User talk:Nigel Abe

Welcome!

Hello, Nigel Abe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ◢   Ganbaruby!   (remember to ping!) 16:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Nigel Abe, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Nigel Abe! You created a thread called Primary sources as the sole source in an infobox at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Nigel Abe! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Is this an example of “sealioning”, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an apology.

So don't darken my talk page again or I'll report you for stalking. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I will apologize to you for is the accusation of edit warring. Another IP user editing and acting the same way as you was guilty of that, and has been blocked from editing. Your report threats to report me for “stalking” are rather funny considering you are now active in multiple pages I have in my watchlist that I’m most active. Nigel Abe (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You came to my talk page, falsely accusing me of edit-warring, and then Drmies piled on with threats of abusing their admin privileges. I'm not the one doing the stalking.

As for being active on pages you watchlist, you give yourself too much credit. Before I ever looked at Brothers of Italy, I edited Conservative liberalism on the specific topic of left/right spectrum classification. My interest in this subject is what accounts for any overlap; this is not about you.

And these pages aren't yours just because you maintain a watchlist with them. You're entitled to your own opinion, but that's all it is; it doesn't trump reliable sources. The only reason we're in any contact is that there is a plethora of sources confirming that FdI is ultranationalist. No amount of personalization, or intimidation, can distract from this.

Good day. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies, you sided with a sock puppet. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate sock puppets. You're still wrong. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read your mind, only note your behavior. You tell me you hate sock puppets, but you sided with this one and tried to intimidate me with threats of administrative power abuse. Actions speak louder than words.

You tried to help him get rid of me, but now he's the one who's gone. Maybe there's a lesson in that for you. And maybe when he returns, as sock puppets tend to, you won't be so quick to back him up again. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You talk as though he’s supposed to know I’m a “sock puppet” the whole time. And for your information if wiki block appeals staff weren’t so snarky and had acknowledged I had learned my lesson from last time I wouldn’t have to be using new accounts. The only violation of any guidelines you can find on this account is that it’s a “sock puppet” and that’s it. Nigel Abe (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you didn't learn your lesson. The reason your sock puppetry got noticed is that your behavior was still glaringly inappropriate.

The root cause is that you're not interested in furthering the stated goals of Wikipedia. You're not here to edit an encyclopedia to make it neutral and comprehensive. Instead, you have a blatant political agenda, which is to make right-wing views seem more mainstream. Presumably, it's because you're far to the right, yourself.

We met when you falsely accused me of edit-warring by making the same change over and over again after it was reverted. In reality, I made a single, reasonable change and then discussed it, so you were wrong in your accusations and behavior, not just your goals.

As for User:Drmies, they compounded the problem by immediately accusing me of vandalizing the article and threatening to block me for it. There is literally no excuse for this. We shouldn't be surprised when the sock puppet of a banned account lobs false accusations, but we should hold administrators to a higher standard, one that demands basic competence and avoids abuse of power.

Unless I missed it, Drmies has never acknowledged their error, much less retracted or apologized for it. They continue to insist that I'm a vandal and continue to threaten me with an undeserved block. Perhaps these facts will hurt their feelings and make them even more hostile towards me, but that's out of my hands.

If Drmies doesn't want to be called incompetent and abusive, maybe they should avoid being guilty on both counts. And if they can't handle the pressure of being an admin, they can resign. Beats being kicked out, doesn't it?

As for you, I genuinely don't think you should contribute further to the project, at least not in political matters, because you've shown an unwillingness to follow the rules and have proven to be incorrigible. Even now, you blame them for "forcing" you to break the rules.

That's my advice. You don't have to take it, but if you come back, you'll just be detected and blocked again, with all your previous changes under a cloud. Quit while you're behind. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aw boohoo. I think you misspelled "littterally". Go and whine away at WP:AN and see what the real admins have to say. It's funny--in your own way, you're no better than this sock. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of you, can't you please just be respectful to each other? Ezhao02 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I’m still here. I haven’t had the bother to make yet another account yet (again nothing I did on this account broke guidelines aside form it being an alt, and I only use alts because I got a snarky reply to my appeal before that didn’t help me with anything). Someone please tell that IP user that while he may not have been a Sockpuppet his edits, tone and conduct throughout the affair is what provoked us to act in the ways we did. Nigel Abe (talk)

I just read your edits from last year on the Antifa talk page. Sorry, your "alt"'s edits, right? Those edits certainly don't help establish you as an anti-fascist, as you claimed there, practically in the same breath as you proclaimed Antifa's involvement in violence. That's classical POV pushing. This "alt" business is not worth a bean, of course. It may be true that this account wasn't in violation yet aside from the clear socking, but that's neither here nor there anyway. You want back? Consider WP:OFFER. And if you come back and push a right-wing POV again, you won't be back for long. But I really have no intention of spending any more time on this talk page with, on the one hand, a passive-aggressive IP, and on the other a sock whose master was blocked for POV-pushing. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m well aware my past actions on Victor were bad, and that the block was justified looking back, however my appeal failed so this seemed to be about the only way I could go. I’ll keep OFFER in mind and maybe it will work after the clock is up. Nigel Abe (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If wiki’s confounded staff hadn’t blocked me I’d give my own testimony on the admin board to refute this IP user. Would you like me to make a third account and use it to testify or should I try an appeal which, last time I tried using it, got me a snarky reply and no real advice. Nigel Abe (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "staff", and the first discussion was plenty long, at least according to Swarm. No, I don't want you to make a third account. You can appeal from the Salvini talk page. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what you mean by “discussion”, but I’ve appealed Victor in the past (it was a rather bad, but courteous appeal to be honest) and it failed. Are you able to make more than one appeal? I assumed you couldn’t. Nigel Abe (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]