecution 'in a section talking about alleged Boer persecution.

Indeed, if my paragraph is irrelevant to the article, then that entire section about Africa Watch is also irrelevant. It, too, discusses conditions in South Africa and Boer persecution outside of the context of White Genocide.

--2602:306:39D6:CBA0:D835:9D67:6048:D2EB (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This diff is interesting from various perspectives. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Not everyone does various perspectives, dear Boris. I really only have one here. Now on Facebook, all bets are off. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I stumble back and forth across the fine line between intriguingly vague and pointlessly nonsensical. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Neil is correct here.

The article you are editing is about the white genocide conspiracy theory. To add material to the article, you will need to cite a reliable source discussing the material directly relating it to the "white genocide conspiracy theory". That it refers to something mentioned or discussed in the article or seems relevant is not sufficient.

The warnings on your talk page are not "threats". They are consensus warnings intended to discourage back-and-forth editing ("edit warring") and encourage discussing the issue to arrive at a consensus first. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

IP (if you're still reading), note that I didn't touch the same addition to Land reform in South Africa where a good case can be made for its inclusion. It has nothing to do with my political beliefs but what is deemed relevant to the article topic by reliable sources that discuss the material within the context of the article topic. The Africa Watch material directly refutes Hofmeyr's sourced claims of a white genocide occurring and therefore very appropriate in an article about white genocide conspiracy theory. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Good Article

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)

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)

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

Possible revdel needed

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)

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

Accused of legal threat?

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)

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

Please take action to stop personal attacks

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)

@Dennis Bratland: Not agreeing that comments rise to the level where action is needed is not ignoring what you've said. I've restored BatteryIncluded's post, removing one word, and made a brief comment. You are, of course, free to take this to WP:ANI again or another admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

FYI user requesting AE on article talk page

Howdy podner. Interesting to see this one [67] 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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Dennis Bratland - warring

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". - [68]

Liar - [69]

Drunk- [70].

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 WP:GAME THE SYSTEM. He is in utter denial his repeated motions were rejected, and remains combative. I think there were 2 or 3 ANI incidents prompted by his warring; If "trolling" is not the appropriate word, I don't know how else it can be described. Thank you. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

I've added the diff to the quote above. Other classic quotes can be found at the bottom of this AN thread, and in this ANI thread Dennis replied to SkyWarrior with, "You should be ashamed of this. You're ganging up to bully another editor, instead of focusing on article content." The "Multiple editors ganging up this way" presumably including you, Neil, along with Insertcleverphrasehere, since the three of you had the temerity to disagree with him on that occasion. I don't think he's trolling, necessarily, but he has much the same MO as a troll. nagualdesign 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

@Dennis Bratland: Cherry-picking of sources goes both ways, and Wikipedia does not necessarily reflect quantity of coverage proportionately. The important point of the due weight policy is that fringe positions are filtered out. Arguments on due balance are inherently subjective and not purely quantitative. Also, please understand that ultimately, the decisions on which content to include or which aspects to emphasize are made by a WP:consensus of volunteer editors. Despite your efforts, you have failed to convince most of your fellow editors that this article should be slanted towards describing the Roadster launch primarily as a marketing stunt. This aspect is covered and acknowledged, but is not given as much weight and prominence as you deem necessary. That's life. Perhaps some day 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)

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 [71][72][73][74][75][76] 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)

a spammer is deleting my scholarly opinion addition in an article.

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))

What can I say? Of course I'm a notorious spammer, everyone knows that. Continually being blocked. But see the talk page Talk:Bhimbetka rock shelters and 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)

(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).

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

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

Administerial expectations

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)

LittleDipper

Hi, I have a strong feeling this IP [77] is LittleDipper, who has resorted to socking following the decline of their unblock request. Would you consider semi-protecting the page? Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Thanks. He is now making inappropriate use of his talkpage [78]. Khirurg (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Ashy Waves

Both with the block and with the talk page access removal you got there before I did, but I would have done the same if you hadn't. So many of us put so much effort into trying to help the editor, and he or she might have learnt how to contribute in acceptable ways and so avoided being blocked, if only he or she had listened to what we said. Oh well, you can't help those who won't be helped. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@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)

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 "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion

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)

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

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

Clarification ANI comment?

Hi NeilN. Regarding this post of yours [79]. 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)

@SPECIFICO: It's beyond the scope of ANEW. Per 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)

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)

Really?

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)

@NickCT: If editors don't agree that the sources provided are enough to meet 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)

NeilN - Have you actually looked at the subject? I'd be really surprised if anyone familiar with our notability guidelines would contest that this article made 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)

@NickCT: "[I]t's pretty clear editors were confused by the reference stripping." - no, that's your opinion. And addressing your note to the closer was fruitless. They're going to judge consensus, not make a supervote based on your comments. "Note to participants" would have been better. My actions prevented you from getting blocked for violating WP:3RR. I think that was a good outcome. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

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)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Banasura

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

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

Thank you for your patience

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)

Block wanted

209.93.13.37 has issued another personal attack ("jealous Hungarian"), he learned nothing from his two previous blocks for violating WP:NPA. Greetings, Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You'll need to provide a diff but that's a pretty mild aspersion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's [80], but if you consider it mild, no block is required. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The IP is a serial abuser: "undo your stupid changes" [81], "so dial down the pride, would you?" [82]. 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..." [83]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have requested a topic ban at WP:ANI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Unconstructive editing

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)

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

Sock loose

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)

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

AE appeal

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

Rollback, Passing Judgement and Threats to Block

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)

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

Russian interference article

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)

Please note that Lambden made that revert as a revenge revert because I disagreed with him on the Peter Navarro article [84] (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 [85] NOT to post there. After I removed his comment and asked him AGAIN not to post on my talk page... he immediately posted again [86]. 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)

(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)

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)

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

• VM initiated our recent interaction with his revert of my edit to Peter Navarro [87]
• 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" [88]
• I responded sincerely in an edit summary [89] having forgotten his request. I have now noted his request on my talk page to avoid repeating the mistake [90]
• When I reverted his edit in another politics article [91] with valid justification he again accused me of stalking.
• He then (by the standard he applies) "stalked" me to this page [92]
• 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)

@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)

@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)

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

Julioxo

Hi NeilN! I'm messaging you about this user because you placed a three-month block on his account for edit warring back in February. I was patrolling this article just now and I'm seeing what might be similar edits from QuinteroP as Julioxo, as both are adding pictures to various sections of the article. I did a quick spot check and didn't find an instance where both accounts added the same exact image, but this QuinteroP account was created after your block on Julioxo was applied, and suddenly this new account is exerting the same behavior on this article as Julioxo. The diffs in question are here, here (where Julioxo adds his changes back to the article), and here (the edits by QuinteroP). I wanted to get your opinion and input before I proceed with creating an SPI... I have suspicions, but I don't feel that I have definitive proof yet - what do you think? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@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)

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

Interaction ban

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)

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

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)

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)

See the last line of the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed IBAN against User:Alansohn. It looks like 'Proposed Solution #1' was enacted, which implies that 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)

We're trying to update the word "bookkeeping" to reflect modern day changes and running into trouble having things removed

You helped me previously with a minor task and I'm wondering if you can help with something larger. We're attempting to change the definition of "bookkeeping" to reflect what the current state of the industry and of the people who are doing today's work.

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

@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)

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)

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)

@Evanvalken: See WP:MEAT and 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)

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)

@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)

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)

@Ingabird: There was a link in the message on your talk page but I'll highlight two here: Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#What_it_means_to_donate_material_to_Wikipedia and 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)

Dalida: A page being run by French PR team

Mr NeilN;

Kindly see this [93]. 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)

@Mina Alfonse: I've already issued a final warning to the other editor about ownership. I see you've used the talk page and no one else has. I've semi-protected the article so IPs are forced to discuss. Let me know if DalidaFan continues to revert without joining the discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Updates to "Bookkeeping" page

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

@Ingabird: Please read this section above. And all of you need to read our 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)

(talk page stalker)... And language like, "highly specialized profession that requires an amazing combination of tech-savvy, business acumen, and people skills" remains, and will always remain, hopelessly 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)

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

Deletion of my userpage

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=19 June 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)

@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)

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)

User talk:Johnbod

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

John, I cannot see why you, as an admin, would think it's a good idea to warn an editor in the way you warned Johnbod after edit warring with him. This was a content dispute over stylistic changes. It was not vandalism, and does not fall under any definition of our WP:Vandalism policy. I've questioned you before on WP:INVOLVED, including just last year, and it seemed you either didn't understand WP:INVOLVED or you think you are above it. You are not. If you were to block Johnbod over this content dispute, that would make you WP:INVOLVED. Plain and simple. And I would hope that Johnbod would know that and cite that in his unblock request. If not, I would be there to cite it for him. Any admin who has respect for the way things are supposed to work would unblock him instead of simply siding with a fellow admin. Regardless of your supporters letting you get away with this type of behavior time and again, it needs to stop. Even without you blocking him, you have created a chilling effect, including with this latest post at Johnbod's talk page, because you are an admin and the implication is that you will block him yourself. Unacceptable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Fixed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Thank you, Thewinrat. But given the section right above this one, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't point out the other editor's edits weren't exactly vandalism, but rather decidedly non-neutral. They've stopped now, largely thanks to you, and hopefully they've read what I've written on their IP and user talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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

TheWolfChild ArbCom case

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)

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

question

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)

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

Outside of Wikipedia World.

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)

@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)

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

Stana Katic

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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

Honesty

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)

Talk page protection

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)

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)

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

Fritz Fehling

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 [94], and today he edited there using an IP. [95]. I reverted his edit, with an edit summary saying that he could not edit Wikipedia under any name or using an IP. [96], and I'm about to put the same message on his user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Request for clarification regarding topic ban

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 WP:ARBAPDS was mentioned. I believe I was too riled up on March 7 when I came back after the 3-day block, and noticed the topic ban, and made rushed and confused responses on AE and ANI which people found disruptive and resulted in a 7-day block.

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)

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)

Dalida

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 unsigned comment added by DalidaFan (talk • contribs)

@DalidaFan: No, the answer is to engage the other editor on the article's talk page. Mina Alfonse posted there almost a month ago. You've yet to reply there and just simply revert. You need to put in the effort to work out a 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)

Potential sock at Citadel-related pages

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)

@Billcasey905: Blocked. In the future you can add a report to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strgzr1 (including diffs showing your evidence). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Addressing the walled garden

Hello Neil,

Some thoughts offered in the spirit of WP:HERE, which reminds us that we value the ability to learn from constructive criticism.

• I respect your contributions to Wikipedia. May I observe that your contributions, from your earliest days, have been primarily the important "behind the scenes" work of Wikipedia, as contrasted with expanding our reader-facing article space. Am I missing something? Have you driven any good article efforts? What is your experience expanding article space, particularly in contended areas? Do you respect the contributions of editors who focus on article space, try to avoid drama, and research and read and bring new sources and new neutral summarizations to articles?

• My read of essay WP:DENY is that it addresses vandalism, while you seem to take a very broad view. Do you feel that a neutral summarzation of new noteworthy reliable sources may be vandalism, even at article talk? As an administrator you have a leadership role on our project, and other editors take cues from your conduct. Our arbitration committee has asked us to model our best behavior in contended areas. Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic reminds us that we may from time to time lose sight of our core values in our zeal. Do you feel broadly enforcing essay WP:DENY is more important than building the encyclopedia?

• I believe we make progress when new sources and new points of view are brought to the project, what do you think? In my contributions I have very, very rarely deleted a source, preferring to fix its summarization. What do you think? Aren't most new noteworthy reliable sources worthy of at least copying to talk rather than erasing? Before I hit submit, I ask myself if the contribution is an improvement; may I ask that you do the same?

• Suppose a walled garden of articles were identified, and received increase scrutiny on and off Wiki, how can we all be part of the solution?

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

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)

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)