This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 48

Some things will never change [1]. 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 [2]; I pushed the button. I guess I'll go have a word. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

	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)

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)

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)

What you make of this [3] 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)

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)

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)

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.

---

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

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

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)

While this is likely 99.9% fake, should this be redvl? [4] 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)

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)

Yugoslavia or Serbia - FIBA Basketball World Cup and Eurobasket Yugoslavia [5] Serbia [6] 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 [7] Serbia [8] 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. T v x1 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. T v x1 18:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And actually, there is a consensus at WT:Basketball as well, which is also rejected by this user. T v x1 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 [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. In this edit summary they show a clear refusal to accept sports results as they have been officially credited by a governing body. T v x1 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. [15], [16]. T v x1 21:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

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

@ 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

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: [17], [18]. 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)

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 [19] [20] 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)

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/?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)

Could you take a look at Crack Stuntman? I am obsessed with blocking this user's socks. 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)

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 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)

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. [21]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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 ? - Ascetic Rosé 04:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Geolocate [22] 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 [23] -- 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)

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)

this user is adding mining links, you should take a look: /info/en/?search=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)

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)

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. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] 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)

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)

• 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/?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)

I have no idea what this [32] 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)

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)

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)

	The No Spam Barnstar
	You beat me to it! :D https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

NeilN Speak 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)

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 [33]. He does not have sources, he asks other editors. Constructive editors, reached a consensus [34], 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 [35]. 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 [36]. 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. " [37] 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. [38] -- 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. [39]. Another user, not I, made a statement to administrators in RuWiki [40]. "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 [41]. The author of this error recognized her [42]. If it requires a call to administrators, tell me where to turn. Other my addresses and explanations here. [43] Help me please. Characteristic behavior. Stop work without argumentation and reading sources. [44] -- 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)

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. [45] -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

...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. [46] -- 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dear administrator, please look at those two remarks of the User Путеец - [47] and [48]. 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Howdy podner. Interesting to see this one [49] 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)

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". - [50]

Liar - [51]

Drunk- [52].

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. nagual design 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 [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] 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)

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.. /info/en/?search=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... —SerialNumber 54129 ^{...speculates} 16:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

Hi, I have a strong feeling this IP [59] 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 [60]. Khirurg ( talk) 23:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hi NeilN. Regarding this post of yours [61]. 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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 [62], 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" [63], "so dial down the pride, would you?" [64]. 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..." [65]. 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)

See this user here, /info/en/?search=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)

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. — Spaceman Spiff 10:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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 [66] (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 [67] NOT to post there. After I removed his comment and asked him AGAIN not to post on my talk page... he immediately posted again [68]. 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 [69]
• 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" [70]
• I responded sincerely in an edit summary [71] having forgotten his request. I have now noted his request on my talk page to avoid repeating the mistake [72]
• When I reverted his edit in another politics article [73] with valid justification he again accused me of stalking.
• He then (by the standard he applies) "stalked" me to this page [74]
• 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)

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)

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)

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/?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)

Mr NeilN;

Kindly see this [75]. 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)

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)

For your clarification:

This 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [76], and today he edited there using an IP. [77]. I reverted his edit, with an edit summary saying that he could not edit Wikipedia under any name or using an IP. [78], 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)

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)

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)

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

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

@ 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)

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)

	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★pIron IV 19:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hello NeilN. One of our colleagues, @ Greg L: seems to be having some challenges with respect to the DS civility thing. [79] SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 48