Jump to content

User talk:Neilen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


February 2018

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to James Deen has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • For help, take a look at the introduction.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this message: James Deen was changed by Neilen (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.948974 on 2018-02-13T05:10:17+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to James Comey has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • For help, take a look at the introduction.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this message: James Comey was changed by Neilen (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.856509 on 2018-04-07T07:09:12+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at James Comey, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please be aware there's an active remedy on James Comey limiting reverts to 1 per 24 hours. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

marking edits as minor

[edit]

You might want to turn off the auto "minor edit" marking, since you're not making minor edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE filing notification

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Neilen. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of topic ban

[edit]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from post-1932 American politics, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for violation of 1RR after repeated notices.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. ~~~~

Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade please check the most recent edits I made to the articles for Peter Strzok, James Comey, and Dismissal of James Comey. I added reliable sources for any of the information I added or edited. Can you please explain why you banned me when I was simply trying to contribute clearly accurate RS data into articles to make them more objective (many articles which cover current political issues suffer from omission bias). If you look at what transpired several users swooped in to remove the accurately and reliable sourced data (usually within a few hours). I'm not sure why but it seems based on their edit histories that these users are strong opponents of Donald Trump. Can you please help me understand why I was banned and the other users who edit-warred and removed the RS data that I added were not? Thank you. Neilen (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade I see what you're saying but the issue I have is that when users who have a clear and blatant anti-Trump POV (don't take my word for it - just read their own statements and read through their edits) swoop in and remove RS and NPOV material it should be pretty clear what's going on. Why did you topic ban me from editing post 1932 political articles, but not these clearly biased users who seem to want to censor Wikipedia? That is what seems very unfair to me. I now understand how strictly enforced the 1RR rules are for these specific articles and promise to not violate them in the future. I'm not asking you to unblock me from the 24 hour ban (unless you want to) but to ban me from editing on any post 1932 political articles seems extremely harsh and unfair (especially since this is the first time I'm encountering this 1RR issue and just started contributing to Wikipedia two months ago). I'm asking for this unfair ban to please be lifted. In the future if I happen to disobey the 1RR rules for those articles you can ban me permanently. All of my edits were made in good faith. I disobeyed the 1RR rules because I was upset about what appears to be blatant bias going on with users on these articles but I now understand how the rules are enforced. Neilen (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

[edit]
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Please check the most recent edits I made to the articles for Peter Strzok, James Comey, and Dismissal of James Comey. I added reliable sources for any of the information I added or edited. Can you please explain why you banned me when I was simply trying to contribute clearly accurate RS data into articles to make them more objective (many articles which cover current political issues suffer from omission bias). If you look at what transpired several users swooped in to remove the accurately and reliably sourced data (usually within a few hours). I'm not sure why but it seems based on their edit histories that these users are strong opponents of Donald Trump. Can you please help me understand why I was banned and the other users who edit-warred and removed the RS data that I added were not? Thank you.
You were clearly advised that the articles were under a one revert per 24 hour restriction. You repeatedly violated that restriction even before the matter was at AE, and then proceeded to continue the edit war even while it was there. If several other editors have reverted you, that means it's time to head to the talk page, not carry on making the disputed edit. Maybe you can gain some experience editing in less contentious areas first, but you clearly can't edit in such a sensitive area without causing quite a lot of disruption. Do some editing elsewhere for a while, and maybe after you've gained some experience we can see about giving you another go, but please be aware that articles go under restrictions such as 1RR for a very good reason and it is strictly enforced. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade I see what you're saying but the issue I have is that when users who have a clear and blatant anti-Trump POV (don't take my word for it - just read their own statements and read through their edits) swoop in and remove RS and NPOV material it should be pretty clear what's going on. Why did you topic ban me from editing post 1932 political articles, but not these clearly biased users who seem to want to censor Wikipedia? That is what seems very unfair to me. I now understand how strictly enforced the 1RR rules are for these specific articles and promise to not violate them in the future. I'm not asking you to unblock me from the 24 hour ban (unless you want to) but to ban me from editing on any post 1932 political articles seems extremely harsh and unfair (especially since this is the first time I'm encountering this 1RR issue and just started contributing to Wikipedia two months ago). I'm asking for this unfair ban to please be lifted. In the future if I happen to disobey the 1RR rules for those articles you can ban me permanently. All of my edits were made in good faith. I disobeyed the 1RR rules because I was upset about what appears to be blatant bias going on with users on these articles but I now understand how the rules are enforced. Neilen (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You already had the chance to avoid edit warring, and I'm afraid you chose not to take it. Like I said, try editing for a while in some less contentious areas and we can reconsider after some time. But it is necessary that you discuss differences with other editors rather than presuming them to have bad motives and edit warring, and this is more, not less, necessary in highly charged and sensitive areas. If you still believe that the decision was unfair, the appeal process is detailed above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MelanieN

[edit]

MelanieN made numerous false claims about me on another user talk page. Just wanted to clear up some things here:

1. all of the edits I made were reliably sourced. If one or two were not, the information was still entirely factual and was sourced from another RS somewhere else in the article. 2. the edits were only "disruptive" because other users kept removing the reliably sourced and NPOV edits I was trying to contribute to the article (all in good faith but apparently none of that matters to users like you) so I was obviously upset and was just trying to re-add the accurate data 3. I addressed an appeal to a user named NeilN because I mistakenly thought he/she was in charge of the entry concerning me on the Arbitration Requests page because the entry directly above mine for user VendixDM was being handled by NeilN 4. Yes my username is similar to NeilN but it's just a strange coincidence. I chose my username because it is an anagram of Eileen (minus one E). 5. you say that I edit with a "POV pro-Trump" but of course you never call out or criticize all of the editors who clearly edit with an anti-Trump bias, somehow that's OK with you and other admins here...I wonder why that is? Neilen (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neilen, thanks for the ping and the chance to clarify what I have said about your editing. You had two editing sessions, April 7 and April 9. Most of your April 7 edits got reverted over the next 24 hours or so, because they either had no source, or the information you added was not in the source. On April 9 you came back and re-added most of this material, sometimes multiple times with edit warring. Some examples from the Special Counsel article, which I was aware of because the article is on my watchlist:

  • You several times added an unsourced statement to the lede. [1] [2]
  • You added and re-added the claim that Lisa Page was removed from the investigation for exchanging anti-Trump text messages, but the reference source in the article did not say that. [3] [4]
  • Even when you made an accurate statement with a reference, it was sometimes out of place or disruptive. With this edit and this edit you replaced information about the current (April 3, 2018) status of whether Trump is under investigation with an out-of-date (June 6, 2017) statement from Comey.

Looking at your contributions, it is clear that you made similar or identical edits to the articles James Comey and Dismissal of James Comey. This is what I was talking about, and this is why your edits were repeatedly removed. If you disagree with the removal of something, you should go to the article talk page and explain why you think it belongs in the article, and others can reply, and the issue can be resolved by discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The reason I noted, when your name first came up, that you were editing "always with a clear POV pro-Trump": if a new editor seems controversial or seems unlikely to be new, we may take note of certain habits or characteristics of their editing, in case someone might recognize them as a sock puppet of some other user. I would equally well have noted if you edited with an anti-Trump POV; there are certain longterm problem users that we can block on sight because we recognize their distinctive anti-Trump editing. The same would be done if a person has a characteristic style, formatting quirk, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN thanks for replying but I'm very skeptical of what you wrote above. It should be pretty obvious to any user that isn't a full-fledged member of The Trump Resistance that most of the political pages (if not all) related to Trump issues/current politics get skillfully edited in a manner that is anti-Trump. Could you please give some examples of users that you blocked who edited with an anti-Trump POV? Neilen (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neilen, I encourage you to read the link above on what a topic ban entails. Your conversation with me above was in the context of appealing against the ban, so that's allowed, but you're not permitted to participate in discussion of the topic on any page including this one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade is this a joke? On your user page it actually says "this user is a member of Wikipedians against censorship".. how ironic? Please point me to the rules where it says "you're not permitted to participate in discussion of the topic on any page including this one"? Neilen (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just did, but if you need it again with specific directions, it is at the section describing a topic ban. The fifth bullet point is the one of relevance here. The idea of a topic ban is that a user has been disruptive in a given area, and so is expected to leave that area alone, entirely, while the ban is in effect. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't see anything in those bullet points user who is a member of Wikipedians against censorship but likes to censor other users on their own talk pages, that says one user can't interact with another user and ask questions (as I did previously with MelanieN when I simply asked if she could give some examples of users that she blocked who edited with an anti-Trump POV)? Why is she allowed to make false claims about me but I can't respond even on my own talk page? Neilen (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question about "anti-Trump" users I have blocked: I don't actually do a lot of blocking compared to most admins (here's my block log), but I have blocked several dozen sockpuppets of the long-term troll called Kingshowman. Here's a partial record of all the times he has been blocked here, although it is very incomplete; I usually just block him on sight without recording it in the archive. He is recognizable by his strong anti-Trump rhetoric. Look, don't start claiming you were blocked because of being pro-Trump. That doesn't happen. I could introduce you to many regulars at the Trump articles who are very much Trump supporters and are editors in good standing. You were blocked because you made bad edits and edit-warred. Don't do that again and you will be fine. And for starters, listen to what Seraphimblade is telling you: you are not supposed to edit, talk about, or discuss things related to American politics. Go about Wikipedia doing something else. Edit articles about music, or video games, or the town where you live, or anything else you like. Avoid talking about American politics for a while, to show that you can edit constructively. And then ask to have the topic ban lifted. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

[edit]
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Neilen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

First, I literally forgot that I was banned from editing any political topics. This was a totally honest mistake, forgot there was a topic ban because I have not edited any articles on Wikipedia the past 30 days (check my edit history). Then yesterday I noticed a factual error on the Peter Strzok page and wanted to correct it. I only edited that one article, that's it. Please unblock me ASAP...very unfair that I was blocked for trying to correct something factually inaccurate.
Second, Seraphimblade please revert the edit you made on the Peter Strzok page. The user Snooganssnoogans stated on your talk page that I made a bad faith edit but that is not true. Like I said in the edit summary: please read the source article. You will see I was simply correcting a factual error (correct info is in the source I mentioned). It was not a controversial edit like my previous edits last month. The inaccurate info I corrected shouldn't be in the Strzok article in the first place. Neilen (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as this may be considered an appeal to me, I'm afraid that the answer is no. The fact that you were topic banned, and what that meant, was clearly explained to you by both myself and MelanieN. If you "forgot", it would seem you were in need of a reminder anyway, but I'm afraid I'm having a hard time buying that. If you are attempting to make an appeal that will go to AE, you should follow the instructions for that listed in the block notice. As far as the edit itself, edits made in violation of a ban are always subject to reversion without evaluation of their merits. You may not edit on the subject of post-1932 American politics. Not on articles, not to discuss the subject. It is entirely possible that, if you find some other areas to edit and can show you've learned since that happened, I and/or the community would be willing to consider lifting the ban in the future, but repeatedly violating the ban will not in any way help your case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Urg. I'm afraid that I would argue against an unblock for a user who had forgotten discretionary sanctions. The idea is to prevent disruption, and I see no reason to believe unblocking would not lead to more disruption.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade I'm not going to appeal to you again to unblock me (even though IMO it was very harsh to block me for 1 week instead of at least warning me first or verifying the ONE EDIT that I made was 100% factual and accurate). By the way you didn't address what I mentioned above about Snooganssnoogans making stuff up on your talk page last night regarding my edit. Anyway I'm done here for now but to show that you are operating in good faith please self-revert the last edit you made to the Peter Strzok article. The information that was changed was per the cited source. All I did was simply CORRECT blatantly false info, I didn't remove or add anything, or do anything controversial like I did last month when I ran into trouble. Thanks...Neilen (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to talk to me about good faith, after you just got caught running a massive sock farm? Goodbye now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade what I asked you to do still stands regardless of what I did or didn't do. There is no reason to not self-revert that edit. The information I corrected is per the cited source. What is on that page currently right now is literally false and incorrect information. Apparently people like you who like to take the moral high ground (you are apparently an SJW who is "against censorship") are fine with false information being on a WP page. You seem to be more concerned with the process of WP than what is right and wrong...goodbye now. Neilen (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may remove comments on your talk page if you like, but you may not edit them to say something different than what they originally said. Either remove them entirely, or leave them as they were. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neilen&oldid=1048384663"