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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 |
Hello N. I hope you are having a pleasant weekend. Would you please take a look at these edits. A lot of personal info is used in them and may need rev/del. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD| Talk 03:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Why you moved the page [1] "per request" when no discussion was initiated and only an edit summary was used by someone [2] that violates WP:OR? See my request at WP:RMTR. Rzvas ( talk) 04:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This is not a minor, but their userpage seems at least to violate WP:NOTSOCIAL. Cheers. -- Ebyabe ( talk) 06:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
HistoryofIran whom you probably know, insists on commenting on user rather on content. I told him about it, but he repeats his derogatory comments. Regards. -- Mhhossein talk 15:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
"not historically notable" ... yet the event I listed has its own exhaustive Wikipedia article. ? PseudoSkull ( talk) 21:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick action against the anon. Much appreciated! --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Pvqnp940a ( talk · contribs). The CIR is strong with this one, but if we can at least get him to use edit summaries and to accept input from others he might avoid a trip to ANI. Could you perhaps try to speak to him on his talkpage? He has so far responded negatively to contact from anyone: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I'm going to invite Doug Weller and Cullen328 as well. Softlavender ( talk) 19:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).
Hi NeilN,
Call me a tattle-tale, but I have caught Chernobog95 evading his/her block once again using yet another sock account: 83.191.91.138. Below are the diffs and the evidence:
I hope this helps convince you that 83.191.91.138 is Chernobog95 nonetheless. SamaranEmerald ( talk) 04:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to point you to an issue that has arisen. The editor you recently sent a warning after he violated 1RR on a Syria-related article, Dan the Plumber, seems to have very well resorted to sock-puppeting to push his POV and has been reported by editor Terrorist96. The suspected sock's very first edit was to again reintroduce the version [30] Dan the Plumber was pushing for at the article he was edit warring. His only other edit on an article [31] was also at an article where Dan the Plumber previously edit warred and the suspected sock reintroduced an identical version of a paragraph the Plumber was also pushing for (which I added as additional evidence). But it would seem the most obvious thing proving the sock was his was this edit [32] on the Plumber's talk page where the suspected sock was talking like he was the Plumber, an edit which he promptly removed shortly after. Regards! EkoGraf ( talk) 06:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
What do you think?-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Dr Silverstein ( talk) 02:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Thank you. ★Trekker ( talk) 07:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC) |
I accidentally overwrote your application of semi-protection to the article.... my sincere apologies for doing that, NeilN.... :-/ ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Will you please delete all subpages in my user space? Thank you. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 15:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I clumsily both wikilinked your username as well as the relevant talk page discussion in responding a few minutes ago to Modernist's mass post regarding me; that means you've been getting pinged over and over (I did catch it for the last couple responses) for the last few minutes. Sorry for that annoyance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 16:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey, despite the topic ban, Dan continues to make edits on Syrian war releated articles. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Terrorist96 ( talk) 16:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
There's potential trouble brewing you might want to keep an eye on: Started here (and check out the edit summary) [41]; I left the following caution on his talk page [42]; his response: [43] [44]; next was disruptive and premature archiving of discussion [45]; I left a formal caution [46]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
"I'd like to leave discussions of user behaviour out of the debate on file authorship and copyright status...an admin at Commons threw an even bigger temper."Then don't talk about the Commons admin's behavior. Because, truth be told, you're speculating and WP:ABF. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your usual level-headed approach, Neil. I get the feeling that your finger was hovering over the big red button at one point but you resisted the urge to press it. You're my personal Stanislav Petrov! It's a credit to your good judgement. Regarding the courtesy vanishing, I want to assure you that I put my request in long before I was blocked on Commons (perhaps 48 hours before, IIRC) and certainly wasn't a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. I'd just had quite enough of Wikipedia and wanted to delete my account. The fact that I've returned, albeit temporarily, is my prerogative if I understand things correctly. If you wish to reverse the vanishing I don't mind, and if not I don't mind. Either way there will remain a trail of breadcrumbs leading to my account, which will remain extant in perpetuity. Now that I know that, the whole idea of vanishing seems rather pointless.
I don't know what Winkelvi means by me making bad choices (the swearing maybe? fuck knows). And I certainly didn't behave threateningly, nor have I or Rowan behaved "very immaturely" - at least not by normal standards. Perhaps some of this stems from Winkelvi's Asperger's coupled with my penchant for colourful language, which is fair enough I suppose. Anyway, thank you also for being able to read between the lines and take a step back when necessary, and for your enviable ability to deal even-handedly with editors of all types. Without wishing to inflate your ego, I must say I'm rather impressed.
Take care, and if I don't get the chance to talk to you again I wish you all the best. Sincerely, nagual design 12:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking I'll probably end up asking this at ARCA but wanted to pick your brains first as someone who issues page restrictions. I'm still inclined, following the recent AE cases, to impose an academic-sources-only type restriction on Poland in WWII. But am I right in thinking that this would only be enforceable where edits are made to a page that had a relevant editnotice in place? Would this effectively be a page restriction on a not-very-well-defined set of pages? GoldenRing ( talk) 08:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for getting involved as we discuss this Miami article issue.-- TheTexasNationalist99 ( talk) 17:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
...to take a look at a new editor at Talk:Donald Trump named GrecoArm? Thanks. -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 19:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Telling a fellow editor (who is advising him of Wikipedia's neutrality) to "fuck off" like here [48], and making bad faith comments like this [49] that editors who are of a different POV from him are "brain dead and cynical" (which is all in violation of WP:CIVIL) leads me to believe Dan the Plumber will continue his general battleground attitude towards other editors in the future. EkoGraf ( talk) 21:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- BilCat ( talk) 01:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@ NeilN, my edits are not wrong/negative about Pakistan, if you want to revert my edits, then revert, I will not edit the pages again, and references have been added to the pages, you can check. Fayaz Rahman ( talk) 09:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for posting the edit warring noticeboard notification to ZH8000's talk page. I meant to do it and then forgot. My apologies for omitting it. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 14:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil! As far as seeing where RandyKitty said that it wasn't eligible for speedy deletion it can be seen on the talk page and history on it. I was just creating a page I thought was good for Wikipedia on someone in my local area who has a good amount of press, done some notable things in the independent film world. I was hoping my article was a good contribution to Wikipedia. 16:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC) MikeTallahasee ( talk)
ZH8000 is continuing his edit warring at Crime in Switzerland. He has created a sock account SW1998, and made a seventh revert at the article. This time he is accusing everyone else of disruption. This is a confirmed sock because ZH8000 has admitted it with this post to the talk page claiming I am in the wrong for 'gaming the system' (how?). In my opinion, for what it is worth, ZH8000 is clearly WP:NOTHERE to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia.
Are you able to take care of this, or would you prefer me to raise a WP:SPI case? Thanks. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 16:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Dan the Plumber has violated his Syria topic ban once again within a day of being unblocked [50], with his first edit being the un-discussed removal of sourced material and its RS ref (Associated Press) that has been in place in an article for years, with the edit apparently being POV in nature. It was also an edit war action he already previously made before he was blocked the last time. He also made an edit on a second Syria-related article [51] as well. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Skylax30 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Hi NeilN. I am pinging @
EdJohnston: as they are familiar with the matter. Skylax30 has been warring and making disruptive editing on
Souliotes again although they were blocked for warring there a few weeks ago. Their comments on the talk page as well are not very helpful. They went as far as to open a RfC saying Users and administrators who have been activly involved in the past in articles related to Albania, (e.g. protecting Skanderbeg) please do not comment here.
For this they were criticized by an admin and another editor. Before Skylax30's edits, Souliotes was a stable article, with no warring. Now it is a mess.
Ktrimi991 (
talk) 12:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi NielN,
Once again, I have found yet another two sockpuppets of Chernobog95, an Ip and for once, he/she actually did not use an IP or one of the socks, rather a a sock account under the name Gwailofeng [53]. I'm going to make this short for you this time to let you know how I how it's Chernobog95:
ZurgyStardust ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned from his block to edit war on the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling page, as well as Steve Williams (wrestler), and made a personal attack. LM2000 ( talk) 21:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Some time ago you placed a notice about adding templates to User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. May I inquire why? I am unclear on the reason. -- Alexf (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Thomas.W: restored an edit I reverted, which violates the "consensus required" rule there. I asked them to self revert, and they refused.
(If it matters, my edit summary (on the initial revert) was terse because I hit enter by accident while typing it. When I had time I came back and explained further on the talk page here. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Meant to ping you for this question, but pinged the wrong Neil instead (which coincidentally, turned out to be not a bad choice either). Abecedare ( talk) 23:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
On 6 July an unregistered editor edited my talk page to add an invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics task force. You deleted this message less than 3 hours later the same date, but you gave no reason for the deletion. I would like an explanation please, since this appears to have been a good-faith communication. Thank you. -- Zeamays ( talk) 01:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I note that you recently described ZH8000's attempt at getting a talk page protected, to prevent those who were pointing out where he was wrong from doing so, as 'particularly unimpressive'. I also point out Swarm's instruction about making sock allegations ( here and here).
Now while you have been away, ZH8000 has not been idle. I should point out that I am not expecting any action on this as it is now so long after the events, but in view of your involvement, comments and actions, I though you would certainly appreciate this (please bear with me, the best is at the end).
You blocked ZH8000 for 48 hours for edit warring (and a few other things). Right after the block expires, it is straight back to the edit war (claiming that the sentence is unreferenced when it clearly and unambiguously is). Disruptive but relatively small beer with what's to come.
You warned ZH8000 for labelling others' attempts at reverting his disruption as vandalism. Well he hasn't got that message either ( here).
And now the best bit! You described attempting to get a talk page protected as 'particularly unimpressive'. So instead of getting a single talk page protected, How about trying to get all the editors who have opposed your disruption at all articles where you have edit warred blocked all in one fell swoop. Why not totally ignore Swarm's instruction and raise a WP:ANI complaint accusing all those editors of being one big sock farm (after all WP:SPI requires the inconvenience of actual evidence). And that is precisely what he tried to do here. Needless to say and not unsurprisingly, it didn't fly but crash landed.
A question: How WP:NOTHERE does someone need to be to be, "NOTHERE to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia". Not ever starting a talk page discussion (except to attack other editors) is one thing, but to actually try to eliminate all editors from any discussion has to be quite another (and as far as I can tell - a first). TheVicarsCat ( talk) 16:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello - messaging you since User:SpacemanSpiff seems to be unavailable. I had posted the following message on his Talk page last week, but there has been no response:
Hello - I believe as an Admin you had deleted a previous article on Swiggy in 2016. I understand the comments from the community at that point of time - the company may not have been notable then. But things are different now: it is certainly notable now.
Swiggy is now India's largest food delivery company, and the fastest Indian unicorn. There is plenty of regular coverage on Swiggy in reliable secondary sources to establish its notability by WP standards.
Can you please undelete the article so that editors can work to improve it? I would also be happy to help to improve the article, if I have sufficient time: I have been thinking of creating a new article for Swiggy for quite some time, only now realized that an article on it was deleted earlier.
If you are still skeptical on Swiggy's notability, a simple Google search would be sufficient to convince you that I am right.
On WP:REFUND, it was suggested that the Administrator who deleted the original page should be contacted for any requests to restore articles: that's the reason for contacting you here. If there is something else to be done for this (e.g. WP:DELREV), please let me know.
Thanks.
Can you please review and help with the above, considering User:SpacemanSpiff's unavailability?
Thanks. Aurorion ( talk) 07:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
My fault for posting that CSD situation with the user. I have solved it with the user. All good. Thank you AmericanAir88 ( talk) 17:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if my point is clear or not, but that picture is misinformation because two reasons: First, the painter never met or saw the prophet (Peace be upon him).
Second, the physical characteristics of the Prophet that mentioned in history books are diffreant with drawing.
so this is kind of misinformation is published there, even the black stone is not like a ball as picture shown.
if I drawed a historical person, I have never seen him and what I drawed is unlike his documented physical characteristics, Will you accept what I drawed here in Wikipedia and present it as an information for the reader, I don't think you will accept that . so help me to remove misinformations from Wikipedia.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.56.28.98 ( talk) 18:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I hope you had a nice vacation. ~ Awilley ( talk) 18:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, any picture depicts any prophet is against the belief of the majority of Muslims not some, so you don't see such as that picture in Arabic pages.
Anyway, I will not remove that picture again, but I hope you or any other of editors consider to this case as a misinformation and change it because the picture is not depicted him as what the history books said about his physical characteristics, the picture is shown a person unlike he was.
I think at least you should write "An imaginary illustration" not only "An illustration".
Thank you.
Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.56.28.98 ( talk • contribs)
His hair was not long like that and nothing in that picture like him, and if you don't want remove the picture at least adding word "imaginary" this is the right thing should does, and I'm not responsible for other pictures you can edit them all and add word "imaginary" if you want this right not wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.56.28.98 ( talk) 19:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I will add imaginary to the description of the picture, if you want to remove the word, remove it but I hope not to be the reason behind what you do is that you are an extreme or hate Muslims and their prophet (Peace be upon him), or under the influence of islamophobia.
I don't want bother you, so I will stop writing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.56.28.98 ( talk) 20:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the edit at Talk:Miawpukek First Nation. I've been having such a difficult time there, and unfortunately the article doesn't have a lot of watchers. I was going to try "Third Opinion", but then another editor got involved so it will have to go to dispute resolution, or the original research noticeboard. I spent an hour scrutinizing databases before reverting that edit, and my head is still spinning. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure you care what I think about Merphee, but frankly I was surprised at first by the block for socking. It seemed merely an unfortunate coincidence that the IP had ended up on ANI at the same time - perhaps because I had pinged The Drover's Wife on ANI and by doing so made them consider a report there.
I spent a while this evening wondering how similar they are, and if perhaps I should (like HiLo48, who I've intentionally pinged) suggest the block is in error. (Because I am a bad editor, I was also tempted to leave it be since they're both no good, and besides, I could be wrong). They're both incoherent, but many problematic editors are. The IP doesn't show the same semi-infinite persistence. There are certain similarities (finding a bit of policy and latching onto it, in particular, but also in style and general indifference to punctuation) but also some differences (eg Merphee constantly pushes the Murdoch line) so I thought it was Not Proven.
Then all of a sudden Merphee switches to running their talk page comments into one giant paragraph just like the IP. Ironically, their appeal against a block for socking seems like the most vigorous quacking yet.
Nevertheless, I still honestly don't know one way or the other. I'm not sure if this edit is of value but I thought I should write down what I thought somewhere. Sorry to bother you. Pinkbeast ( talk) 03:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's pretty hard to come down one way or another on this, but matching IP addresses are generally secondary to identifying sockpuppets, that's just for obvious cases. NeilN could you tell us what was the basis for suspecting they were sockpuppeting? I'm inclined to believe some combination of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is happening on Australian politics articles based on how specific a lot of this stuff is, not only similar. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your information :) AlbusTheWhite ( talk) 06:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC) |
ZH8000 has now taken to altering a post that I made on his talk page. Following the Architect 134 sock case (above). I posted a good faith apology on ZH8000's talk page. As you are aware ZH8000 never accepted the apology and continued to accuse me of falsely accusing him. Consequently because of the continued "unsubstantiated charges of defamation" (your words), I struck the apology and explained why. ZH8000 has altered the retracted apology twice to make it appear that the apology is still extant ( here and here) despite a specific instruction not to alter other people's posts. It's not as though the last one is a revert that happened to alter my post, it was an ordinary edit that deliberately altered my post.
I'm sure that you are getting as fed up with him as I am. At this stage, I think it is not unreasonable of me to insist on some sort of sanction. I bow to your judgement as to what. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 17:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
One of her/his most recent acts was an effort to complaint/attack against me on this page, but closed it after (s)he realised this could turn against her/himself; see #Interesting activity from 'new' user. above.
And I wasn't wrong. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/195.171.217.8 for three allegations without evidence. I have posted a response so probably no action required from you unless, I have erred in some way. What is galling is that, in all three cases, the evidence is available. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 13:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You have been very kind to him.
While he may not be a sock (I'm still not sure - he's certainly lying about something - he knows too much for the novice he sometimes appears to be), nothing about the behaviour that got him reported in the first place has improved. He wasn't reported for socking. Last night (Australian time) I tried to have a constructive conversation with him, firstly pointing out that because of time zones, you weren't likely to quickly see his agonisingly persistent complaining, because you may well have been asleep. I also did what I have done many times, and tried to improve his editing style, so we could have a decent conversation. (E.g. indenting) I also experienced edit conflicts almost every time I replied to him, because he kept adding more edits from himself before any replies. I think it's this advice I keep giving him, that gets ignored, that he calls belittling. He is only marginally competent, if that, and gets angry when advised. SO yes, I became exasperated again. No, I didn't tell him to F off again.
However, he has now deleted all of my conversations with him from his talk page. Yes, I know he can do that, but what is he really trying to hide? So, nice of you to unblock him, but his poor editing style has not ceased. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
archive top}}
and {{
archive bottom}}
tags. --
NeilN
talk to me 03:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Neil, What I have done to this encyclopedia? If I have done anything wrong, please forgive me. Fayaz Rahman ( talk) 03:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
MilosHaran (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Hi NeilN. Thanks for your input on the SPI/edit warring case concerning MilosHaran. Although you blocked them for a week,
on their userpage there is a sockpuppet tag that says the account is blocked indefinitely. After you changed the block's duration from indefinite to one week you probably forgot to change/remove the tag. Can you have a look at it?
Ktrimi991 (
talk) 20:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. adamstom97 ( talk) 21:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk:2A00:23C4:BF01:4200:55F5:866A:1C49:9ED1, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DanielRigal ( talk) 20:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
This needs to be nipped in the bud, and I didn't want to go to ANI for the man's privacy. The IP is involved in an ANI complaint already. Thanks in advance! Scr★pIron IV 20:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I was finding the real admin who deleted the page because it was made by the sock but 3 editors already edit the article, I did ask the admin who deleted pages but he doesn't want to restore because he's not that busy but doesn't like to restore made by a sock and we intend to work on that article can you restore this. Pls. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.165.242 ( talk • contribs) — 49.148.165.242 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi Neil, SpacemanSpiff had protected this page till 17 March and, when it ended, the socks seemed to have had a field day. I think permanent pp-sock is the only recourse for this. Can you do it please? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi
New to Wikipedia. Just trying to update that local sports (not for profit and community based) is in Lambton since 1955.
Not sure what is required to "validate". Warrenparkhockey.com, Torontoeagles.ca etc
Thank you
Bill
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).
He is frequently making personal attacks now. [99] [100] [101] Accesscrawl ( talk) 01:59, 5 August 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 |
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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 |
Hello N. I hope you are having a pleasant weekend. Would you please take a look at these edits. A lot of personal info is used in them and may need rev/del. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD| Talk 03:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Why you moved the page [1] "per request" when no discussion was initiated and only an edit summary was used by someone [2] that violates WP:OR? See my request at WP:RMTR. Rzvas ( talk) 04:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This is not a minor, but their userpage seems at least to violate WP:NOTSOCIAL. Cheers. -- Ebyabe ( talk) 06:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
HistoryofIran whom you probably know, insists on commenting on user rather on content. I told him about it, but he repeats his derogatory comments. Regards. -- Mhhossein talk 15:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
"not historically notable" ... yet the event I listed has its own exhaustive Wikipedia article. ? PseudoSkull ( talk) 21:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick action against the anon. Much appreciated! --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Pvqnp940a ( talk · contribs). The CIR is strong with this one, but if we can at least get him to use edit summaries and to accept input from others he might avoid a trip to ANI. Could you perhaps try to speak to him on his talkpage? He has so far responded negatively to contact from anyone: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I'm going to invite Doug Weller and Cullen328 as well. Softlavender ( talk) 19:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).
Hi NeilN,
Call me a tattle-tale, but I have caught Chernobog95 evading his/her block once again using yet another sock account: 83.191.91.138. Below are the diffs and the evidence:
I hope this helps convince you that 83.191.91.138 is Chernobog95 nonetheless. SamaranEmerald ( talk) 04:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to point you to an issue that has arisen. The editor you recently sent a warning after he violated 1RR on a Syria-related article, Dan the Plumber, seems to have very well resorted to sock-puppeting to push his POV and has been reported by editor Terrorist96. The suspected sock's very first edit was to again reintroduce the version [30] Dan the Plumber was pushing for at the article he was edit warring. His only other edit on an article [31] was also at an article where Dan the Plumber previously edit warred and the suspected sock reintroduced an identical version of a paragraph the Plumber was also pushing for (which I added as additional evidence). But it would seem the most obvious thing proving the sock was his was this edit [32] on the Plumber's talk page where the suspected sock was talking like he was the Plumber, an edit which he promptly removed shortly after. Regards! EkoGraf ( talk) 06:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
What do you think?-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Dr Silverstein ( talk) 02:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Thank you. ★Trekker ( talk) 07:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC) |
I accidentally overwrote your application of semi-protection to the article.... my sincere apologies for doing that, NeilN.... :-/ ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Will you please delete all subpages in my user space? Thank you. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 15:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I clumsily both wikilinked your username as well as the relevant talk page discussion in responding a few minutes ago to Modernist's mass post regarding me; that means you've been getting pinged over and over (I did catch it for the last couple responses) for the last few minutes. Sorry for that annoyance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 16:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey, despite the topic ban, Dan continues to make edits on Syrian war releated articles. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Terrorist96 ( talk) 16:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
There's potential trouble brewing you might want to keep an eye on: Started here (and check out the edit summary) [41]; I left the following caution on his talk page [42]; his response: [43] [44]; next was disruptive and premature archiving of discussion [45]; I left a formal caution [46]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
"I'd like to leave discussions of user behaviour out of the debate on file authorship and copyright status...an admin at Commons threw an even bigger temper."Then don't talk about the Commons admin's behavior. Because, truth be told, you're speculating and WP:ABF. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your usual level-headed approach, Neil. I get the feeling that your finger was hovering over the big red button at one point but you resisted the urge to press it. You're my personal Stanislav Petrov! It's a credit to your good judgement. Regarding the courtesy vanishing, I want to assure you that I put my request in long before I was blocked on Commons (perhaps 48 hours before, IIRC) and certainly wasn't a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. I'd just had quite enough of Wikipedia and wanted to delete my account. The fact that I've returned, albeit temporarily, is my prerogative if I understand things correctly. If you wish to reverse the vanishing I don't mind, and if not I don't mind. Either way there will remain a trail of breadcrumbs leading to my account, which will remain extant in perpetuity. Now that I know that, the whole idea of vanishing seems rather pointless.
I don't know what Winkelvi means by me making bad choices (the swearing maybe? fuck knows). And I certainly didn't behave threateningly, nor have I or Rowan behaved "very immaturely" - at least not by normal standards. Perhaps some of this stems from Winkelvi's Asperger's coupled with my penchant for colourful language, which is fair enough I suppose. Anyway, thank you also for being able to read between the lines and take a step back when necessary, and for your enviable ability to deal even-handedly with editors of all types. Without wishing to inflate your ego, I must say I'm rather impressed.
Take care, and if I don't get the chance to talk to you again I wish you all the best. Sincerely, nagual design 12:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking I'll probably end up asking this at ARCA but wanted to pick your brains first as someone who issues page restrictions. I'm still inclined, following the recent AE cases, to impose an academic-sources-only type restriction on Poland in WWII. But am I right in thinking that this would only be enforceable where edits are made to a page that had a relevant editnotice in place? Would this effectively be a page restriction on a not-very-well-defined set of pages? GoldenRing ( talk) 08:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for getting involved as we discuss this Miami article issue.-- TheTexasNationalist99 ( talk) 17:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
...to take a look at a new editor at Talk:Donald Trump named GrecoArm? Thanks. -- MelanieN alt ( talk) 19:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Telling a fellow editor (who is advising him of Wikipedia's neutrality) to "fuck off" like here [48], and making bad faith comments like this [49] that editors who are of a different POV from him are "brain dead and cynical" (which is all in violation of WP:CIVIL) leads me to believe Dan the Plumber will continue his general battleground attitude towards other editors in the future. EkoGraf ( talk) 21:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- BilCat ( talk) 01:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@ NeilN, my edits are not wrong/negative about Pakistan, if you want to revert my edits, then revert, I will not edit the pages again, and references have been added to the pages, you can check. Fayaz Rahman ( talk) 09:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for posting the edit warring noticeboard notification to ZH8000's talk page. I meant to do it and then forgot. My apologies for omitting it. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 14:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Neil! As far as seeing where RandyKitty said that it wasn't eligible for speedy deletion it can be seen on the talk page and history on it. I was just creating a page I thought was good for Wikipedia on someone in my local area who has a good amount of press, done some notable things in the independent film world. I was hoping my article was a good contribution to Wikipedia. 16:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC) MikeTallahasee ( talk)
ZH8000 is continuing his edit warring at Crime in Switzerland. He has created a sock account SW1998, and made a seventh revert at the article. This time he is accusing everyone else of disruption. This is a confirmed sock because ZH8000 has admitted it with this post to the talk page claiming I am in the wrong for 'gaming the system' (how?). In my opinion, for what it is worth, ZH8000 is clearly WP:NOTHERE to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia.
Are you able to take care of this, or would you prefer me to raise a WP:SPI case? Thanks. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 16:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Dan the Plumber has violated his Syria topic ban once again within a day of being unblocked [50], with his first edit being the un-discussed removal of sourced material and its RS ref (Associated Press) that has been in place in an article for years, with the edit apparently being POV in nature. It was also an edit war action he already previously made before he was blocked the last time. He also made an edit on a second Syria-related article [51] as well. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Skylax30 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Hi NeilN. I am pinging @
EdJohnston: as they are familiar with the matter. Skylax30 has been warring and making disruptive editing on
Souliotes again although they were blocked for warring there a few weeks ago. Their comments on the talk page as well are not very helpful. They went as far as to open a RfC saying Users and administrators who have been activly involved in the past in articles related to Albania, (e.g. protecting Skanderbeg) please do not comment here.
For this they were criticized by an admin and another editor. Before Skylax30's edits, Souliotes was a stable article, with no warring. Now it is a mess.
Ktrimi991 (
talk) 12:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi NielN,
Once again, I have found yet another two sockpuppets of Chernobog95, an Ip and for once, he/she actually did not use an IP or one of the socks, rather a a sock account under the name Gwailofeng [53]. I'm going to make this short for you this time to let you know how I how it's Chernobog95:
ZurgyStardust ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned from his block to edit war on the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling page, as well as Steve Williams (wrestler), and made a personal attack. LM2000 ( talk) 21:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Some time ago you placed a notice about adding templates to User talk:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. May I inquire why? I am unclear on the reason. -- Alexf (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Thomas.W: restored an edit I reverted, which violates the "consensus required" rule there. I asked them to self revert, and they refused.
(If it matters, my edit summary (on the initial revert) was terse because I hit enter by accident while typing it. When I had time I came back and explained further on the talk page here. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Meant to ping you for this question, but pinged the wrong Neil instead (which coincidentally, turned out to be not a bad choice either). Abecedare ( talk) 23:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
On 6 July an unregistered editor edited my talk page to add an invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics task force. You deleted this message less than 3 hours later the same date, but you gave no reason for the deletion. I would like an explanation please, since this appears to have been a good-faith communication. Thank you. -- Zeamays ( talk) 01:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I note that you recently described ZH8000's attempt at getting a talk page protected, to prevent those who were pointing out where he was wrong from doing so, as 'particularly unimpressive'. I also point out Swarm's instruction about making sock allegations ( here and here).
Now while you have been away, ZH8000 has not been idle. I should point out that I am not expecting any action on this as it is now so long after the events, but in view of your involvement, comments and actions, I though you would certainly appreciate this (please bear with me, the best is at the end).
You blocked ZH8000 for 48 hours for edit warring (and a few other things). Right after the block expires, it is straight back to the edit war (claiming that the sentence is unreferenced when it clearly and unambiguously is). Disruptive but relatively small beer with what's to come.
You warned ZH8000 for labelling others' attempts at reverting his disruption as vandalism. Well he hasn't got that message either ( here).
And now the best bit! You described attempting to get a talk page protected as 'particularly unimpressive'. So instead of getting a single talk page protected, How about trying to get all the editors who have opposed your disruption at all articles where you have edit warred blocked all in one fell swoop. Why not totally ignore Swarm's instruction and raise a WP:ANI complaint accusing all those editors of being one big sock farm (after all WP:SPI requires the inconvenience of actual evidence). And that is precisely what he tried to do here. Needless to say and not unsurprisingly, it didn't fly but crash landed.
A question: How WP:NOTHERE does someone need to be to be, "NOTHERE to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia". Not ever starting a talk page discussion (except to attack other editors) is one thing, but to actually try to eliminate all editors from any discussion has to be quite another (and as far as I can tell - a first). TheVicarsCat ( talk) 16:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello - messaging you since User:SpacemanSpiff seems to be unavailable. I had posted the following message on his Talk page last week, but there has been no response:
Hello - I believe as an Admin you had deleted a previous article on Swiggy in 2016. I understand the comments from the community at that point of time - the company may not have been notable then. But things are different now: it is certainly notable now.
Swiggy is now India's largest food delivery company, and the fastest Indian unicorn. There is plenty of regular coverage on Swiggy in reliable secondary sources to establish its notability by WP standards.
Can you please undelete the article so that editors can work to improve it? I would also be happy to help to improve the article, if I have sufficient time: I have been thinking of creating a new article for Swiggy for quite some time, only now realized that an article on it was deleted earlier.
If you are still skeptical on Swiggy's notability, a simple Google search would be sufficient to convince you that I am right.
On WP:REFUND, it was suggested that the Administrator who deleted the original page should be contacted for any requests to restore articles: that's the reason for contacting you here. If there is something else to be done for this (e.g. WP:DELREV), please let me know.
Thanks.
Can you please review and help with the above, considering User:SpacemanSpiff's unavailability?
Thanks. Aurorion ( talk) 07:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
My fault for posting that CSD situation with the user. I have solved it with the user. All good. Thank you AmericanAir88 ( talk) 17:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if my point is clear or not, but that picture is misinformation because two reasons: First, the painter never met or saw the prophet (Peace be upon him).
Second, the physical characteristics of the Prophet that mentioned in history books are diffreant with drawing.
so this is kind of misinformation is published there, even the black stone is not like a ball as picture shown.
if I drawed a historical person, I have never seen him and what I drawed is unlike his documented physical characteristics, Will you accept what I drawed here in Wikipedia and present it as an information for the reader, I don't think you will accept that . so help me to remove misinformations from Wikipedia.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.56.28.98 ( talk) 18:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I hope you had a nice vacation. ~ Awilley ( talk) 18:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, any picture depicts any prophet is against the belief of the majority of Muslims not some, so you don't see such as that picture in Arabic pages.
Anyway, I will not remove that picture again, but I hope you or any other of editors consider to this case as a misinformation and change it because the picture is not depicted him as what the history books said about his physical characteristics, the picture is shown a person unlike he was.
I think at least you should write "An imaginary illustration" not only "An illustration".
Thank you.
Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.56.28.98 ( talk • contribs)
His hair was not long like that and nothing in that picture like him, and if you don't want remove the picture at least adding word "imaginary" this is the right thing should does, and I'm not responsible for other pictures you can edit them all and add word "imaginary" if you want this right not wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.56.28.98 ( talk) 19:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I will add imaginary to the description of the picture, if you want to remove the word, remove it but I hope not to be the reason behind what you do is that you are an extreme or hate Muslims and their prophet (Peace be upon him), or under the influence of islamophobia.
I don't want bother you, so I will stop writing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.56.28.98 ( talk) 20:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the edit at Talk:Miawpukek First Nation. I've been having such a difficult time there, and unfortunately the article doesn't have a lot of watchers. I was going to try "Third Opinion", but then another editor got involved so it will have to go to dispute resolution, or the original research noticeboard. I spent an hour scrutinizing databases before reverting that edit, and my head is still spinning. Cheers. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure you care what I think about Merphee, but frankly I was surprised at first by the block for socking. It seemed merely an unfortunate coincidence that the IP had ended up on ANI at the same time - perhaps because I had pinged The Drover's Wife on ANI and by doing so made them consider a report there.
I spent a while this evening wondering how similar they are, and if perhaps I should (like HiLo48, who I've intentionally pinged) suggest the block is in error. (Because I am a bad editor, I was also tempted to leave it be since they're both no good, and besides, I could be wrong). They're both incoherent, but many problematic editors are. The IP doesn't show the same semi-infinite persistence. There are certain similarities (finding a bit of policy and latching onto it, in particular, but also in style and general indifference to punctuation) but also some differences (eg Merphee constantly pushes the Murdoch line) so I thought it was Not Proven.
Then all of a sudden Merphee switches to running their talk page comments into one giant paragraph just like the IP. Ironically, their appeal against a block for socking seems like the most vigorous quacking yet.
Nevertheless, I still honestly don't know one way or the other. I'm not sure if this edit is of value but I thought I should write down what I thought somewhere. Sorry to bother you. Pinkbeast ( talk) 03:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's pretty hard to come down one way or another on this, but matching IP addresses are generally secondary to identifying sockpuppets, that's just for obvious cases. NeilN could you tell us what was the basis for suspecting they were sockpuppeting? I'm inclined to believe some combination of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is happening on Australian politics articles based on how specific a lot of this stuff is, not only similar. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 05:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your information :) AlbusTheWhite ( talk) 06:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC) |
ZH8000 has now taken to altering a post that I made on his talk page. Following the Architect 134 sock case (above). I posted a good faith apology on ZH8000's talk page. As you are aware ZH8000 never accepted the apology and continued to accuse me of falsely accusing him. Consequently because of the continued "unsubstantiated charges of defamation" (your words), I struck the apology and explained why. ZH8000 has altered the retracted apology twice to make it appear that the apology is still extant ( here and here) despite a specific instruction not to alter other people's posts. It's not as though the last one is a revert that happened to alter my post, it was an ordinary edit that deliberately altered my post.
I'm sure that you are getting as fed up with him as I am. At this stage, I think it is not unreasonable of me to insist on some sort of sanction. I bow to your judgement as to what. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 17:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
One of her/his most recent acts was an effort to complaint/attack against me on this page, but closed it after (s)he realised this could turn against her/himself; see #Interesting activity from 'new' user. above.
And I wasn't wrong. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/195.171.217.8 for three allegations without evidence. I have posted a response so probably no action required from you unless, I have erred in some way. What is galling is that, in all three cases, the evidence is available. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 13:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You have been very kind to him.
While he may not be a sock (I'm still not sure - he's certainly lying about something - he knows too much for the novice he sometimes appears to be), nothing about the behaviour that got him reported in the first place has improved. He wasn't reported for socking. Last night (Australian time) I tried to have a constructive conversation with him, firstly pointing out that because of time zones, you weren't likely to quickly see his agonisingly persistent complaining, because you may well have been asleep. I also did what I have done many times, and tried to improve his editing style, so we could have a decent conversation. (E.g. indenting) I also experienced edit conflicts almost every time I replied to him, because he kept adding more edits from himself before any replies. I think it's this advice I keep giving him, that gets ignored, that he calls belittling. He is only marginally competent, if that, and gets angry when advised. SO yes, I became exasperated again. No, I didn't tell him to F off again.
However, he has now deleted all of my conversations with him from his talk page. Yes, I know he can do that, but what is he really trying to hide? So, nice of you to unblock him, but his poor editing style has not ceased. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
archive top}}
and {{
archive bottom}}
tags. --
NeilN
talk to me 03:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Neil, What I have done to this encyclopedia? If I have done anything wrong, please forgive me. Fayaz Rahman ( talk) 03:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
MilosHaran (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Hi NeilN. Thanks for your input on the SPI/edit warring case concerning MilosHaran. Although you blocked them for a week,
on their userpage there is a sockpuppet tag that says the account is blocked indefinitely. After you changed the block's duration from indefinite to one week you probably forgot to change/remove the tag. Can you have a look at it?
Ktrimi991 (
talk) 20:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. adamstom97 ( talk) 21:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk:2A00:23C4:BF01:4200:55F5:866A:1C49:9ED1, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DanielRigal ( talk) 20:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
This needs to be nipped in the bud, and I didn't want to go to ANI for the man's privacy. The IP is involved in an ANI complaint already. Thanks in advance! Scr★pIron IV 20:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I was finding the real admin who deleted the page because it was made by the sock but 3 editors already edit the article, I did ask the admin who deleted pages but he doesn't want to restore because he's not that busy but doesn't like to restore made by a sock and we intend to work on that article can you restore this. Pls. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.165.242 ( talk • contribs) — 49.148.165.242 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi Neil, SpacemanSpiff had protected this page till 17 March and, when it ended, the socks seemed to have had a field day. I think permanent pp-sock is the only recourse for this. Can you do it please? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi
New to Wikipedia. Just trying to update that local sports (not for profit and community based) is in Lambton since 1955.
Not sure what is required to "validate". Warrenparkhockey.com, Torontoeagles.ca etc
Thank you
Bill
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).
He is frequently making personal attacks now. [99] [100] [101] Accesscrawl ( talk) 01:59, 5 August 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 |