User talk:NeilN/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48

R/D

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

@MarnetteD: Done. Thanks for reporting. --NeilN talk to me 04:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome and thanks for checking on this. MarnetteD|Talk 05:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Problem with recent page move

Why you moved the page [1] "per request" when no discussion was initiated and only an edit summary was used by someone[2] that violates WP:OR? See my request at WP:RMTR. Rzvas (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rzvas: Because not all moves have to be discussed beforehand. I checked the talk page and there was no indication the page title was controversial. If you are disputing the move I will move it back and you can start a discussion with NadirAli who requested an admin correct an accident. --NeilN talk to me 04:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I see that Anthony Appleyard has undone the move. Thanks Anthony. --NeilN talk to me 04:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Another TPI?

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

@Ebyabe: Posted here. --NeilN talk to me 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Y'know, when you violate someone's username is indeed another way to report to an admin!! This is MY userpage, WE should control it however WE want!!!!!! I want an administrator's response on this. This is freaking ridiculous! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro
Your userpage does not belong to you. It belongs to Wikipedia. You are generally entitled to control its content, but there are many exceptions. One of them is to have an article about you on it. You can say a little bit about yourself, but not what you've done here. I've undone your latest edit. I strongly urge you to let this go. Wikipedia is not a social media platform.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@Zacharyalejandro: This admin is going to point you to WP:UP#OWN: "However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier." --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you check it, plz

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

I've collapsed the subthread. --NeilN talk to me 16:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Sigh, my comment is not derogatory at all. NeilN, if I show evidence (which I can easily find in numerous examples) that supports what I said, would I then be allowed to say it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: Article talk pages are for discussing article content, not for unhelpful detours on what editor supports what cause. And please do not refactor your posts after they've been replied to. You can cross out statements you wish to retract. --NeilN talk to me 19:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
My point is that more neutral users should be active on that article, which is definitely not the case atm. But yeah, my bad, what do we need neutral users for anyways? Also yeah, I forgot that you could cross it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

June 27 diff

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

@PseudoSkull: If WP:NOTNEWS was tightened up, that article (almost all of it written by you} would not exist. A flash flood occurred at a ranch near a small town in New Mexico. One person died and one highway was closed for less than a day. That's it. The exhaustive article is filled with trivia which really has no place in an encyclopedic summation of an event {examples: "the crew consisted of eight youth Scouts, three adult advisors, and one ranger who was assisting the crew" (with 14 citations!) and "These CARE packages could either have been sent to Philmont, to the home of the Brock family, or to the homes of anyone else with a connection to Alden."). I respect that you've meticulously detailed everything local coverage stated about the event but that does not mean the event is notable enough to rate a mention anywhere aside from directly related articles. People die from natural disasters every day, the news covers it, and then the news moves on. --NeilN talk to me 00:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed response. I don't agree that this should not have an article, nor that a majority of its contents should be removed (maybe the stuff about the CARE packages was a bit much, but the info about the crew is relevant to the story IMHO), but I do now understand why this does not warrant a mention on an article meant for historically vital events. I will not add things like this to date articles anymore. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
To extent on my opinion of notability, I am an inclusionist, and, since I tend to "specialize" in local history and events, I am against removal of information based on locality alone. I've received criticism for that in the past. I actually recently was searching Google for any new sources that came up mentioning the flood, and unrelatedly found 2 people that used this Wikipedia article in their research. That might not be a significant number, but it felt pretty good for me given how much time I spent writing it. It shows that it was useful to someone, and you can pretty much exponentiate the number of people who read the article and cited it to figure out how many people read it and found it useful alone. meta:Inclusionism#Arguments against deletion sums up almost perfectly my viewpoint on how information should be treated on Wikipedia, and it makes me happy to know that some, if not many, users agree with me. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

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

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

Need help with an editor

Pvqnp940a (talk · contribs). The CIR is strong with this one, but if we can at least get him to use edit summaries and to accept input from others he might avoid a trip to ANI. Could you perhaps try to speak to him on his talkpage? He has so far responded negatively to contact from anyone: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I'm going to invite Doug Weller and Cullen328 as well. Softlavender (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if this editor is not User:Jgrantduff? Poltair (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
In all likelihood, yes, and in all likelihood he has other sock(s) as well, particularly for the interim between the blocked account's last edit and this account's first edit. It being a holiday time and all I don't feel like filing an SPI, but anyone else is welcome to, and CU should be done to check for sleepers. Based on DUCK I'd say this is a 99% match, and if someone like Doug Weller (whom I've already mentioned) argees he can do a CU, and then if DUCK suffices he or a sage like Bbb23 can block the lot of them, in my opinion. For my money, the severe and irredeemable CIR problems are enough for an indef (or site-ban). Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Softlavender: sorry I missed this. I see that this account has been blocked. I'm not clear why a CU was done on this account as the old account is clearly stale, but I presume any sleepers would have been unearthed. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries. I don't believe a CU was done (even though Alex Shih has that capability as an Arb), but rather Alex Shih seems to have blocked based on the 99% DUCK evidence (look at the userpage and talk page of the master) as mentioned above. Softlavender (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
On that note, could one of you (Alex Shih or Doug Weller) do a CU and check for sleepers? There's a longish gap between the last edit of the master and the first edit of the sock, so there may be an interim account(s). Softlavender (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Initially I thought CU was unnecessary per reason stated by Doug, but ran a check because there were only four overlapped pages per Editor Interaction Analyser despite of the fact it is near certain that these two accounts are connected based variety of behavioral evidence as you indicated, so it was reasonable to suspect that interim accounts are involved. No sleepers are immediately visible, however. Alex Shih (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Softlavender: checkusers have a menu item that allows us to see whether checks have been made in the past - just when and who did them. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Return of Chernobog95

Hi NeilN,

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

  • This user’s contributions [8] show that he/she has edited pages previously edited by Chernobog95 and previous IPs, most notably in the articles regarding the Kwangmyŏngsŏng-4 satellite [9] [10] [11], and the National Aerospace Development Administration [12] [13]. If you notice, the information added by the recent IP is virtually the exact same content added by the previous edits made using the account and sock IPs.
  • The IP’s contributions] also reveal that this IPis using Mobile Edit And Mobile Web Edit tags, just like Chernobog95 and the previous IPs used by him/her before being blocked [14] [15] [16].
  • Non-native English is also prevalent in theedits made by this IP, just like Chernobog95 and the previous IPs (e.g. unspecified individual/organization confirmed/reported, poor grammar and spelling, etc.) [17] [18] [19] [20] [21].
  • And finally the Geolocation reveals that this IP originated in Croatia (possibly in Zagreb [22] [23], the same area where previous IPs used by Chernobog95 originated [24] [25] [26] [27].

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

And not he/she is reverting edits and showing hostility as though he/she owns the article [28] [29][— Preceding [Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by SamaranEmerald (talk • contribs) 13:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@SamaranEmerald: IP blocked. I've created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chernobog95 so future reports can use that and we can track activity. --NeilN talk to me 14:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Dan the Plumber sockpuppeting

Just wanted to point you to an issue that has arisen. The editor you recently sent a warning after he violated 1RR on a Syria-related article, Dan the Plumber, seems to have very well resorted to sock-puppeting to push his POV and has been reported by editor Terrorist96. The suspected sock's very first edit was to again reintroduce the version [30] Dan the Plumber was pushing for at the article he was edit warring. His only other edit on an article [31] was also at an article where Dan the Plumber previously edit warred and the suspected sock reintroduced an identical version of a paragraph the Plumber was also pushing for (which I added as additional evidence). But it would seem the most obvious thing proving the sock was his was this edit [32] on the Plumber's talk page where the suspected sock was talking like he was the Plumber, an edit which he promptly removed shortly after. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(tpw) EkoGraf, I closed the SPI as the sock is unrelated to Dan the Plumber but another nuisance from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134 that has been pulling this joe job for a while (Courtesy note to Terrorist96 too). Alex Shih (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Alex Shih Was pretty certain he is Plumber since he talked on his talk page like he is him [33] (a sentence which he promptly removed). Plus due to his reintroduction of two of Plumber's identical texts to two article's Plumber edit warred on. Not to mention the sock used the same derogatory term towards a fellow editor that Plumber also used. In any case, thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to unblock *Treker

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

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

Mail

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

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

Barnstar

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

Notpron

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

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

Request

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

@TheOldJacobite: I've looked into the matter that presumably triggered this request and think both sides have points. Hear me out before making any final decision to retire? I will delete the applicable subpages even if you wish to ignore what I say if that's what you want. Pinging Oshwah and Ritchie333, the two admins who discussed this matter with you.
  • First Ritchie333 is absolutely right that you have a problem distinguishing what is and what is not vandalism. I've told you this before and even warned you that you'd be blocked at some point if you kept it up. Good block for this.
  • Wikieditoreddy looks suspiciously like a sock of this blocked IP and should not have been editing in the first place. You noted the probable socking here. I personally will not block editors reverting likely socks (unless they're reverting back in vandalism, etc). Other admins might have a different approach.
  • I really wish Ritchie333 would stop implementing his personal views on content and blocking editors involved in the same dispute. It's going to earn him another trip to WP:AN one of these days.
I do hope you reconsider your request and perhaps take a few days off to think about if you are willing to accept adhering Wikipedia's definition of vandalism is required to edit here. --NeilN talk to me 16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll think about it. Thanks for your advice. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
TheOldJacobite - I completely understand your frustration over the situation and how disheartened you probably feel over all of this. Stepping away and taking a break is encouraged in situations where emotions are tense and elevated; you're of course very upset and frustrated... these kinds of situations rarely ever result in people walking away happy... I obviously can't make you stay here if you don't want to, but I sincerely hope that this decision is temporary. Getting tripped and scraped at times doesn't make you a failure or a bad editor... it's apart of learning and gaining experience, and it's apart of life. In the 11 years that I've been an editor here, I won't even begin to try and list all of the mistakes I've made and the things I've messed up royally during my time here. It's... extensive... lol. NeilN has had to ring my neck and hit me on the noggin at least a few times that I remember, so he can definite attest to this ;-). Should this be the last message you read before you go, I want you to know that you're a good editor and an asset to this project... I mean that. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I broadly agree with Neil's assessment above. Look, I don't like doing blocks like this - they're a pain in the neck and often a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". TheOldJacobite, given your tenure and service, I think you're within your rights to call me an asshole and go off onto any number of Wikipedia criticism sites about what a horribly abusive powermad maniac I am to whatever audience will grant you it, if it will make you feel better. I permanently soured relations with Cassianto after he told another editor to fuck off and edit-warred it back onto the other party's talk page and I blocked them for it, and all I can say is it's not personal and never was - unfortunately these things sometimes crop up and shit happens. However, I'm afraid your reactions to the block are not particularly surprising; had I felt you would listen patiently to how you just can't assume that much bad faith on fellow editors, I would have had a quiet word instead. It's pretty obvious that I don't exactly see eye to eye with Neil or Oshwah, and if both of them are saying that the block was good, then we've got a serious problem. Nevertheless, the block is over, we should move on, nothing else to see.
To be also clear, Wikieditoreddy was also edit warring and he'd have got blocked too had he made another revert on that article. To be equally clear, I took administrative action to stop a dispute and then cleaned up the article to a state that neither editor involved in the warring wanted. In my view, making an editorial stance after you have used the tools is different from using them during a dispute to gain the upper hand, and I don't see a problem with it. If other admins say that once you take action you are WP:INVOLVED period, then I accept their views.
The problem is, Neil (and you are better than you used to be, I have to say) is I really struggle to empathise with things you say and do, and you really don't seem to grasp that copyediting articles and improving the content really isn't that hard, and unlike a lot of the backstage and admin stuff around here, the actual research and writing of articles is actually quite fun and what keeps me coming back here again and again. And I say "in my view", because we all specialise in different things, and the Dunning-Kruger effect means we tend to think that things we can do well are easy and wonder why nobody else can do them. Now, the converse to that is I don't have a clue about SPI; the subtle but important difference is when another admin takes action against a sock, I generally respect the decision (unless I want to take a decision on the content) because we have specialists for that. This is why I sometimes have a go at you, not because I'm a grumpy old sod who likes to "stick it" to admins he doesn't like, but because I just find myself banging my head against a desk when you don't "get it". Seriously, we're both here for the encyclopedia, so if we can find some way of just getting along, we should probably do that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: The only thing I'm going to say about the above is that I think my actions match my words. I don't think the same is true about you and that some of your knee-jerk reactions leave a lot to be desired. --NeilN talk to me 17:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I’m sorry you feel like that, but if you don’t want to reach out and patch things up, I can’t force you to. Hey ho. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I don't think the problem lies with me. Two recent interactions [34], [35] If you can find or recall any similar out-of-the-blue drive-by comments by me on your actions then we have something to discuss. --NeilN talk to me 18:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Dan the Plumber again

Hey, despite the topic ban, Dan continues to make edits on Syrian war releated articles. [36][37][38][39][40] Terrorist96 (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

FYI

There's potential trouble brewing you might want to keep an eye on: Started here (and check out the edit summary) [41]; I left the following caution on his talk page [42]; his response: [43] [44]; next was disruptive and premature archiving of discussion [45]; I left a formal caution [46]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Will keep an eye on it. --NeilN talk to me 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
In case you're not aware, there's been an indef at Commons. [47] Just passing it on, for what it's worth. Hopefully he won't go as far here as he did over there. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of what the Talk page says, the block expires on July 14, 2018.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't notice that. Just saw indefinitely blocked. I didn't realize you could indef someone for a set amount of time. Actually, I'm glad it's only until the 14th. I think the guy is upset and making some really bad choices because he's upset. Maybe with the block he'll stop and think a bit and come back with a cooler head. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Heh, you can't indefinitely block someone for a limited time, but you can block someone for a limited time and say you've indefinitely blocked them. My guess is the blocking admin either meant to indef the user or made a mistake on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Some shit-show developing at Commons… see c:User talk:Rowan Forest#Bad block and c:COM:AN#What appears to be an inappropriate indef block of User:Rowan Forest. — JFG talk 03:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Not really. Both Rowan and Nagual were threatening Commons users/admins. Same as they are doing here. Look at Rowan's interactions with editors at the article talk page. Both are behaving badly and very immaturely. As far as the image, it's likely to get deleted again because "provenance"/copyright ownership has not been proven any more than it was when it was deleted the first time. If Nagual could have proved ownership previously, why didn't he? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to leave discussions of user behaviour out of the debate on file authorship and copyright status. Nagual's work was aggressively removed, and he threw a temper; an admin at Commons threw an even bigger temper and caught Rowan in their ire. A bunch of regulars then complained about said admin, and other Commons admins restored order. Now cooler heads have prevailed, and we should focus on discussing the content at c: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tesla Roadster Falcon 9H.png. — JFG talk 03:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
"I'd like to leave discussions of user behaviour out of the debate on file authorship and copyright status...an admin at Commons threw an even bigger temper." Then don't talk about the Commons admin's behavior. Because, truth be told, you're speculating and WP:ABF. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
No ABF involved. All I want is for the content to be discussed. Admins at commons can sort their issues with each other, it's none of our business. — JFG talk 04:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
It may not be your business, but it's certainly my business. I've got over 400 files I've uploaded there. Because I have a vested interest at Commons, I care about how things function there, including how admins do their jobs there. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Great. I guess you can comment there if you wish. We can leave NeilN in peace. — JFG talk 04:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Page restrictions

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

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

Thank you

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

Would you have a minute...

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

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

Dan the Plumber behavior

Telling a fellow editor (who is advising him of Wikipedia's neutrality) to "fuck off" like here [48], and making bad faith comments like this [49] that editors who are of a different POV from him are "brain dead and cynical" (which is all in violation of WP:CIVIL) leads me to believe Dan the Plumber will continue his general battleground attitude towards other editors in the future. EkoGraf (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: Based on their editing, you're probably right. They have a bit of rope left. I'm leaving them alone and seeing what they're going to do with it. --NeilN talk to me 21:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Right, everyone should get a final chance to contribute in the right way. EkoGraf (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

YGM

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

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

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

Adamgerber and Pakistan

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

My thanks

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

Mario Cerrito, III

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

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

ZH8000

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

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

@TheVicarsCat: I blocked the new account. I doubt it's ZH8000. There's some troll creating accounts impersonating editors reported to ANEW and ANI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134/Archive --NeilN talk to me 17:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It did strike me as a rather stupid thing to do. Let's see what happens. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Dan the Plumber Syria violations again

Dan the Plumber has violated his Syria topic ban once again within a day of being unblocked [50], with his first edit being the un-discussed removal of sourced material and its RS ref (Associated Press) that has been in place in an article for years, with the edit apparently being POV in nature. It was also an edit war action he already previously made before he was blocked the last time. He also made an edit on a second Syria-related article [51] as well. EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks, topic ban reset. --NeilN talk to me 20:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Its a shame he's not sticking to policy or a neutral POV. EkoGraf (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Souliotes

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

Keeps accusing and indicating other editors support nationalist POV on Wikipedia. The latest example is today [52]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked ten days and RFC closed as invalid. --NeilN talk to me 12:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Just saving a link here to your 3RR closure, which I agree was necessary. If the problem resumes later, it may be time for a topic ban. Skylax30's last ARBMAC alert was here on June 15. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Chernobog95 Sockpuppet: Gwailofeng

Hi NielN,

Once again, I have found yet another two sockpuppets of Chernobog95, an Ip and for once, he/she actually did not use an IP or one of the socks, rather a a sock account under the name Gwailofeng [53]. I'm going to make this short for you this time to let you know how I how it's Chernobog95:

  • Hostile behavior towards a user over the removal of content they added [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. One of these edits was on a talk page where he/she mentioned the term "double standard(s)"[59], which was the same term used by Chernobog95 frequently on their primary account prior to being blocked [60] [61] [62].
  • User edited articles related to North Korea or sections of articles and talk pages related to North Korea [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78], one of which was a page Chernobog95 previously edited (and edit-warred on) prior to being blocked [79].
  • While Geolocation is impossible for use on usernames, an edit by the IP 77.219.43.96 on one of the sections of a talk page Gwailofeng later edited under [80] has Geolocation matching the region that the previous IPs Chernobog95 socked were located in (Croatia) [81] [82], the dialogue exchanged by Gwailofeng towards the user he/she is antagonising suggests that the aforementioned IP was used by Gwailofeng in the past.
  • I should also note that the username first edited on the day after the previous IP Chernobog95 was caught sock-puppeting under was blocked (and abruptly stopped) [83] [84] [85] [86].
  • @SamaranEmerald: Next time you want to open or reopen a case, follow the instructions at WP:SPI, but do not edit an archive under any conditions. I reverted your edits at the archive. That said, you are right about the new account: Gwailofeng (talk · contribs · count) is  Confirmed to Chernobog95. I have blocked and tagged the new account and tagged the master. Thanks for spotting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

ZurgyStardust

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

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

Inquiry about notice you placed

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

@Alexf: The editor has received numerous incorrect warnings and two wrong blocks from editors and admins who aren't paying attention to what they're doing. Luckily, the person takes it in stride but this type of behavior chases away constructive IP editors and needs to be examined to make sure it's not a recurring pattern. I'm also questioning why a whois template is necessary. "For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address. This includes schools, military installations, WiFi hotspots, and other shared IP addresses, but not dynamic IP addresses." The editor has been using this address for over a year so it looks relatively stable and unshared. --NeilN talk to me 16:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, NeilN. We've been down this road before. It's unfortunate that rather than assist me that moment in stemming persistent vandalism, an admin felt the need to put that template atop my talk page. I'm writing this in as tactful a manner of prose as I can muster. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I see. I was on my way out and caught suspicious activity. As I was going and finishing several postings I did not catch the user's (and this) messages until now. As an aside, I do not understand why an active user like this relies on an IP, which is dynamic and will change no matter what, when the ISP's servers decide, or when the user access the account from other places. Anyway I digress. Noted. -- Alexf(talk) 10:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Violation of arbitration remedies at AR-15 style rifle

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

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

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

Ping

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

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

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

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

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

ZH8000

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear NeilN, please take into consideration that TheVicarsCat (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is "hunting" me wherever (s)he can for quite a time now. Actually, I am bored to report this behavior. Please take also into consideration that I made so far almost 18,000 edits v.s. TVC' less than 250 (and many of them directing against me). If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
If ZH8000 is complaining that I am 'hunting' him, then the above post is clear evidence that he is doing exactly the same thing as I did not ping him. He can only have found the above by following my edit history. Another instance of ZH8000 attempting to enforce rules against others that he himself has no intention of following.
On the subject of which, the above post is a partial rehash of the failed ANI complaint. One where Bbb23 specifically told him to 'drop it'. Again ignoring instructions and not letting it drop.
I know that you are well aware that I have substantially more than the claimed '<250 edits' from when I edited from IP addresses before I was forced to create this account. In fact I was editing before ZH8000 even created his account. An interesting exercise would be to go through his editing history to see how many edit wars he has been involved in. Just looking at the last three months and extrapolating, it could well be into three figures. TheVicarsCat (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
As TheVicarsCat pointed out, much of this happened more than a week ago so I won't be taking any action. However ZH8000, any more unsubstantiated charges of defamation, vandalism, or similar will likely result in another block. Edit count does not excuse poor or unacceptable behavior. --NeilN talk to me 15:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion: Swiggy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

CSD report removed

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

About that picture .

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

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

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

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

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

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

YGM

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

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

Reply: ِAbout that picture.

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

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


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


Thank you.

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

  • IP 37.56.28.98, did you read through the link I provided you on your talk page?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Qualifying the caption isn't going to happen for the same reason I stated above. Tens of thousands of pictures on here would require the same qualification. And not only illustrations of people but of places, things, extinct animals, etc. I would also draw your attention to Muhammad#Appearance: "neither absolutely white nor deep brown", "white circular face", "His hair was neither curly nor lank", "He had thick, curly hair" So it seems "history" does not have a consistent view of his physical characteristics (which is not surprising). --NeilN talk to me 19:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Miawpukek First Nation

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

Merphee

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

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

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

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

@Pinkbeast: It's also trivially easy to switch IPs and networks via VPNs. We have one notorious England-based LTA who occasionally takes to trolling editors with, "But the IPs are 200 km apart! Obviously the admin made a mistake!" Sometimes they snare a well-meaning less tech-savvy editor with their pleas and then we all have to waste time explaining about VPNs and proxy servers. --NeilN talk to me 03:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I have never seen a case of a newish editor with a pointy attitude where they have not been a sock. Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It certainly is trivially easy - checkuser can only confirm, not disprove - but the objection that Merphee and the IP are supposedly geographically separate only came up after I'd already seen the block and had my doubts; I had them partly because HiLo48, who is frankly intemperate even by my standards and has been as vexed by Merphee as anyone, wasn't sure. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

I saw the same things Ponyo outlined plus what I said at ANI: "both the account and the IP apologize for their edits but both are very keen to see the other editor sanctioned". Subsequently, Merphee's cries for justice sound very similar to the IP's "What I ask now is that the Droverswife be blocked for not notifying me about this complaint?" --NeilN talk to me 06:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't even make it through the mess that was being posted on Merphee's talk page. I have no idea how you remained so patient throughout, especially given the convoluted story about speaking with both Optus and Vodaphone. It will be interesting to see where they go from here now that they've been unblocked. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

ZH8000 again

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

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

@TheVicarsCat: I thought everyone had moved on from the Architect matter. It's still being raised? Diffs please. --NeilN talk to me 17:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I had moved on, but ZH8000 clearly hasn't. This was the first in an ANI complaint where I had made it clear that there was no blame attached to ZH8000 (post dating the apology). Among other references, he alleges:

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

in the ANI complaint raised by ZH8000 linked to in the previous correspondence (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#Defamation and pursuit by User:TheVicarsCat). TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
... and I have just noticed in a post made by ZH8000 on an article talk page, that I have not been involved with is this post on the talk page. I have no idea what 'WBTVC' is intended to mean, but 'TVC' is his abbreviation for 'TheVicarsCat'. Possibly another unsupported suggestion of socking? TheVicarsCat (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@TheVicarsCat: C.Fred has re-struck out your post and left clear instructions to ZH8000 not to unstrike again. "WBTVC" very likely means "welcome back TheVicarsCat" so yes, an implication that you're socking. ZH8000 you need to stop this now. Make your case at WP:SPI or refrain from accusations, implications, etc. --NeilN talk to me 23:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you and C.Fred for your time and effort. My only concern is that this is just another warning which ZH8000 has, so far, systematically ignored. In fact from the evidence of the ANI thread linked above, I am completely unconvinced that he has even read them. Still, if he is alerted to them, I assume that there is an automatic presumption that he has read them. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

And I wasn't wrong. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/195.171.217.8 for three allegations without evidence. I have posted a response so probably no action required from you unless, I have erred in some way. What is galling is that, in all three cases, the evidence is available. TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Merphee again

You have been very kind to him.

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

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

Please stop antagonising me HiuLo48 and posting this type of inaccurate stuff and focus on your own editing and importantly conduct toward other editors, especially new and newish ones like me. Let's move on, seriously. You have been far from innocent in our interactions, but I just want to move on. It's been ridiculous. Ok? As far as deleting your comments from my talk page, I kindly asked you multiple times as you know, to not post on my talk page but still you continued unabated. Even administrator Drmies asked you to stop. You continued. It is my talk page HiLo48. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand. I consider your behaviour harassment and if you do it again I will report you to the administrator's noticeboard without hesitation. I've had enough of you stirring things up and accusing me of things I haven't done because we don't like each other. Please also be civil toward me in future. I've truly had enough of your behaviour and trying to get me blocked and setting me up for falls. Please just drop it and comply with policy that's all I am genuinely asking you to do here. Let's start afresh. I am still learning so let me do that please. I listen to civil and competent editors like The Drover's Wife who I think is a great asset to Wikipedia and I told her so last week [89]. But as in real life I don't respond well to disingenuous and abusive people nor listen to them much. I hope you understand what I am saying about continuing to post on my talk page though and Wikipedia:Harassment policy and take my last warning seriously. Thanks NeilN. Stick dropped.Merphee (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Merphee - I went to your Talk page last night in total good faith. You seemed to acknowledge that yourself. I cannot comprehend why you later decided that was not the case, and now feel the need to again be abusive. As for starting afresh, that's precisely what I did last night. And you noticed it. The kinds of demands you are making now is what irritates people. I was completely polite to you. You ended up ignoring much of what I said, and are now abusing me for it. That's not how productive editors work. I will say no more here, unless you again say misleading things about me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) HiLo48, it's probably best if you stopped posting on Merphee's talk page as asked. Content issues can be addressed on article talk pages. Any future behavioral issues can go straight to ANI or an admin's talk page if the behavior is particularly egregious and doesn't require community input before an admin can take action. Merphee, please remember that it wasn't HiLo48 that reported you to ANI and they were instrumental in getting your block lifted. Other editors have issues with your editing as well and I don't think it will take much to make the community decide that the negative aspects of your editing outweigh any positive contributions. I'm hoping it won't come to that and that you take what Curdle said to you at ANI to heart. --NeilN talk to me 23:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Even though I am tempted, I am not going to take the bait and reply to all of that HiLo48. This disruptive cycle needs to end. Your post on my talk page just then and directly after I asked you to leave my talk page alone [90] is what I mean by harassment. NeilN I've dropped the stick and listened carefully to what you and others have said today and genuinely want to move on and start afresh. However HiLo48 obviously will not stop posting on my talk page so I feel pretty helpless here. I just hope HiLo48 hears your warning and stops doing it, now two administrators have asked him not to.Merphee (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I simply have to respond to that bullshit. Merphee - You DID NOT listen carefully to some well intentioned advice I gave you last night. I see no evidence of any stick dropping. Just sucking up to Admins, and trying to paint me in a bad light. You really are a nasty piece of work. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
You might want to re-think that last sentence HiLo48. Making personal attacks mostly just undermines your own credibility. ~Awilley (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Stop making excuses for him. I doubt if you have read the WHOLE conversation he deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
NeilN, HiLo48 will not stop, but it has to stop and given they have been banned for a month in the past for personal attacks it seems HiLo48 is a law unto himself on here and doesn't care. Straight away after your last warning and mine, they made two more posts on my talk page. [91] [92] Will you please do something here? I just want him to stop posting on my page. I've moved on, but he's got me by the throat here and won't let go!Merphee (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I won't allow lies about me to go unchallenged. You know how that thread you deleted started. And I note he has now again lied about me on his Talk page. I would like the right of reply. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
These are not lies. It is about you refusing to stop posting on my talk page. The lies you are talking about was this final warning and making it extremely clear to stop posting on my talk page. [93]. Just stop posting on my talk page. I also did not lie about you being blocked for a month in the past for belittling and attacking other editors. I have moved on. Please do the same!Merphee (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Even after you warned HiLo48 to stop personally attacking me and to stay off my talk page, here is again making personal attacks on me! NeilN please do something here. The guy has me by the throat and will not let go! What do I do here? [94]Merphee (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Merphee, you just did precisely one of the things that annoys other editors, and leads to frustration. You made two posts in a row, without awaiting a reply. That makes coherent conversation quite difficult. I have asked you not to do it several times in the past. I encountered an edit conflict because of your behaviour there. Here is the post that conflicted with your double header....
There is no evidence yet that you have moved on. Remember, it was not me who reported you. I have actually gone to considerable effort to help you. I truly don't know what I have done that can be viewed as harassment. Just abusing me and saying it is doesn't make it so. But I will sit quietly for a bit and watch you moving on. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I won't comment on anything but your persistent personal attacks and posting on my talk page even though NeilN, Awilley, Drmies and I have all warned you to stop doing so. Just let it go and stop the personal attacks and harassment.[95]Merphee (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: Stop posting on Merphee's talk page. Seriously. You need to accept that they will always be able to have the last word on their talk page. If what they're posting is seriously problematic then bring it up at ANI. But stop posting on their talk page. Merphee, you can have the last word on your talk page but don't keep going on. What I suggest is formally closing the thread using the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} tags. --NeilN talk to me 03:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Any chance the case at ANI can be re-opened now? It should never have been about socking. There is no evidence his behaviour has changed. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: The thread was never closed. --NeilN talk to me 03:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok NeilN totally understood.Merphee (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What has happened??

@Neil, What I have done to this encyclopedia? If I have done anything wrong, please forgive me. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Neil, the topics of India and Pakistan is now on the hand of Adamgerber (military related articles), though if I find reliable source(s) I will write on the pages. okay? now please forgive me, for the sake of god (though I am an agnostic). Fayaz Rahman (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fayaz Rahman: All that has happened right now is you are being told that you must do what every editor should do - provide sourcing with any addition - or be blocked. That should hopefully stop you from responding to requests for sources with irrelevant nonsense. --NeilN talk to me 03:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fayaz Rahman: I have already mentioned this on my talk page to you but re-iterating this again. I do not WP:OWN those pages nor am I an admin on Wikipedia. I merely watch those pages and have been doing for a few years now. You are welcome to contribute to those pages but remember to provide WP:RS for your content and not make forum like comments on talk pages. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

MilosHaran

MilosHaran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi NeilN. Thanks for your input on the SPI/edit warring case concerning MilosHaran. Although you blocked them for a week, on their userpage there is a sockpuppet tag that says the account is blocked indefinitely. After you changed the block's duration from indefinite to one week you probably forgot to change/remove the tag. Can you have a look at it? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: Thanks, fixed. --NeilN talk to me 20:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed the other account has the same issue [96]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks NeilN. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:2A00:23C4:BF01:4200:55F5:866A:1C49:9ED1

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk:2A00:23C4:BF01:4200:55F5:866A:1C49:9ED1, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DanielRigal (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: We very, very rarely delete user talk pages. --NeilN talk to me 21:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I took the tag off anyway as I realised it wasn't the best approach. I was just looking for a quick way to stomp on the IP using the page as a venue to troll and abuse other users. The edits in question have been revdeled now. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Outing

This needs to be nipped in the bud, and I didn't want to go to ANI for the man's privacy. The IP is involved in an ANI complaint already. Thanks in advance! Scr★pIronIV 20:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Taken care of by Abecedare --NeilN talk to me 21:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

New topic

  • NeilN, aside from whether or not Mr. Gambino comes around to our guidelines, WP:COI is so overt here as to make this intrinsically problematic. To put it more bluntly, if the editor insults others at his talk page once more, I'll request that they be blocked from responding there, too. But now I'm going out for the evening. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Aside from potentially removing talk page access, I've left it for another sucker admin to deal with. [97] --NeilN talk to me 21:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppo F1s

I was finding the real admin who deleted the page because it was made by the sock but 3 editors already edit the article, I did ask the admin who deleted pages but he doesn't want to restore because he's not that busy but doesn't like to restore made by a sock and we intend to work on that article can you restore this. Pls. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.165.242 (talk • contribs) — 49.148.165.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The deleted "article" was a piece of trash, frankly, cobbled together from press releases and spec sheets, and "sourced" to such "reliable" sources as a press release quote from the president of the company which makes them, saying how great they are. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Ow that would be full of fake news and promotion, I guess no need to restore thx for the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.165.242 (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Bbb23 deleted the article. I cannot see where you asked him and am unlikely to come to different decision regarding G5-deleted articles, sorry. --NeilN talk to me 23:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Bye-bye IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Musunuri Nayaks

Hi Neil, SpacemanSpiff had protected this page till 17 March and, when it ended, the socks seemed to have had a field day. I think permanent pp-sock is the only recourse for this. Can you do it please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: A semi won't stop the registered editors (I've move protected the article) and there isn't quite enough disruption for ECP. I've notified the last couple editors about discretionary sanctions. Let me know if the issues continue. --NeilN talk to me 03:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Minor Hockey in the Lambton Toronto Area

Hi

New to Wikipedia. Just trying to update that local sports (not for profit and community based) is in Lambton since 1955.

Not sure what is required to "validate". Warrenparkhockey.com, Torontoeagles.ca etc

Thank you

Bill

Hi Wbchaves. It was actually another person who reverted you. I will invite them here to discuss but they were concerned about sourcing and notability. --NeilN talk to me 02:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I deleted the content for three reasons, which I mentioned in an edit summary. It was inadequately sourced, per WP:RELIABLE; it mentioned a place and organizations whose notability need to be established (Lambton Arena, Chris Tonks Arena, Warren Park Minor Sports Association, Toronto Eagles Hockey Club, Greater Toronto Hockey League, Warren Park House League, North York Hockey league); and it was written in a less than neutral tone that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia (The program has a strong community feel that focuses on fun, sportsmanship and fair ice time in both the House League and Select hockey programs). If any of this can be adequately sourced and notability established, there's no prejudice against adding content, without the editorial comments. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I take it back. Much of the content appears to have been copied from or closely paraphrase what's written here [98]. Needs to be rev/deleted, and may not be re-added. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Oshwah. Cheers! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Kevin McE

He is frequently making personal attacks now.[99][100][101] Accesscrawl (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Accesscrawl: I've had a word. --NeilN talk to me 02:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Even after that and a warning from Oshwah he has continued his personal attacks.[102][103] This edit was probably final straw that he was not only wikihounding but also left an insulting edit summary. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Continuing[104] even after warning from EdJohnston.[105] Accesscrawl (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Archive 40 ← Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN/Archive_47&oldid=905775732"