User talk:Valjean/Archive 23

Basic outline of dossier

 * They aren't always in chronological or numerical order.

...and at Trump-Russia dossier article
I noticed the DS template there doesn't have the Civility section. Too bad, huh?  SPECIFICO talk 13:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Needs fixing. BTW, take a look at my recent edits at Talk:Donald Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What's a bit curious is that the bans of the group of disruptive Trump POV editors greatly improved the environment for a few months and that new problems arise in their absence. I wonder how that happens. With your long experience here, you may have seen this time and again. Maybe it's just nature abhors a vacuum and NPOV editors are the vacuum.  SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspect that explanation, rather than socks. I AGF in a poor situation. As long as editors are not required to take and pass a test on their vetting abilities, we will always have editors who consume junk sources in real life, and that will affect their editing here. We really should have a WP:WikiProject RS where a WP:RS vetting test can be developed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that listing restrictions on the talk page is a good practice but not required. The article already has a civility restriction placed on the required pages (article and DS log). --Neil N  talk to me 16:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh. If you're so inclined, perhaps you could have a peek at that talk page.  SPECIFICO talk 16:54, May 2, 2018‎ (UTC)

DS change suggestion
These are questions for two admins.

NeilN and MelanieN, you both have started me thinking about an occasional problem I've noticed for a very long time. Both NeilN and MelanieN have touched on a subject which could mean we need to improve the DS instructions regarding this wording:

This should only apply to newly-installed content, not to long-standing content. Occasionally individual editors, or groups of editors, game the system(*) by exploiting this to remove (sometimes large amounts of) content on very dubious grounds. This serves their purpose to weaken and destabilize the article, and to remove content they don't like, even if it's not a permanent removal. Deliberate or not, it's disruptive and hinders development and improvement of the article.

As NeilN implied, consensus should also apply to removal of long-standing material. That wording should be explicit in the DS notification at the top of talk pages.

Here is a suggested wording, obviously subject to improvement:

It is best to use the normal process of article improvement described at PRESERVE, rather than constantly removing large chunks of content. If it's controversial, then work on it on the talk page to avoid edit warring and removal of stable content.

The fact that an aspect of the subject may not be covered well, does not justify removing existing content. Instead, make up the lack by adding more content. Often the lack is because good sources are lacking for that POV. This may be a signal that the "missing" part is actually a fringe POV found only in unreliable sources and thus has little weight anyway.

(*) If they aren't gaming the system, the result is still the same, and that's what counts, so we should still make a change.

What do you think of this? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked the same question on NeilN's talk page here. You might want to check it out, basically he confirms if longstanding material is removed and then restored consensus is required to remove it again. It is not you must obtain consensus for the initial removal of long standing material. PackMecEng (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks. It's in this section: User talk:NeilN. That makes sense, and I'll tweak the above accordingly.
 * He writes: "If someone removes long-standing material and someone restores it then it should not be removed again without consensus. The goal of that restriction is to promote article stability." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there an easy way to find out when removed material was added? We know when it was removed, but it may be that it involves only a portion of a section. Does that mean we have to go through a week of edits in the edit history just to find out when it was first added? Atsme 📞📧 15:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have used Wikiblame in the past for that. Not the best but does work. PackMecEng (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikiblame is the only tool I know of that does this. Be great if the WMF took it over and sped it up. --Neil N  talk to me 16:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * NeilN, I have now tweaked my suggested wording. What do you think? Let's brainstorm here and see if we can come up with something better than what we have. Your thoughts on this are important and it's something which I hadn't seen before. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Individual admins are responsible for the wording they use to implement restrictions and I won't be using yours, sorry. We covered this in 2016. "Edits" covers everything - additions, deletions, modifications - and more words lead to more opportunities for editors trying to find loopholes. --Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Editors do not know about what was covered in 2016. All they can see is the words, which clearly only apply to "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." It should not be necessary, or up to, individual admins to explain this. It should be plain in the notification. Editors should not end up in trouble because they followed the instructions and still got in trouble because of what was "covered in 2016". If the wording is plain, it will prevent a lot of problems, and prevention is a good thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the current wording is significantly more plain then your proposed wording. "long-standing material" - what's that? "Note that not all reversion is a challenge" - I didn't think that revert was really a challenge. I should also point out that while an admin can add restrictions, they cannot remove or alter another admin's restrictions. Many of the present AP restrictions were placed by Coffee and I'm not touching those without a specific okay from Arbcom. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. If I were to bring this up at village post or elsewhere, would you stand by your interpretation that this also applies to removals, not just reinstatement? You are the first one I have ever heard that from, and it makes total sense, but I don't think this is common knowledge or a common interpretation. Maybe it is, but I've never seen it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Page through the AE archives and you'll see it's been mentioned before. I don't know of any admin placing that restriction that considers it applying to additions only. The key phrase is "reinstating any edits". A deletion is an edit. You are reinstating a deletion. Don't narrow the definition down to apply to only additions. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then the wording and italics need to be changed, because the way they are used limit the "any edits" to "reinstating". Parsing is important, and correct grammar guides the parsing.


 * Your personal meaning might be unambiguous, and I like it, but the wording is muddled and undermines your interpretation. That's unfortunate, and it should be fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

BR, Neil's explanation was unambiguous. Each admin is responsible for their own wording and interpretation. I'd say it's kinda pointless to expect editors to change how admins phrase their DS restrictions. Quite frankly, a bigger concern is determining what is or isn't considered long standing therefore stable, and how admins can logically consider an article that needed DS restrictions in the first place was ever "stable". It's an oxymoron. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 17:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is indeed an important thing to keep in mind, but instead of some bright line (like 3RR), we should think twice "before making potentially controversial changes". That would prevent a lot of problems. We should start a thread, copy (not delete) the content in question to the thread, and then collaboratively develop a better version and then install a consensus version. This is a smoother method with less drama, while promoting article stability.
 * Collaborative editing needs to be encouraged, rather than drive by editing, or POV edit warring by various factions. We should be focusing on improving content, not attacking it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

BR, I don’t have time to get into this (and in any case I defer to more experienced admins in interpreting the DS). But FYI this was discussed rather extensively at my talk page last year, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MelanieN/Archive_26#Does_removal_equal_reversion? here] and here. You might see if there are any insights or possible wording there for you. I know there have been subsequent discussions at more general boards but I don’t have a link. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll have to look at it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Your hatted discussion concerning me
The biggest disruptions are you're own creations, BR. I liken it to Trump tweeting. Just look at how you attempted to malign me here on your TP and at NeilN's TP by casting aspersions, and taking my discussion with MastCell out of context. All anyone has to do is read the full discussion at his TP to see how you deceitfully formulated your ridiculous POV case against me. It's the same pattern of editing I've seen you use in political articles and then try to pass it off as NPOV while accusing others of not understanding NPOV and needing lessons. For the record - I have always enjoyed my discussions with MastCell because he intelligently explains his perspective - I may not always agree with him and vice versa, but I do appreciate our exchanges and consider it productive dissemination - just not in the way you recently pooped all over the last one (and that includes your buttinsky interference and stalking of me which has become quite freaky). Editors whose user pages are as pedantic and polemic as yours have no business accusing others of acting on their biases and not understanding NPOV. Like what Drmies suggested, if you think you have a case against me, then do what you have to do, but stop your goading/lying/misrepresenting/taking my words out of context/casting aspersions and stalking me. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 02:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, you're getting kind of, what shall we call it, agitated? Don't get mad. Get even. If you have a grievance take it to one of the behavior modification venues.  <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, not agitated at all, and I'm not the kind of person who "gets even". His obsessive stalking of me is creepy - not good - admins are aware. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 03:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, "agitated" isn't the only problem. It appears that paranoia is involved. A failure to AGF can cause it. "Stalking", now that's really bad. Evidence please. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Paranoia? No, concern over your creepy stalking and the comments you make about me that are just not true. You wanted some diffs to show how you've been stalking me, following me around - well, here they are, and I added 2 of my polite requests to you to stop, trying not to make it a big deal, but the stalking continued, and here we today.
 * Synodontidae fish article
 * Talk: NPOV
 * MastCell - BR: I just noticed this fascinating conversation and have to share some thoughts.
 * Tony Ballioni
 * Sławomir Biały
 * No Legal Threats
 * Soibangla - left a link
 * Scjessey - casting aspersions
 * James J. Lambden
 * - Tony Ballioni March 23, 2018 - I said to you: “WP doesn't need hall monitors, so you can stop following me around. People might start thinking we're an "item”.”
 * - Talk:NPOV April 24, 2018 - I said to you: “BullRangifer, I disagree with your perspective on so many different levels that I really would appreciate it if you would stop following me around all over WP. I prefer to hear from editors I have not had prior exchanges with - I know your views so you really don't need to keep reminding me. I don't want folks to think you and I are an item, which may result in rumors plastered all over the front page of the SignPost!! ”
 * And there are more - what you did to me on your TP and on Neil's TP has gone beyond the stage of requests for you to stop. It has escalated to creepy, and you need to stop obsessing over me like you do the Trump articles. Stop casting aspersions and spreading misinformation about me like you just did on your TP, on article TPs, and on the TP of .   - you have been warned. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 04:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"Creepy stalking"? You do realize that "stalking" implies a bad faith interpretation of events and imputes a deliberate and nefarious intent on my part? That's on you. That's bad faith on your part. Both the "creepy" and "stalking" ideas are in your head.

There is exactly ONE item on that list which was not already on my watchlist. ONE. That's all. I did notice that you edited an article about lizardfishes, a very interesting subject, and I noticed there was an extra blank line. That's all I fixed. Is that a crime? You seem to think that is a horribly nefarious thing for me to do. That's on you. That's bad faith on your part. It's not stalking.

You do realize that around here everything we do is open to scrutiny and easily gets noticed, even when there is no intention to scrutinize. Right now my watchlist says this: "807 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." For me that's a very small watchlist. Not too long ago I had over 10,000 pages on it, so I pared it down. Around here one inevitably runs into all kinds of editors when one has a large watchlist.

As far as asking me not to comment on articles where you also comment, well you have no right to do that. It is not stalking when that happens. (BTW, MastCell and I go way, way back to far before you started here. We're both medical professionals and share many POV in science and medicine.)

You appear on articles where I'm commenting all the time. So what? The difference between us is that I don't accuse you of stalking me. Grow up. AGF. I have no interest in stalking you. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I find it ironic when you provide a diff at NLT for supposed stalking by me, and two edits later you thanked me for my attempt to help you. You thanked me (!!) at the time for my attempt to help you, but now you claim it was stalking? Now that really is "creepy". Your failure to AGF turned my effort to help you into an evil deed. That's sad. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:HOUND - Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. Your behavior toward me is textbook hounding (stalking is redirected to hounding) and a policy violation.  You were blocked for disruption in January after you cast aspersions and became highly disruptive over an article I nominated for AfD that was eventually redirected despite your disruption. I actually did AGF with you at first, but when you kept showing up at my discussions to inject your blatant POV with intent to disparage me, and then showed up at Synodontidae, a topic you don't edit, and did so within 20 min of my edit only to (rmv extra blank line), that's when I knew you were stalking me. The final straw was your passive aggressive posting of my discussion with MastCell, your censorship and dismissal of my comments so you could represent the entire discussion out of context, I knew exactly what you were doing.  The evidence against you is overwhelming. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 05:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! You've really lost it. You haven't even read what I just wrote about that NLT diff. You owe me a big apology for that one. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump's dubious relationship to truth and facts
This is a very small portion of what's available on Trump's notorious relationship to truth. There is enough material for a very large article. Every single day provides new material. There are plenty of opinions about the subject, but then there are the facts. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Lies are easily fact checked, and what fact checkers say should not be confused with opinions.

Trump's dubious relationship to truth and facts
As president, Trump has made a large number of false statements in public speeches and remarks. Trump uttered "at least one false or misleading claim per day on 91 of his first 99 days" in office according to The New York Times, and 1,628 total in his first 298 days in office according to the "Fact Checker" analysis of The Washington Post, or an average of 5.5 per day. The Post fact-checker also wrote, "President Trump is the most fact-challenged politician that The Fact Checker has ever encountered... the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up."

Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, told Dana Milbank that, in his six years on the job, "'there's no comparison' between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians' statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent."

Maria Konnikova, writing in Politico Magazine, wrote: "All Presidents lie.... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent.... Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true."

Senior administration officials have also regularly given false, misleading or tortured statements to the media. By May 2017, Politico reported that the repeated untruths by senior officials made it difficult for the media to take official statements seriously.

Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures,  Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts". Todd responded by saying "alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

Social scientist and researcher Bella DePaulo, an expert on the psychology of lying, stated: "I study liars. I've never seen one like President Trump." Trump outpaced "even the biggest liars in our research." She compared the research on lying with his lies, finding that his lies differed from those told by others in several ways: Trump's total rate of lying is higher than for others; He tells 6.6 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies, whereas ordinary people tell 2 times as many self-serving lies as kind lies. 50% of Trump's lies are cruel lies, while it's 1-2% for others. 10% of Trump's lies are kind lies, while it's 25% for others. His lies often "served several purposes simultaneously", and he doesn't "seem to care whether he can defend his lies as truthful".

Dara Lind described "The 9 types of lies Donald Trump tells the most". He lies about: tiny things; crucial policy differences; chronology; makes himself into the victim; exaggerates "facts that should bolster his argument"; "endorses blatant conspiracy theories"; "things that have no basis in reality"; "obscures the truth by denying he said things he said, or denying things are known that are known"; and about winning.

In a Scientific American article, Jeremy Adam Smith sought to answer the question of how Trump could get away with making so many false statements and still maintain support among his followers. He proposed that "Trump is telling 'blue' lies—a psychologist's term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group.... From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency."

David Fahrenthold has investigated Trump's claims about his charitable giving and found little evidence the claims are true. Following Fahrenthold's reporting, the Attorney General of New York opened an inquiry into the Donald J. Trump Foundation's fundraising practices, and ultimately issued a "notice of violation" ordering the Foundation to stop raising money in New York. The Foundation had to admit it engaged in self-dealing practices to benefit Trump, his family, and businesses. Fahrenthold won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for his coverage of Trump's claimed charitable giving and casting "doubt on Donald Trump's assertions of generosity toward charities."

In March 2018, The Washington Post reported that Trump, at a fundraising speech, had recounted the following incident: in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump insisted to Trudeau that the United States ran a trade deficit with Canada, even though Trump later admitted he had "no idea" whether that was really the case. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States has a trade surplus with Canada.

Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide";   that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes;  and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".

Fact checkers
Here are a few of Trump's notable claims which fact checkers have rated false: that Obama wasn't born in the United States and that Hillary Clinton started the Obama "birther" movement; that his electoral college victory was a "landslide";   that Hillary Clinton received 3-5 million illegal votes;  and that he was "totally against the war in Iraq".


 * PolitiFact


 * Donald Trump's file


 * Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter


 * PolitiFact designated Trump's many campaign misstatements as their "2015 Lie of the Year". 12/21/2015


 * Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truths and falsehoods. 3/23/2017


 * 7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office. 4/28/2017


 * FactCheck


 * Donald Trump archive


 * Donald Trump, the candidate we dubbed the 'King of Whoppers' in 2015, has held true to form as president. 4/29/2017


 * The Whoppers of 2017, President Trump monopolizes our list of the year’s worst falsehoods and bogus claims. 12/20/2017


 * The Washington Post


 * President Trump has made 2,436 false or misleading claims so far. 3/2/2018


 * Toronto Star


 * Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things. The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods. 11/4/2016


 * CNN


 * President Trump lied more than 3,000 times in 466 days. 5/1/2018

Trump, his supporters, and fake news
Trump's supporters are especially affected by his false statements and attacks on the media and reliable sources. The effects of his attacks on truth are boosted by their uniquely high consumption of dubious sources, junk news, and actual fake news. Like him, they have a disdain for reliable sources and seem unable or unwilling to vet sources for reliability. Unfortunately, their reaction to sources and fact checking which reflect poorly on Trump and expose his falsehoods is not to believe them and move away from untruth, but instead to label it "fake news" and move deeper into a closed loop of delusion.

Their definition of "fake news" is a novel, Trumpian, interpretation, as it is totally unrelated to the factual accuracy of the source. It is also an especially pernicious interpretation because these exposures of Trump's falsehoods are actually very real news and truth. By contrast to liberals, most of Trump's supporters are conservatives whose media bias limits their news sourcing to a very limited number of unreliable sources. Instead of being enlightened by reliable sources, they believe his falsehoods, considering them "alternative facts".

A 2018 study at Oxford University found that Trump's supporters consumed the "largest volume of 'junk news' on Facebook and Twitter":

A 2018 study by researchers from Princeton University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Exeter has examined the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. The findings showed that Trump supporters and older Americans (over 60) were far more likely to consume fake news than Clinton supporters. Those most likely to visit fake news websites were the 10% of Americans who consumed the most conservative information. There was a very large difference (800%) in the consumption of fake news stories as related to total news consumption between Trump supporters (6.2%) and Clinton supporters (0.8%).

The study also showed that fake pro-Trump and fake pro-Clinton news stories were read by their supporters, but with a significant difference: Trump supporters consumed far more (40%) than Clinton supporters (15%). Facebook was by far the key "gateway" website where these fake stories were spread, and which led people to then go to the fake news websites. Fact checks of fake news were rarely seen by consumers, with none of those who saw a fake news story being reached by a related fact check.

Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers, emphatically stated in an interview on NBC News: "People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." (Bolding added)

Trump a "useful fool" - General Michael Hayden

 * Michael Morell, former acting CIA director, says that "Putin has cleverly recruited Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation".


 * Michael Hayden, former director of both the US National Security Agency and the CIA, says Trump is a "useful fool...manipulated by Moscow".

This quote is especially interesting because it's Michael Hayden who quotes Michael Morell and then offers his own preference.

Both top intelligence men share secret knowledge about Trump's relationship to Russia. Hayden considers the descriptions rather "harsh", but also "benign" under the circumstances. They know far more than we do and that the reality about Trump is much worse than their descriptions. It's not often one finds such a unique example of contemporary usage of the term "useful fool".

If one tried to create an anonymized example of a classic use of the term for use in the Useful idiot article, one could not create a better example than this one. It uses the concept in two different ways; it's coming from two top intelligence officials; and it's about the most notable example in modern times. No wise or informed world leader would allow themselves to get into this situation, but it's happening right now.

This is both quotes from their original sources:


 * Michael Morell, former acting CIA director, wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." Michael Hayden, former director of both the US National Security Agency and the CIA, described Trump as a "useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited."

Here's a joke about the Trump Tower meeting:


 * "A lawyer, a spy, a money launderer, and a mob boss walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, 'you must be here to talk about adoption'."

MelanieN, I thought you'd appreciate this. Those men know what they're talking about. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Finds by MelanieN:

Some more recent citations, based on his actions as president: Foreign policy; Steve Schmidt quoted at MSNBC; opinion piece at WaPo, quoting Madeline Albright and former FBI agent Clinton Watts. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Newsweek in December 2017: Putin’s “pawn” or “puppet”. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Her finds:


 * Is Trump Russia’s Useful Idiot, or Has He Been Irreparably Compromised? Foreign policy


 * Russia's mark: A dangerous fool for a president
 * "Clinton Watts, a former FBI special agent on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, earlier this year explained: Russian influence of Trump most likely falls into the category of what Madeleine Albright called a “Useful Idiot” – a “useful fool” – an enthusiast for Putin supportive of any issue or stance that feeds his ego and brings victory....As a “useful idiot,” Trump not only benefited from this influence effort, but he urged Russia to find Hilary Clinton’s missing emails...What’s more, the Kremlin now has useful idiots in the persons of Fox News hosts, right-wing American bloggers, talk show hosts and Stephen K. Bannon."


 * Putin's Man in the White House? Real Trump Russia Scandal is Not Mere Collusion, U.S. Counterspies Say, Newsweek
 * "... a far more grim consensus is developing in the topmost circles of the U.S. national security establishment: The president has become a pawn of America’s adversary, Russian President Vladimir Putin."
 * "James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, virtually called Trump a Putin puppet. The Russian president, Clapper noted, is a former KGB “case officer,” or spy recruiter, who “knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president. That’s the appearance to me.”
 * “POTUS is a [spy] handlers’ dream,”
 * he may be the ultimate unwitting asset of Russia.”
 * “Everyone continues to dance around a clear assessment of what’s going on,” says Glenn Carle,...“My assessment,” he tells Newsweek, “is that Trump is actually working directly for the Russians.”


 * Is Trump Russia’s Manchurian Candidate? No. Here's Why


 * GOP Strategist: Putin looking at Trump as a "useful idiot", Steve Schmidt, MSNBC video

BLP about Public figures
A few things to note about this: Many editors cite BLP, and even WP:PUBLIFIGURE, as if it means that negative and/or unproven information should not be included. No, that's not the way it works. That would be censorship, and that would violate NPOV. Just treat the allegation(s) sensitively, and neutrally document what multiple RS say.
 * 1) There is a difference between how we handle public figures and relatively unknown persons. Wikipedia follows normal practice in real life, especially libel laws, where public persons are less protected than others. In the USA, a public person can rarely win a libel lawsuit; the bar to overwhelm the First amendment is set very high. Added to that is the unfortunate fact that Barrett v. Rosenthal protects the deliberate online repetition (not the original creation) of known libelous information found on the internet : a "user of interactive computer services" is "immune from liability [certain conditions follow]". The internet is the Wild West, where a law actually protects the spreading of proven lies. This is sad, and we do not participate in the spreading of lies, unless multiple RS have documented it. That's where we are forced to get involved, but here we also include more details and denials, and we label them as "allegations" until proven true.
 * 2) If the conditions are met (noteworthy, relevant, and well documented), "it belongs in the article".
 * 3) "even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The subject has a COI and has no right to have it removed from Wikipedia or to stop us from covering it. By being a public person, they have relinquished the right to privacy, even of negative information. The WMF legal department will rarely side with such attempts where editors are properly following this policy.
 * 4) Allegations must be labeled "allegation". Important.
 * 5) If they have denied the allegation, their denial must be included. Important.

Cambridge Analytica and Project Alamo
Before you study this subject, you MUST see this short BBC video (4:41 min.). Prepare to have your mind blown. This is not a conspiracy theory. At the end of the sources is a search on the subject.

Project Alamo was the digital team behind the Trump campaign. Kushner was in charge of digital operations:


 * BBC Video. Tweeted Aug. 13, 2017. Project Alamo: Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, Google, and YouTube worked hand-in-hand with the Trump campaign.

Then read this:


 * Why the Trump Machine Is Built to Last Beyond the Election. October 27, 2016

They started with bragging at their efficiency, success, and collaboration with Facebook, et al. The Trump campaign, Cambridge Analytica (CA), Facebook, Google, and YouTube were working very closely together all along. I was dumbfounded at the time with how open they were about it, and wondered how that could be legal.

According to recent sources (below), their tune has changed to denials and a cover-up, but those historical sources show they knew and colluded together, and CA is now under criminal investigation. Both CA and FB are pointing fingers at each other, and this paints a pretty clear picture of damage control and cover-up (using a false "data breach" story).

That is the background one must understand before reading sources. Then it all makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * General sources about Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, and the Trump campaign


 * January 28, 2017. The Data That Turned the World Upside Down


 * March 30 2017. Facebook Failed to Protect 30 Million Users From Having Their Data Harvested by Trump Campaign Affiliate


 * July 14, 2017. Trump campaign's digital director agrees to meet with House Intel Committee


 * October 16, 2017. Cambridge Analytica, the shady data firm that might be a key Trump-Russia link, explained


 * March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica harvested data from millions of unsuspecting Facebook users


 * March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica pushes back on Facebook's allegations as top Senate Democrat blasts 'Wild West'


 * March 17, 2018. Facebook knew of illicit user profile harvesting for 2 years, never acted


 * March 17, 2018. Facebook suspends Cambridge Analytica, which worked for Trump campaign


 * March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica and the Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz


 * March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica: links to Moscow oil firm and St Petersburg university


 * March 17, 2018. Staff claim Cambridge Analytica ignored US ban on foreigners working on elections


 * March 17, 2018. Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach


 * March 17, 2018. Cambridge Analytica harvest more than 50 million Facebook profiles in 2014, but don't call it a data breach


 * March 18, 2018. Mass. AG to investigate Facebook, Cambridge Analytica


 * March 18, 2018. Self-described whistleblower suspended by Facebook after Cambridge Analytica reports


 * March 18, 2018. 'I made Steve Bannon's psychological warfare tool': meet the data war whistleblower


 * March 18, 2018. Facebook employs psychologist whose firm sold data to Cambridge Analytica


 * March 18, 2018. Breach leaves Facebook users wondering: how safe is my data?


 * March 18, 2018. What is Cambridge Analytica? The firm at the centre of Facebook's data breach


 * March 18, 2018. Data scandal is huge blow for Facebook – and efforts to study its impact on society


 * March 18, 2018. Democrats call on Cambridge Analytica head to testify again before Congress


 * March 18, 2018. Pressure mounts on Cambridge Analytica and Facebook over data scandal


 * Search: "cambridge analytica" facebook trump (Jan. 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2017)


 * Project Alamo

Point of view (POV) forks
In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.

Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it.

The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory.

The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead).


 * New content sandbox. Needs work.

We aren't allowed to create, or use, articles as WP:POVFORKs. Relevant content belongs in the relevant articles, and not be banished to "somewhere else, just as long as it's not here". That's the essence of the attitude we want to eliminate, and why we don't allow POV forks.

Dossier history split...sandbox

 * Version 1

{{quotebox|  == History == 

There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS. The first phase was sponsored by Republicans, and the second phase sponsored by Democrats. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier.

 === Research sponsored by Republicans === 

The first phase of research was sponsored by Republicans. In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism web site primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him. The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier."

 === Research sponsored by Democrats produces dossier === 

The second phase of research was sponsored by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign and produced the Steele dossier. In April 2016, Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice, hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump. Elias was the attorney of record for the DNC and Clinton campaign. ... (Rest is totally unchanged.) {{reflist-talk}} {{clear}}


 * Sandbox

{{quotebox|  == History == 

There were two phases of political opposition research performed against Trump, both using the services of Fusion GPS, but with completely separate funders. Only the second phase produced the Steele dossier.

 === Research funded by conservative website === 

In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism web site primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him. The Free Beacon has later stated that "none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier."

 === Research funded by Democrats produces dossier === 

The second phase of research was funded through Marc Elias, a partner in the large Seattle-based law firm Perkins Coie and head of its Political Law practice. In April 2016, Elias hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump. Elias, as the attorney of record for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton presidential campaign, was acting on their behalf. ... (Rest is totally unchanged.) }} {{clear}}

Comey interview
The full transcript of James Comey's five-hour long interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. Only one hour was shown on April 15, 2016:
 * Transcript: James Comey's interview with ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos, ABC News, April 15, 2018.
 * "ABC News' chief anchor George Stephanopoulos' interviewed former FBI director James Comey for a special edition of "20/20" that aired on Sunday, April 15, 2018 ahead of the release of Comey's book, A Higher Loyalty. The following is the transcript of the interview:"


 * Notable quotes (very abbreviated to avoid copyvio)


 * JAMES COMEY: I worry that the norms at the center of this country--... Most importantly, the truth. ... if we lose tethering of our leaders to that truth, what are we? And so I started to worry. Actually, the foundation of this country is in jeopardy when we stop measuring our leaders against that central value of the truth.


 * JAMES COMEY: I honestly never thought this words would come out of my mouth, but I don't know whether the-- the-- current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It's possible, but I don't know.


 * GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you thinking, "President Trump's a liar?"


 * JAMES COMEY: Yes, ... he is someone who is-- for whom the truth is not a high value. And-- and obviously, there were examples of that in the dinner. ...But yes, that he is-- that sometimes he's lying in ways that are obvious, sometimes he's saying things that we may not know are true or false and then there's a spectrum in between.


 * GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You say the president didn't laugh.


 * JAMES COMEY: Yeah, not at all. ... I've never seen him laugh. Not in public, not in private.


 * GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You write that President Trump is unethical, untethered to the truth. Is Donald Trump unfit to be president?


 * JAMES COMEY: Yes. ... I don't think he's medically unfit to be president. I think he's morally unfit to be president. A person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville, who talks about and treats women like they're pieces of meat, who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it, that person's not fit to be president of the United States, on moral grounds. And that's not a policy statement.... our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country. The most important being truth. This president is not able to do that. He is morally unfit to be president.

The 70 must-see lines in James Comey's ABC interview, CNN

Lying press
The term Lügenpresse came into use during the 2016 US presidential election cycle under the moniker of fake news, first largely online in reference to inaccurate or false reporting on social media. The term fake news was later used by the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. At October 2016 political rallies in the US, Trump supporters shouted the word at reporters in the "press pen". Trump himself often referred to the assembled press at his rallies as "the most dishonest people" and "unbelievable liars". American alt-right white nationalist Richard Spencer used the term in an NPI meeting in Washington, D.C. after Trump's victory in the election.

In 2017, Trump himself labeled news sources such as the "failing" New York Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS, and CNN, as "fake news" and "the enemy of the American people". The term fake news, itself a variation on "Lying Press," has gained particular commonplace usage during the Presidency of Donald Trump.


 * Merge this into current content above

Trump and his followers have often attacked the press, calling them "corrupt", "outright liars", and "the deceitful dishonest media." During the 2016 presidential campaign, the press at Trump's rallies was ridiculed, and sometimes the old Nazi slur Lügenpresse, German for "lying press", was used to attack them. In 2017, Trump labeled The New York Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS, and CNN as "the fake news media" and "the enemy of the American people."

This is the "Trump exemption" in practice
....followed by an appeal.

"Do the right thing"? Forget it here. That is not allowed. Practice on Trump articles and talk pages show a clear use of the Trump exemption. I knew it existed, but proof of its existence was finally formalized by an editor with this comment, which contains a redirect to WP:IAR. It was a clear admission that, when dealing with Trump, it was allowable to ignore all PAG. Censorship is allowed in service of his thin skin. It appears that Trumpipedia is part of Wikipedia, with its own rules.

Drmies recognizes that a section (in each biography article) on the subject of Obama's and Trump's relationship to truth and facts would be radically different because they have radically different understandings and practice, and that's the picture painted by RS. Whether one agrees with Obama or not, he at least recognizes that truth is important, whereas Trump has never given it the time of day. He is the most extreme example of affluenza.

I have researched the subject and it's fascinating. Right now, even a few sentences in a short paragraph in any Trump article is pretty much forbidden. I have enough (over 300 very RS) for a rather long article about Trump, but I know that such an article would never be allowed. His supporters here would successfully game the system through wikilawyering, exploiting the DS requirement for a consensus to restore contested content, RfCs, and AfDs.

Such an article would be labeled an "attack page", even though it's only a documentation of what RS say, and that is what's supposed to dictate our content. The "Trump exemption" (endless wikilawyering) has become a policy here, used successfully to violate numerous policies.

The consensus among RS is that Trump is a "serial liar" in a class by himself, far beyond anything they've ever encountered before. It's a very well-documented character flaw, not just opinions, and yet the dominant view here is that Trump should be given a much longer rope than anyone else and be protected from what RS say. He has that much power here. That's the way it is, and too many admins support that view. These articles should be monitored by numerous admins who are willing to promptly issue DS warnings and topic bans for such obstruction.

An appeal: Are there any editors here who will prove me wrong and just follow policy? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Why "well-respected attorneys" are refusing...
I have created the following in response to this call for the creation of this type of content by BD2412: "I absolutely agree with that proposition. The paragraph can be fleshed out a bit further to indicate the common reasons which were given for declining representation. It would be nice to find a reliable source saying how unusual it is for top firms and lawyers to decline to represent the President."

This subject is especially important because Trump himself has mentioned it in connection with the "Russia case" (this article's subject) and labeled this view a "Fake News narrative". That makes this content directly on-topic here. Naturally many RS have responded to his accusation. I suggest it get its own section, as these attorneys are not part of the Trump team.

If there is an interest in shortening my version below, the last quote could be tucked into the reference so it only appears in the references' section, but it's important because it mentions the deeper moral and ethical implications, important aspects of the subject which are often ignored.

When considering the many RS which mention this subject, I settled on these legal sources because the lawyers and authors on legal websites are subject experts who tend to have a much more informed and less sensational way of expressing themselves than popular pundits found on TV and popular news sources. That keeps this a serious and sober discussion of the issues. When dealing with such opinions, we could choose to include speculations from non-experts, and our policies do allow that, but I prefer to use expert opinions when possible. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

{{quotebox| In an article describing the "unique circumstance" of Rudy Giuliani's unpaid leave of absence from Greenberg Traurig while representing Trump, possibly because of "potential conflicts", Christine Simmons referred to how some other law firms may have turned down representing Trump in the Russia case due to "public relations headaches or business and recruitment concerns". Trump has called such views a "Fake News narrative", but, according to Ryan Lovelace, "many Washington defense attorneys aren't so sure".

In an article for The National Law Journal, Lovelace described how white-collar lawyers must weigh the "risks" and "stigma" of joining the Trump team. The article quotes Barry Boss, co-chair of Cozen O'Connor's Criminal Defense & Internal Investigations Practice: {{quote| "Obviously, given the constant shuffle of attorneys in and out of the president's legal team, one would be reticent to focus a significant portion of your practice on representing the president, only to find yourself on the sidelines a short time later because the president saw someone he liked better on Fox News. There is also definitely a stigma to being linked to this president.... [A]ny attorney is going to consider whether a connection to this case will result in other clients not wanting to hire him or her in the future, especially if the representation of the president is going to be short-lived." }}

Another concern is that Trump doesn't listen to his lawyers.

In an article for Above the Law, Elie Mystal described how some law firms have refused to represent the President of the United States because "Donald Trump has somehow turned POTUS into a dog of a client self-respecting lawyers do not want to touch.": {{quote| "While it's, frankly, hilarious to look at all the well-respected attorneys who don't want to get Donald Trump all over them, there is potentially a deeper issue. If all the good attorneys — the ones with reputations to preserve and ethics to uphold — refuse to represent the president, what's left are the 'bad' attorneys. The ones who don't have the slightest idea what a moral and ethical principle is." }} {{sources-talk}} {{clear}}

A lesson about NPOV from MastCell and Drmies
I think it's time for a lesson about NPOV from MastCell and Drmies.

I get the feeling that the following statement (from above) is a special pleading by Atsme that she, and other editors who share her pro-Trump POV on Trump-Russia subjects, are all somehow innocent and only "appear to have a POV" (and thus any POV issues), and that they are "incorrectly" and "undeservedly" labeled as pro-Trump:


 * "Of course such editors appear to have a POV; for Pete's sake, the reason they're editing the article in the first place is because of the POV issues that already exist - and that's how editors are incorrectly labeled as pro-whatever when it is clearly not deserved."

Frankly, I don't know of any editors on political articles who don't have a POV which must be reined in, and some do it better than others. (IMO, anyone who doesn't have a political POV is a very uninformed person who is just existing.) Anyone who claims innocence has lost credibility. Our job as editors is to keep our POV from influencing our editing, and that may not always be easy. We all have blind spots, so editors who hold opposing POV need each other. (FYI, I know exactly where I stand on the left side of the political spectrum. I'm not some "neutral" dummy.)

Remember that NPOV states that content should be written "as far as possible, without editorial bias". Note that word "editorial". It's important. Our sources, and thus content, may have a bias, and editors should faithfully document what a source says with its bias. We document biases here. It is "editorial" bias which is forbidden.

MastCell and Drmies recently had a very instructive discussion with Atsme and Emir of Wikipedia on MastCell's talk page. (I trust they'll correct me if I get this wrong.) There they explained in detail how what appears to be an anti-Trump bias at Wikipedia is not such, but just a faithful, NPOV, documentation of Trump's words and actions. I'll pick out a few choice quotes, and I hope others will read the whole thread, because it was excellent:


 * MastCell: "I'm going to put this out there for you to consider: it may be that there is no way to describe some of the things Trump does without sounding, as you put it, "disparaging". He bragged to a reporter about sexually assaulting women with impunity. How do you propose we say that without sounding "negative" or "disparaging"? He defended a violent neo-Nazi mob as containing "some very fine people", and drew a moral equivalence between them and anti-Nazi protesters. How do we say that in a way that meets your definition of neutrality? He publicly begged the Russian government to hack and release the emails of his political opponent. And stereotyped Mexican immigrants as "rapists and murderers". He mocked a disabled reporter and the family of a US Army officer killed in combat. He's routinely dishonest, and promotes easily disprovable falsehoods, to a degree that is unprecedented even by modern political standards. None of these things are my opinion. All of them are facts reported by numerous reliable sources. If someone's words and actions frequently reflect negatively on them, that is not evidence that Wikipedia has a bias. Nor is it evidence that the mainstream media, or reliable sources, have a bias. I wish you (and others) would stop treating it as such." (My emphasis)


 * Emir of Wikipedia: "... or did you just want to write that big paragraph attacking Trump?"


 * MastCell: "See, this is the kind of reflexive, unthinking silliness that I was trying to put my finger on. I'm not "attacking" Trump. I'm listing a number of things he's done—undisputedly, really, actually done—and asking Atsme how she would propose we cover those in what she considers a "neutral" fashion. I think that's a useful exercise, because it gets at the distinction between biased editing and accurate descriptions of a person's (negatively perceived) actions. If you choose to view it in starker battleground terms—as me "attacking" Donald Trump—then that's your prerogative, I guess." (My emphasis)


 * Drmies: "See, Emir of Wikipedia, that's the thing--that big fat paragraph contains nothing but factual statements. You want to call that negative, you can--but that's not MastCell being negative. It's kind of like someone complaining about the weather report because it reports rain, rain, rain, when it's raining, raining, raining."


 * Atsme: (long comment)


 * MastCell: "As for being "anti-whatever", the problem (as I've tried to touch on above) is that you seem to consider anything that reflects negatively on Donald Trump to constitute "anti-[Trump] fodder" and to argue to downplay it on those grounds."


 * (Here MastCell accurately describes what seems to be Atsme's mission at Wikipedia, at least in regard to Trump and Russia, but likely not for other subjects. I say "seems to be", because all we can go by is her actions, not what she says. She claims to edit in an NPOV manner, but her actions say otherwise.)

My point is that MastCell and Drmies are both VERY right. An NPOV description of many of Trump's statements and actions will seem to be anti-Trump, when in fact that is the only NPOV way to portray them.

When editors with a pro-Trump POV censor, or otherwise try to tweak (or even worse to delete) such content, they seem to invariably violate NPOV, and their discussions to further those aims are long and disruptive. That's not good, especially since they feel they are editing in an NPOV manner. They portray themselves as innocent, while putting all the blame on editors who are skeptical of Trump, claiming they are "anti-Trump", as is done above. Well, these pro-Trump editors have mistaken notions about NPOV. An NPOV description will often portray Trump in a negative light. It will, and should, seem anti-Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * BR - what you did above is the same kind of POV cherrypicking that is evident in your article edits - you use only what supports your POV and to hell with everything else - and that attitude is part of the reason there is so much controversy/disruption at Trump-related articles that you edit.  Your attempt to discredit me just boomeranged.   <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly. MastCell and Drmies are still right. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer I really appreciate the shoutout, and of course it's nice to hear that I was right about something, but please leave me out of this day-to-day business. If the fate of the encyclopedia is at stake, or the BLP, you know I'll jump right in. If you think that Atsme is really that disruptive or distracting or whatever, take it up at AE and build a case. One of the things old-timers like MastCell and I have learned is that if you're protesting or denouncing something or someone and it doesn't gain traction, you're just pissing in the wind (I'm a big Neil Young fan...). I don't know if you have taken this to arbitration (I don't keep up with current events that much), but if you think you have a case, make it. If not--well, there's a ton of 19th and 20th century poets that need articles... Drmies (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Drmies, one can always hope that some lessons about NPOV will be learned, but, as you can see.... I do think they are disruptive by constantly working as MastCell described, but civil disruption never gets dealt with here. Arbitration discussions require lots of diffs, but civil disruption is hard to pin down with diffs. They can always claim they were joking, so we really are pissing in the wind. No admin has yet handed out a topic ban to stop this, even though, because of DS, they could do it on the spot, without long and disruptive arbitration discussions. They could just do it, but their DS powers are rarely used. Therefore we'll just continue working with chains around our ankles. It really slows things down when one wastes lots of time on talk page discussions, so I try to keep my participation to a minimum. It shoudn't have to be that way. We should be discussing improving content, rather than trying to keep articles from being gutted. Seriously. That's what we're dealing with daily. Atsme even thinks the Trump-Russia dossier article shouldn't exist. She's been pretty open about that, and that reveals several basic failures to understand our PAG. We must remember that Trump's "fake news" war against RS is duplicated here by his supporters. Wikipedia suffers the consequences because it doesn't deal with editors who share Trump's POV about sources. Unfortunately, editors are not required to pass a short course about how to vet sources. That creates a very fundamental type of competence problem that spoils everything else they do. These editors are frustrated because RS seem anti-Trump, rather than recognizing they are documenting Trump's self-inflicted wounds. You and MastCell tried to explain this, but, as we can see, to no good. When will someone hand out a topic ban for this type of insidious IDHT? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Nunes memo
Just a heads up, about the template you added to the article. Nunes memo does not have consensus required, 1RR, or the civility restrictions. Also only admins are supposed to add those templates. At least that is what Sandstein told me on their user page here. PackMecEng (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that User:NeilN said that anyone can add them. Let's see what he says. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also since there is no edit notice or anything logged in WP:AEL there are not extra restrictions on that page. Courtesy ping to as well. PackMecEng (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There should be. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh, I wouldn't disagree but that is for admins to decide. PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be the first time you've been right. Thanks for the heads up. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

We Just Disagree
Sometimes editors disagree, but it's nice when they can keep it at that level, IOW "just" disagree, as in Dave Mason's song "We Just Disagree":

So let's leave it alone 'Cause we can't see eye to eye There ain't no good guy, There ain't no bad guy There's only you and me And we just disagree

YouTube: We Just Disagree -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

A project to consider
Hey - I just saved Terence_Hogan from extinction. It's one helluva criminal conspiracy but with a human side - the guy was never arrested and the crimes he was involved in made history. I can't think of a better editor to tackle such a project - maybe help expand it to make it eligible for DYK, and possibly GA. There are some published books and RS media articles about it but because Hogan was never caught, it's not an easy puzzle to piece together - 3 different high profile crimes. There are clues and published anecdotal evidence that ties Terry Hogan to the crimes (one alias he used was Harry Booth). Unfortunately, the 3 news sources that published his and/or his daughter's full story (Karen Hogan) are not RS (Sun, Mirror, Daily Mail). <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 01:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I remember that guy and those cases. IIRC, I've seen a TV special about him. What a character! It's now on my watchlist. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

AE notification
You are involved in a dispute which is being discussed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. GoldenRing (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * GoldenRing, thanks for the notification. I see that Factchecker's violation(s) of their one-way iBan with me, imposed by User:NeilN, is mentioned. He violated it at least three(?) times recently. What should I do? I am very reluctant to mention him or engage him, as it gives him another excuse for attacking me. I am also not a big fan of these types of proceedings. I have been the victim of his persistent and withering attacks. That's why the iBan.
 * You'll notice that Factchecker's response to the iBan on his talk page was to ridicule it, and he has never accepted the rationale. That's a problem. He finally got blocked for 31 hours, and very quickly re-started the very aggressive and disruptive behavior, which then became attacks against me, in violation of the iBan.
 * I see that the one diff provided by Casprings to an iBan violation is not a good one. Other occasions are actual instances. I'll have to dig them up. They are likely at the recent AN/I thread.
 * Normal discussion on article talk pages is not forbidden, but gratuitous mentioning and criticizing of me and my edits is not, IOW "discuss the edit, not the editor". In administrative proceedings, where Factchecker (or others) is the main subject, he is not allowed to use it as an excuse to criticize me, but he did.
 * If I had been the main subject of a proceeding, the sanction would allow him to criticize me. Otherwise, in other proceedings, just because someone else might mention me, that's still no excuse for him to repeat the old accusations against me which caused him to get the iBan in the first place.
 * For my part, I have been very careful to not engage with him or mention him, and when I have responded to any talk page content comment of his, I have been very civil, so as not to give him any excuse to start attacking me again. I hope this doesn't turn into a victim blaming game where I get punished for Factchecker's behavior. There are some comments and propositions which tend in that direction. That's very wrong. There is no excuse for slapping me with any iBan or Tban.
 * I have not been the problem here. Those who push conspiracy theories from Breitbart and Daily Caller would dispute that, but that's because their agenda is to delete or minimize any content which reflects poorly on Trump, no matter how well-sourced. That violates a lot of PAG. That's no exaggeration, and MastCell, an admin who understands the underlying issues here, pointed out the agenda of this "team" of editors: "As for being "anti-whatever", the problem (as I've tried to touch on above) is that you [Atsme] seem to consider anything that reflects negatively on Donald Trump to constitute "anti-[Trump] fodder" and to argue to downplay it on those grounds."
 * Any sanction against me would further their agenda. While Factchecker does not use unreliable sources, he is on the same team mentioned by MastCell, and those editors are showing up at this proceeding. Don't be fooled by them. Masem seems to understand this. Their suggestion of a specific TBAN on AP2 articles would be a good solution. This is not the proper venue to drag others into it. Too much collateral damage without good diffs. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comment at AN
Hey, I saw your comment at AN about having a lousy day. For what it's worth, I hope you get feeling better! I know we disagreed but I also found you pleasant to chat with. Take care Springee (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Much appreciated. Fortunately I'm otherwise in good health and this new "condition" causes no symptoms...yet. It was a find on a routine colonoscopy. (Don't put it off!) I'm in a rather worrisome waiting position. No proper diagnosis until I get a full surgery (no date yet) and the mass fully sectioned and analyzed. Right now the small biopsy sample seemed harmless, but it could be a false negative result. If it turns out positive, then I'll have to go in again for a much larger surgery. Right now it's classed as a tubulovillous adenoma. The location, right by the ileocecal valve, is really dumb.


 * BTW, I still don't know which section in the NRA article you're talking about. What key words should I search for? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The notice was actually placed in a subsection of the section in question. []


 * I hope things go well with the medical stuff. For what it's worth I'll be rooting for you! Springee (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a hearty and loud me too! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The full "Monty"
😂😂😂!!! Thx for linking to it, Bull. I just read what you're dealing with, so my advice is to maintain your sense of humor and think positive...it's all going to work out just fine. The power of intention is pretty powerful, so I'll be keeping you in my thoughts. Just so you'll know...I'm recovering from an hour long Vitrectomy on my left eye, and am just now entering the 2nd week after living 50 min/hr of my waking hours face down. My new "sentence" yesterday reduced it to 30 min/hr. As for my vision, I'll summarize by saying if I get the urge to snorkel, I just open one of my lay flat photo books of Caribbean reef fish, and close my right eye - voila - I'm underwater without getting wet. 🏊🏻‍♀️ Keep us posted. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 20:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. You have a kind heart. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, would you mind sharing why you need this procedure? It looks pretty scary to me. Just the thought of anything poking around my eyes gives me the willies. Ugh! Are you going to need to get it done with your right eye? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Macular hole in left eye only - in fact, the OCT image in that article is a cell phone image I uploaded. In my case, which I’ll qualify by saying I’m not a medical professional, I tend to think was the result of compromising the integrity of the cornea and perhaps indirectly the macula via lasik surgery (which I had long ago), and/or cataract surgery (which I had 3 yrs ago), but again, I’m not a medical professional; however, as a photog I liken it to a camera lens. I can say for certain that lasik caused me to have dry eye issues and it worsened 2-fold after cataract surgery. If undergoing the stress of cataract surgery wasn’t enough - right eye got done first then 2 wks later they did the left eye - when I was prepped for the 2nd cataract surgery (same eye that developed a macular hole), whoever attached the mechanism on my eye to prevent blinking accidentally scratched the cornea (not a fun recovery when dealing with a corneal abrasion - the 1st surgery on the right eye was a breeze, no issues). They say “aging” is said to be a cause, I tend to believe the stress to the cornea caused by dry eye over the years, the tampering of the cornea via two surgeries, and the abrasion must’ve contributed in some way. Not everyone over 50 has macula issues, but I can say that people I know who have macula issues have had either one or both of the aforementioned surgeries. The good news is that the pupil is repairing nicely, and as soon as this gas bubble is absorbed by the body, I should have full vision restored - I caught it early - got in to the ophthamologist within 3 days of noticing the distortion, and I’ve been good about staying face down, and doing what’s expected after surgery. I have chosen to see silver linings, rainbows, and pretty flowers...all the positive things that follow a storm. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 14:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your eyes have been through a lot. I suspect you're right about those stresses on your eyes being part of the cause. Few medical procedures are without any risks or side effects, and some people will experience them. It sounds like you're doing all the right things to aid recovery, so let's hope you can be fully functional soon. This must be a tiring process, but hey, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Do you do underwater photography? I would love to learn to scuba dive. I've only done ordinary snorkeling in Greece, and in the Philippines as a child. It's fun. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx, BR. As for scuba, I taught u/w photog - was an advanced open water instructor for SSI and NAUI, and was certified to teach NITROX under NAUI. Back in day, I did the web promos for the Aggressor Fleet, wrote for Rodales Scuba Diving Magazine, and also worked with Pioneer Research, makers of Sealife underwater cameras. I uploaded some of my u/w picts to Commons - 2 are were selected as 2017 POY candidates, 2 were top fifty finalists in 2015 POY, and 1 in 2016. I'm also a permanent resident of Bonaire where I live much of the year - it's the #1 shore diving destination in the world - and boo-hoo, I just missed a once-in-a-lifetime op to do a live aboard catamaran adventure in the Indian Ocean with a friend and his wife.  He's a cardiologist and his wife is an ER nurse. He got his captain's license about 5 years ago after our Red Sea live aboard trip, and travels to destinations all over the world where there's exceptional diving and he can rent a cat. If you can get certified after your ordeal, do it!!! In fact, you can do some of the class training now.  It will get your mind off everything else. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 16:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Your e-mail
Hi, I don't take AE action in response to e-mails. If you have an enforcement request, WP:AE is the place for it. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr Daniel Plainview
Turns out to be Hidden Tempo. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Email
I saw your email. Ill strike my comment, but I still think we should give him a final warning. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 20:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Just curious
I was reading your AE post and I had a question. You mention your essay WP:FRINGEPOLITICS had been around for 3 weeks at the point FCAYS had returned to the article April 4th 2018 after leaving for a year, but the logs for the essay say it was created April 10th 2018. Are you saying it was started offline 3 weeks before that? I'm just curious since that seemed off or am I looking at the wrong essay all together. PackMecEng (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You would need to follow the diffs I provided. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah I see it started about another user on March 13, then a little bit of work on your user page on April 1, then used that to start the essay on April 8, and after the start of the essay page worked on it over time and greatly expanded it until May 10. I see now, thanks for the clarification! It seemed a bit off in the timeline of events. PackMecEng (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like that. The largest additions were the two sections of content from other articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hannity Show tie-in
Maybe this article is relevant: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stormy-daniels-suit-my-old-lawyer-was-puppet-trump-cohen-n880476 I'm not sure if it's worth including. 71.208.111.156 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Month later
Hey, just hope things are getting better! Springee (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just hangin' in there. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the updates. I used to live out in that area but I can't say I have any useful suggestions.  I'll just leave it at get feeling better! Springee (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP?
Hi there. I don't mind this revert (except maybe for the reflist-talk bit), but how can it possibly be a BLP issue? Favonian (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking it's not, unless we consider slandering the entire Danish populace a BLP violation, which is why "BLP" even came to mind. I just said to treat it "like" it was, IOW just delete it as an unsourced, dubious, offensive, drive by comment by an IP as its only edit. Maybe I should have used a different edit summary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Response about Caribou Hunting in Greenland page
If you read the sources I'm pretty sure you'll see why I changed the name. In the sources, it is made clear that in Greenland, Reindeer and Caribou refer to two different things. What they would call reindeer in Greenland usually refers to a now-extinct eastern subspecies. NOTE: They also refer to domestic Rangifer tarandus brought over from Europe as reindeer.

Howpper (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Your last sentence is my whole point. Those are practically the only reindeer in Greenland. The ancient native caribou, which originally migrated from Canada, died out and were replaced in modern times by imported semi-domestic reindeer, mostly from Norway. There are very few of the original, if any, left, and they have interbred with the imported reindeer. The reindeer one hunts in Greenland all descend from those brought from Norway. In this instance, it is the geography (everywhere east of North America), language (Danish - caribou is not a word they have), and customs, which dictate what they are called. They are called "rensdyr", which is the same as "reindeer". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read all of the sources. The eastern subspecies is what died out, not the western subspecies. The problem here is The North American Caribou and the Eurasian Reindeer are subspecies of the same species. There are genetic differences, so to call wild caribou in Greenland reindeer would be taxonomically incorrect. As you can see in one of the sources, even the government of Greenland refers to them as Caribou in English. Please see the distribution map on the Wikipedia page for Reindeer. What is your opinion on calling the page Caribou and Reindeer hunting in Greenland? I feel like this would be a more accurate title since the wild herds are Caribou, and most (if not all) of the imported herds are reindeer (keep in mind the genetic differences). Howpper (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This discussion should be happening on the article's talk page, so I'll move this whole section there and we can continue there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump's consciousness of guilt speaks loudly
On June 8, 2018, CNN analyst covering national security, crime, and justice and Former FBI Supervisory Special Agent Josh Campbell tweeted: In my years as an FBI agent, I never encountered an innocent subject who actively worked to obstruct an investigation that would have proved their innocence. 8 Jun 2018

Many RS have described his desperate attempts to obstruct justice as "consciousness of guilt". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Full Panel: After president's statements, 'apparently it's not illegal to lie to the American people'. MelanieN, thought you'd find this interesting. We're living in near-constant gaslighting times, where the WH is not trustworthy. In the cyber, propaganda and espionage war with Americans, most Republican politicians and Fox News have sided with Russia. Scary times. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Intelligence community's relationship to Trump
The open secret: (check the image) “Just tell us what Vladimir has on you. Maybe we can help.” 10 Jun 2018

Thesowismine, you asked a question which is best answered here because it would get into forum territory there. The international, not just American, intelligence community is in possession of much more knowledge about Trump's relationship to Russia and its proven interference in our election than you or I know, and we already know a lot, unless you watch Fox News. If so, then you've been kept in the dark. This involves him, his family, and his election campaign team, all of whom reported to him and acted in ways they knew he would like. Trump has always run a tight ship and no employee dares do anything that he does not order or which he might not approve. He is always "in the loop" about what they are doing. Many of the actions of his subordinates are being revealed, but it's more difficult to prove that he ordered their actions. That's what the investigation is trying to do, but just like with mob bosses, Trump always uses others to do his dirty work. They take the fall.

Here are some articles to read:


 * Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
 * Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
 * Trump–Russia dossier
 * Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)‎
 * Draft:Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign
 * Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia
 * Links between Trump associates and Russian officials
 * Trump campaign–Russian meetings
 * Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election

The American intelligence community and its leadership is traditionally composed of Republican, right-wing, conservatives, with some exceptions, but their work is strictly non-partisan. Many of the intelligence leaders, who are Republicans, are skeptical of Trump because of his relationship to Russia, and even Trump appointees are involved in investigating these Russian ties. A number have publicly stated they believe he is a pawn of Russia, and that Putin is blackmailing him. Many of his actions only make sense when seen in that light. He acts like a guilty man; he does things which help Russian, not American, interests; and he never criticizes Putin. The Trump–Russia dossier details some of the things he and his campaign have allegedly done which make him vulnerable to blackmail by Putin: secret meetings, illegal payoffs, use of bribes, perverse sexual acts, conspiracy, collusion, etc.

If you were a red-blooded, flag waving, patriotic, intelligence operative in the CIA or FBI, even if you were a Republican, and you had evidence that Trump was acting to further Russian interests and had received Russian help to win the election, would you like him or be skeptical of him ? What's the patriotic attitude? That's the situation Strzok found himself in. His personal POV was obviously slanted against Trump because of that knowledge, and he saw/sees Trump as a traitor, or something like that. He was also skeptical of Hillary Clinton, and he pushed for a much harder investigation of her, so, in spite of the comments he privately made to his lover, there is no evidence he misused his position to actually harm the Trump election campaign, and as soon as his texts became known to Mueller, he was fired and was no longer in any position to do anything to influence the investigation, which is strictly non-partisan. Mueller, who like Comey is a Republican, and many other Republicans, are now doing the right thing and investigating whether the accusations of collusion are true, and whether Trump is a Manchurian candidate or not. Unfortunately, most GOP politicians are not doing their duty. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear BullRangifer, as you noticed, Mr. Verhofstadt has quite a reputation for his peculiar sense of humour. — JFG talk 17:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. That image is ideal for a "write a caption" contest. Is he known for his wit? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes he is! Go to europarl.eu and watch some debates between Verhofstadt and Farage: epic trolling all around! — JFG talk 19:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 😂 Your TP has become almost as entertaining as the TP of EEng but much easier to navigate. You really should cite some RS to validate your claims, especially in light of what the OIG just revealed in a 500 page report, which none of us have read in its entirety.  How about waiting for some common sense, unbiased analysis before Mueller completely runs out of ways to prove unprovable conspiracy theories? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The OIG report is out: Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election: "President Trump rejected the report's conclusion that the FBI acted with no political bias against him, and he falsely claimed that the report "totally exonerates him" with respect to the Special Counsel investigation." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of hat
I saw you reverted my hatting of off topic discussion about editors and not content here with the summeray "Please don't do that". Why should this content not be hatted? PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of other comments more worthy of hatting, so it seemed inconsistent with the atmosphere in the discussion. Sometimes we allow a bit more, and sometimes a bit less. User:Drmies comment seemed pretty spot on. It addressed exactly the views expressed by several: anti-science, refusal to accept views because of supposed bias, anti-Obama, etc. Hatting should be reserved for truly egregious behavior. This wasn't. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was whining and opining about other editors that added nothing to the discussion except the chilling effect of an admin bitching about specific people and casting aspirations aspersions. As to others doing the same, feel free to hat those as well if they are not related to the discussion, that is the purpose of hatting. PackMecEng (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll just have to disagree on that. It's better to leave other editor's comments alone, except for egregious situations. This was minor. Griping is allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Was the admin casting turbocharged aspirations? — JFG talk 15:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL now that IS an embarrassment! PackMecEng (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm still baffled by how y'all see "opinion" in a medical journal and think that it's worth no more than an opinion you can have. I have yet to see one of you three (you know who you are) evince knowledge of how such journals work. You can say "it's not based on a formal peer-reviewed study and therefore it's worth less than something based on a formal peer-reviewed study", but you simply cannot say "the article is not peer-reviewed and there was no editorial oversight" because that is incorrect, and if you say that you don't know how it works. Nor can you say "oh it was written by someone who etc."--you might could say that if it was on that person's blog, but not if it is in a solid journal like this one. I mean, you can, and y'all did, but it lacks knowledge of reality. That sort of primary disassociation is allowed on Facebook, but here we shouldn't make judgments based on it. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just going by what secondary sources and the EPA call that essay. Also what RSN says about specific text purposed and WT:MED had to say about it. As explained before the peer-reviewed and all that come into play if it qualifies for MEDRS, which imo it does if you follow a strict interpretation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Chill, bro, we were almost having fun here. I'm tempted to hat the above followup about content, so we can have a chance to hold Bull's talk page to the exacting standards of drollery! — JFG talk 16:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At first I thought you said droolery. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am strongly offended at your egregious WP:COPYVIO of my likeness. Cease and desist, or prepare to endure the wrath of WP:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN. — JFG talk 17:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a serious issue, not fun. It's blocking progress at any number of AP-related articles. And it's no accident that would happen. Confusion, equivocation, misinformation, and half-truth are all in the interest of political actors who are inconvenienced by real scrutiny. So making light of it is actually the same thing as the initial obfuscation and the initial denial of Wikipedia sourcing and content policies. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just so long as you don't call me fat again, that one hurt. PackMecEng (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ubiquitous Trumpnado of deception?
While myriad very RS describe Trump's constant stream of falsehoods as "gaslighting", I find that term to often not fit the bill. What other terms better describe it? BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Wild Acceleration of Trump's False Claims

Please comment on Talk:Kombucha
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kombucha. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Michiko Kakutani on Her Essential New Book ‘The Death of Truth’
Michiko Kakutani on Her Essential New Book ‘The Death of Truth’ BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ‘The Death of Truth,’ by Michiko Kakutani

MfD nomination of User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources
User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rusf10 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied at MfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "The result of the discussion was: keep . Its SNOWING" -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Rusf10 (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Closed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

AE
Welcome to Arbitration Enforcement--Rusf10 (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow, you never give up, do you?, let me give you some advice: don't respond at AE. Others can judge for themselves what's going on. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a place where I'm supposed to respond, but yes, I've said what needs to be said. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't believe the Sandstein comment. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ... and another one while I was writing that. Good grief. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And that's for ONE comment! If I were a fringe editor who habitually was uncivil and pushed fringe POV, that would be another matter. Wow! Normally an ordinary block for 24 hrs suffices. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I could supply supporting diffs for every so-called "aspersion". I don't use such wordings lightly. They are precise, accurate, and can be vouched for by other editors, but that response, which does not AGF, but assumes the spurious accusations are true, leaves little hope for justice.

I considered providing a couple definitions for my use of the terms "fringe" (editors who hold minority positions based on uninformed POV and dependence on unreliable sources) and "snowflake". The latter has nothing to do with the common epithet used in American politics. The context in which I use it shows I'm referring to editors who can't take any form of criticism, even the lightest forms of instruction or disagreement, as is the case with the one who started the AE. They also scream "aspersions" whenever anyone responds negatively to their POV pushing. They can't take any form of opposition. I see now I should have done it, but I received advice to not comment anymore. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't dream of advising on a course of action for you, and I agreed with EEng's advice initially. For instance, I have never heard of the term 'Snowflake' in american politics, and I wonder of a small refutation by supplying the aspersions diffs you mention above ... ? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I never use the term snowflake, so I'm not really familiar with its other meanings. I just see Trump supporters accuse liberals of being snowflakes. Not sure what they mean. My use is totally unrelated to that context. I used it to refer to someone who is overly sensitive to any response other than complete agreement or silence. Such editors melt like a snowflake if one even looks at them, and admins usually tell them to grow thicker skin, at least that's been the historic practice here at Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Let me restate what I said earlier, more simply: IT'S GOING YOUR WAY SO CLOSE YOUR TRAP BEFORE YOU SCREW IT UP. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * True dat. Thou dost protest too much, including by email. "I'm not being DEFENSIVE, you just MISUNDERSTAND me, let me EXPLAIN AGAIN." — JFG talk 07:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "I'm reminded of a comic I saw once. A large, burly, hairy guy in a biker's vest is sitting at a bar, speaking. He says "I am a special snowflake and I am very sensitive. If you hurt my feelings I will kick your ass." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Heads of heatedness
I am serious about WP:HOTHEADS. Applying it avoids unbelievable amounts of DRAMAH. Takes some practice, and some re-reading before clicking "publish", and sometimes some ex post facto revision. I also didn't write it as some kind of stuck-up "grandfatherly advice", but as an exercise in moderating my own behavior. I made myself read it at least once per week. It's why I've gone from being, only about 4–5 years ago, frequently at ANI, AE, etc., and often recommended for year-long T-bans or blocks, even indefs, to being seriously considered by many people for ArbCom last election, and frequently getting "why aren't you an admin yet?" taps. I'm still a hothead (which is why I'll probably never actually be an admin or an arb), but no one's tried to "prosecute" me in years, and my wikilife has gotten much more pleasant. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When I read your comment, I thought it quite good (and I gave you a "thank") and looked at the essay. Pretty wise words. Thanks. I'm not someone who is commonly at dramaboards, and being dragged there by someone who does this to people for slight disagreements is disconcerting. A comment like mine in a discussion would, at worst, call forth a warning, not even a 24 hr block. For the clear evidence that the AE accusations are spurious and false to be completely ignored and a topic ban even considered is far outside normal procedure, even in the DS realm. It rewards misuse of AE and encourages spurious and false accusations. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 13:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your email. You are wise to take some rest and some time out; don't let wikidrama affect your personal life. SMcCandlish's essay is indeed good advice. Also, if/when you decide to post further, try and stop being so defensive: it weakens your arguments. — JFG talk 14:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I AM NOT BEING DEFENSIVE ! STOP SAYING THAT! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * LMAO! Thanks for the light relief. Much needed. On a serious note, how does one defend oneself without being defensive? Seriously. My Aspergers gets in the way here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For example, don't say "I apologize for the way I voiced my concerns, but I still have those concerns. And they are big and legitimate concerns. Am I not allowed to be concerned? Gee, of course everybody should be concerned! Why the hell am I being attacked for being rightfully concerned? This is so unfair and chilling." (paraphrasing from your latest post in Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump). Just say "I went overboard and I understand your concerns. Sorry." — JFG talk 15:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I think the overly harsh stance Sandstein is taking with you has more to do with the rising frustration many of us are feeling with AmPol. I've unwatched every political page on my list, except those also dealing with fringe or conspiracy theories, and I still start to seethe a little when the topic comes up.
 * Bull, I think your comments were beneath you, but as I said at AE: they're well out of character for you and not something that demands harsh penalties. I suggested a 1-week topic ban there as more appropriate than Sandstein's suggested indef one, mostly because I think you deserve a break from the dumpster fire that is AmPol, and I know exactly how hard it is to just step back on one's own. You've done very good work, and IMHO you're one of the best editors working in that topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wise words... and thanks. It's a shame that I have to goof up to get such good advice, but that's life. My whole life has been that way. I'm not a super genius Aspie, just a normal genius one, but I don't have that gene that helps me understand the impact of what I say. I have only learned (quite imperfectly) through life's experiences, and it's been fucking hard! I sometimes joke that I'm the product of my parents' fucking mistake, quite literally. My two brothers are much older, so I grew up alone and managed myself from the time I was about nine years old. My parents were 40, and completely tied up with their careers, when I was conceived through their fucking mistake, and I grew up alone, rather clueless (wasn't even allowed to watch TV), and without help in many areas. It's been tough, but I fortunately married well. At least one person loves me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Best thing a man can do for himself is marry a good woman. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Even though Aspergers runs in both families, my wife seems to have escaped the worst aspects. Her niece and our son are both invalids because of it. They can't work, so they receive pensions in Denmark. Her aunt and uncle never married. The aunt was a college professor and super genius, speaking many languages (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, German, English, French, Swahili, Russian, and more). She loved to travel and learned the languages where she traveled. We figure she died as a virgin. (Isn't that sort of a living death? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sandstein has a strong tendency to run directly to one-year or indef sanctions. In my post up top, guess who was proposing those for me? Seemingly every other time I stop by AE, he's doing it again to someone else, usually a long-term valuable contributor, while letting obvious disruptors escape.  I just don't get it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I chime in with these editors. (Just to point at the first one--I knew SMcCandlish as the hothead they said they were, and I always thought that got in the way of the good work they did. I feel very differently about them now.) I found the comments to be uncharacteristic of you (though I don't know you that well) and probably spurred by the moment, but they deserve to be addressed. I don't agree with Sandstein's proposal but I do think there are things you can do to help yourself, esp. in regard to Melanie. Take care, and take it easy. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. I have to leave now and will respond later. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

, maybe I'm reading your comments wrong at the article talk page, but I'm guessing you wrote what you did to MelanieN because you were concerned for her and were not trying to belittle her. It seems maybe that stemmed from you respecting her as an admin as well as an editor. Your comments were well-meant just not well-expressed (and not in the right venue). Is my assessment correct? <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 17:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Got a minute here... Yes, that's exactly what's happening. I'm not worried or concerned for others, but it's because I respect, admire, and care about her that those types of feelings got involved here. I never express myself that way for other editors. No attack was intended, just genuine concern. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Didn't expect to see an actual thread here. Anyway, wanted to say this is a helluva good essay, very well backed-up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning
As discussed at WP:AE, I have closed the enforcement request regarding you without imposing sanctions, but with a warning that if you persist in making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, you may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions. This is not a joke. I was shocked that a veteran editor like you would make comments like that. We all must absolutely treat other editors with respect and civility under all circumstances, just like we would our co-workers or our family, even if we think the others are absolute idiots or malicious disruptors, or if they are incivil themselves. If you think that your personal circumstances, some of which you allude to above, can make this difficult, then I advise you to consider not editing in politically charged topic areas at all. Regards,  Sandstein   20:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cranial electrotherapy stimulation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cranial electrotherapy stimulation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Special discretionary sanctions
Please be aware that you are now subject to the following sanctions:
 * The No Personal Comments sanction and Thicker Skin sanction outlined at User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions

These sanctions are for the topic area of post-1932 politics for a duration of 1 year. The sanctions have been imposed based in part on your actions leading up to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive239 and continued comments about users who had been 1-way interaction banned from you.

These sanctions are imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 and will be logged here. Violations of the sanctions will trigger the enforcement procedures outlined at User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions. Note that you are extremely unlikely to be topic banned or blocked for accidental violations of the sanctions, provided you are willing to correct your own mistakes without administrative intervention. Also note that these sanctions are intended to enforce good behavioral norms that you should probably be observing anyway.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here, or directly to me. Please contact me with questions or if anything of the above is unclear. P.S. Apologies if this seems a bit out of the blue, it's something I had decided to do weeks ago but only now had the time to finish up. ~Awilley (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)}}


 * I'm dubious about this result of that AE discussion. IMO it was a vexatious gotcha filing, and closing it with a warning seemed unnecessary to me at the time. Opinions can vary, of course. I'm not asking you to change your mind, but would you mull over it, please? Bishonen &#124; talk 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC).
 * Bish: You've been adminning politics for at least a couple years now. The whole area's worse and it's about to get a lot worse with the midterms. Maybe a new team with a new approach isn't the worst idea. My 2¢ 2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, that's not the only reason for the sanction. One of the other reasons, that I didn't mention above, was [[User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources|

that essay]] in their userspace that has been the cause of much bickering between factions, with some editors misinterpreting the essay as saying Trump supporters are unfit to edit Wikipedia. While the essay does contain some good arguments, I wanted to make sure it didn't again find its way into Article Talk space. I would have very similar concerns about User:Lionelt (apparently on wikibreak) pushing that userspace scorecard purporting to show that admins on Wikipedia are biased because among other things they haven't topic banned Volunteer Marek despite him being frequently reported to administrative noticeboards. There is probably a place for material like that, but it's not on article talk pages where things work best when editors focus on content instead of each other.


 * Anyway, I'd like to hear from BR. If they intend to do all the stuff in the sanction anyway then the formal sanction and logging might not be necessary. ~Awilley (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Awilley, I take note of your comment: "I wanted to make sure it didn't again find its way into Article Talk space ." Don't worry. Even though it was a SNOW KEEP (opposition to the essay is thus against Wikipedia's interests), because the essay is very relevant to Wikipedia and accurately describes a systemic bias and constant problem (read the comments at the MfD), I don't think I've mentioned it since that diff in April. I have also revised it since then. Practically no one knows it exists or looks at it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in no condition to reply right now, as I'm recovering from severe jet lag and 28 hours without sleep. At my age that's tough. I will provide this diff showing the result of the MfD on my PRIVATE essay was a Snow keep. When I'm feeling better, I'll try to reply here. I'm still in a state of shock, having discovered this on my cell phone during a moment while waiting for our baggage. Needless to say I have no idea why this appeared and what or who motivated it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Take care and get some sleep. Sorry about the shock. ~Awilley (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks. Knowing you, I'm sure you put some thought into this, and I'll consider your good intentions when studying what this is about. I'm sure there's some good advice in there. Can't get too much of that! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been convinced that the sanction is not necessary in this instance. ~Awilley (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bless you. Much appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to strike the whole thing or just part of it? PackMecEng (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All. Weird that didn't work. I guess there's a difference between and . ~Awilley (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree with Awilley striking these sanctions. I'm fairly convinced that you would abide by them of your own accord in any case. You've always been one of the "good ones" and the incident which sparked this was very much the exception, not the rule. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

I'm not trying to get you in trouble, I'm just really confused. -GDP ⇧  05:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a recurring problem for you. To avoid it, follow the advice you have received from many and refrain from editing controversial topics until you know how things work here and know how to vet sources. You currently think unreliable sources are reliable, and RS are unreliable. That's a competence issue.
 * If you aren't trying to get me in trouble, then why did you file a report at AN/I? I won't believe you unless you withdraw it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Generation Rescue
I dont think an organisation has to be legitimate to be classified as a mental health organisation. It's concerned with mental health, however misguided it is. In the same way we would include proponents of other discredited theories.Rathfelder (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. What are the criteria for being considered a legitimate "mental health" organization? Do they claim to be such? Are they legally registered as such? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No idea. It was you who introduced the idea of a "legitimate mental health organization".Rathfelder (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If we don't have proof from independent RS (should also be used in article) that it is, then we shouldn't include it in the category. Otherwise we can. That's my opinion. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources clearly show it is concerned with autism. They don't talk about legitimacy.  But nor do the sources for other articles in the category. Rathfelder (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We can either have strict inclusion criteria, or unsourced OR inclusion criteria. We can be sloppy or keep a tight ship. I'd support that RS are still the determining factor. If they are registered as such an organization, that should be good enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 08:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there is no system in the USA or elsewhere for registering mental health organizations.Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe there's something here:
 * https://www.aha.org/2011-02-07-national-mental-health-organizations
 * https://www.nationalregister.org/resources-links/psychological-organizations/

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I think a list compiled by the American Hospital Association doesnt confer legitimacy. The National Register of Health Service Psychologists issues credentials - but I think there are other rival bodies issuing different credentials. My point is that as far as Wikipedia is concerned to classify an organisation is not to legitimise it.Rathfelder (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Warning - Inappropriate use of Rollback
Using rollback to revert legitimate edits isn't allowed Rollback. If you want to keep it don't do that. 199.127.56.120 (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first edit sure looked like typical drive-by IP vandalism to me, so rollback was proper. Your edit summary doesn't seem to be true at all, considering this: "Why Have So Many Daily Caller Writers Expressed White Supremacist Views? Revelations that Daily Caller writer Scott Greer also published material on a site founded by white supremacist Richard Spencer aren't the first of their kind." Snopes ref.
 * It looks like User:Volunteer Marek's edit was correct. Is there something about the wording that should be improved? If so, then follow our WP:PRESERVE policy and tweak it; IOW don't delete it with a deceptive edit summary like you did. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * With 60K edits you know damn well headlines aren't citable. Now that that's straight my edit sure don't look like typical drive-by IP vandalism does it? Look dude just don't let it happen again and if it does don't lie about it because that makes it worse. 199.127.56.115 (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I only cited the headline for you to quickly demonstrate the subject of the Snopes article. Just that headline shows your edit summary wasn't right. Red flag. Upon further examination of the contents, it turns out that, like most good headlines, it accurately sums up the content of the Snopes article, and that the content added by VM is pretty good. You have no case, so drop the attitude. You now have three experienced editors who disagree with your deletions. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 13:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked the articles again and the several past writers claim isn't in either so it's OR but that's a discussion for the talk page. I posted here to remind you that using rollback to revert legitimate edits isn't allowed. The right response is yes, I'm sorry, it won't happen again. 199.127.56.120 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, drop the attitude. We try to keep a collegial atmosphere here. We are supposed to be on the same side, all trying to improve the article, therefore the adversarial tone isn't appreciated. Also AGF. From all appearances, your first deletion did appear like typical drive by IP vandalism. You must be able to see that. What might be some deeper issue was not apparent at the time, and in fact has not been made clear yet. Multiple experienced editors aren't buying your edit warring over this.
 * Next, deletion is against the WP:PRESERVE policy. Period. The content is properly sourced, so the proper approach is to tweak the wording to match what the sources say. If you think the wording and the sources aren't in sync, and the sources obviously do touch on a very similar theme and are suitable for use, then you should have tweaked the wording, not edit warred over it. Your job is to seek to use the sources and preserve the good faith efforts of fellow editors. Now the article is semi-protected, and that's good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Snopes wrote an entire paragraph each (with headers!) about four different writers for the Caller who turned out to have WS chops. I guess you missed that entire page's worth. Oh, and the note that this wasn't the first time in the opening paragraph. And the two other mentions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Four, actually. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 199.127.xx, it's interesting that you edit war on the article to keep your version, without setting foot on the talkpage — and somehow you think it's appropriate to come here (one minute later) and try to hector BullRangifer about his one revert and about "a discussion for the talkpage" (really?). Please use a different tone, and log in to your account. Unless it's blocked, of course. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC).

Jane Mayer edits
Response to BullRangifer: Have you posted a similar message on the pages of users who keep reverting edits on the same page? As you can see, they persist in posting information that is contradicted by the primary source: the Pulitzer organization. No, wait, you yourself are one of those editors! I've asked repeatedly that people take this to the talk page instead of continuing to post the unfounded (and apparently inaccurate) information.148.75.126.156 (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the article's talk page. See my comment there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You stalking me
Trying to fix all my mistakes? Well, what if I want those mistakes to stick around, ever think about that?? ;) I appreciate it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL! We watchlist a lot of the same articles. I need to prune my watchlist again. It's crawled up to 1,076. It used to be over 10,000. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think mine's about 1700 now... Highest it's ever been was 4k, but the vast majority were pages that some tool automatically watched for me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump 'dossier' stuck in New York, didn't trigger Russia investigation, sources say
This has content which should be included in some way:


 * Trump 'dossier' stuck in New York, didn't trigger Russia investigation, sources say

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

CNN controversies
Hello, you reverted my edit to CNN controversy, saying it was not reliable or neutral. Could you please explain how so in the CNN controversy talk page? --1.136.107.10 (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Verifiability
I will take your talk page comment as sufficient at least for not WP:STONEWALLING, but you MUST provide a citation for the sentence you restored after I challenged the verifiability of that line. Pick a reliable source, ANY reliable source, that supports the definition on that line and cite to that. I've used my one revert already today, so I will not violate 1RR to revert you, which means I have no choice but to go to WP:ANI if you don't self-revert or provide a citation. -Obsidi (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You've been around here for a while, but with relatively few edits for all those years. You're not a newbie, but you're acting like one. That's disappointing.
 * Don't you understand that you aren't just adding something, you are removing something as well? You are replacing wording (based on properly sourced content in the body of the article) with wording that means the opposite. You can't just do that without a strong consensus, and no matter how right you might be, and backed with a thousand RS, you must not do it without a strong consensus, and you don't have it.
 * BTW, in the lead we don't need to use the sources, since they are in the body, so I don't need to satisfy your failure to read the article.
 * You're trying to push your belief in this conspiracy theory, and as a believer you really shouldn't be editing the article, since you obviously can't do it neutrally, so be careful. Some admins here will topic ban you. Beware the boomerang
 * You have the deep state article where you can add this stuff, and the article about the NYT op-ed. That's where you need to go. That you believe the conspiracy theory is a factual reality is against what the RS we use in the article say. You're welcome to believe that personally, but you must not allow it to affect your editing. Unfortunately you're allowing it to control your editing . That's not right.
 * Did you notice that I did use your source, and did it in a manner which does some good, without changing the direction of the article? It's important to document that so many Americans believe in this conspiracy theory. That doesn't make it true. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you used my source or not, I care that we comply with WP:V. Per: MOS:LEADCITE The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. I wouldn't have a problem with the definition, if it was somewhere else in the article cited to a RS, but I do not see that. Specificlly that line talks about it being used in "Republican and conservative political messaging" which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Likewise it defines the term as "influential decision-making bodies believed to be within government who are relatively permanent and whose policies and long-term plans are unaffected by changing administrations" which is not elsewhere used in the article. In fact, the first line of the section entitled "Definition" is defines the term as "a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process." Do you want to change it to that definition? I don't care whatever definition it is right now, but whatever it is needs to be based on a RS. -Obsidi (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't you get it? The lead summarizes the body, IOW it literally synthesizes it. The body is not about the normal definition of "deep state", but about conspiracy theories about it. That makes it rather different than a normal definition. That's why it talks about it as a GOP and right wing POV, mostly after Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The definition you're pointing to is the normal definition of deep state, so it's in the body for explanatory purposes, but the article isn't about that concept, so it doesn't belong in the lead. That type of definition is found in the deep state article, where it's properly used in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well if that is the case we should make that clearer in the text, because it doesn't say that right now. But still the definition as "influential decision-making bodies believed to be within government who are relatively permanent and whose policies and long-term plans are unaffected by changing administrations" is nowhere else in the article. I'm not saying it isn't correct, but we must have a cite to a RS for it. -Obsidi (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. I saw no problem since the two definitions are really very similar, but since the second one, in the body, does have a ref, why not just substitute it, with the ref, so this problem won't arise again? Probably best to wait 24 hours. I won't object. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, it would come after "In the United States the term "deep state" is used in Republican and conservative political messaging to describe a conspiracy theory" [then the quote]. None of that intro changes. The quote from the body is from a GOP politician, so it fits nicely. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That would satisfy my WP:V concerns. -Obsidi (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsidi (talk • contribs) 04:20, October 15, 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Here: No_original_research/Noticeboard -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

mon dieu
When the time comes, I intend to quote your eloquence.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free, but beware that I'm pretty opinionated, and some see that as somehow evil. I trust you'll be wise in your choice of what to quote. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I shall do my best to be discrete. I know I'm fairly unbalanced when someone whose politics I agree with calls me "a horrible admin".-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * LMAO! Rouge admins, the best kind. I believe JzG is one. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * True the best admins are the ones that disqualify themselves to work in a topic area. PackMecEng (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The best was back during the Bush Administration when someone accused be of being a Republican stooge. When your own party hates the way you mop, you are probably mopping well.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As someone with an easily-identified political POV, I too adore the accusations I frequently get of being an alt-right lunatic, a rabid Trump supporter or a right-wing POV pusher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We all know that you are the biggest fringe far-right alt-right fascist POV pusher on the site! Now I have proof for my various web forums about you! PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Various"? I thought it was just the one. Oh my, now I'm feeling flattered. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well clearly if it was just one that would be shutdown by "The Man™". So it is best to diversify. PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll have to tell my contacts in the Deep State to look out for the others, then. Seig fail! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon on "Jimmy Wales on bias and NPOV"
Saved here:

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:


 * "Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."


 * "What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t."

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience. We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology. We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy. We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology. We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults. We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles. We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls. We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment. We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields. We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism. We are biased towards medical treatments that have been shown to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We are biased towards NASA astronauts, and biased against ancient astronauts. We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology. We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Fact-checking Trump

 * PolitiFact


 * "Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter"


 * "Donald Trump's file"


 * "PolitiFact designates the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump as our 2015 Lie of the Year."


 * "Fact-checking Trump's TIME interview on truths and falsehoods."


 * "7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office."


 * FactCheck.org


 * Donald Trump's file


 * "100 Days of Whoppers. Donald Trump, the candidate we dubbed the 'King of Whoppers' in 2015, has held true to form as president."


 * "The Whoppers of 2017. President Trump monopolizes our list of the year's worst falsehoods and bogus claims."


 * The Washington Post


 * Fact Checker – The Truth Behind The Rhetoric, the Donald Trump fact-checker category in The Washington Post, by Glenn Kessler.


 * "Throughout President Trump's first 100 days, the Fact Checker team will be tracking false and misleading claims made by the president since Jan. 20. In the 33 days so far, we've counted 132 false or misleading claims."


 * "Fact-checking President Trump's claims on the Paris climate change deal"


 * President Trump has made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims


 * Toronto Star

The Star's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Dale, has been following Donald Trump's campaign for months. He has fact-checked thousands of statements and found hundreds of falsehoods:


 * "Donald Trump: The unauthorized database of false things."


 * "Confessions of a Trump Fact-Checker"


 * The Guardian


 * "How does Donald Trump lie? A fact checker's final guide."


 * "Smoke and mirrors: how Trump manipulates the media and opponents."


 * Fact-checker archives
 * PolitiFact
 * FactCheck.org
 * The Washington Post
 * Toronto Star

Trump's effect on editorial perceptions of reliable sources.
The "Trump effect" isn't just a "reverse Midas touch", alluding to the fact that whatever he touches turns to crap, whoever he associates with gets their reputation and credibility damaged, and themselves become (more) corrupt and compromised. No, it also has another meaning of special relevance to Wikipedia, and that's a serious problem.

Trump's war on the media has negatively affected some editors' perceptions of reliable sources and fringe sources. Many editors have lost faith in all the media and don't see the huge difference between sources like ABC News, CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times on one side, and Fox News, a partisan propaganda network, on the other. They think they are all equally biased. Even worse, a subset of Trump supporters completely distrust and demonize mainstream media, which are reliable sources, and place their trust in a limited number of very fringe and unreliable sources, most of which are so unreliable that we don't even allow them as sources here.

The Trojan horse in this slippery slope away from reliable sources is Fox News, which they trust, because Fox consistently supports and enables Trump, rarely reports anything negative about him, and parrots one-sided stories from fringe, fake, and Russian sources which defend Trump's and Putin's nearly identical POV and agendas. Wikipedia is complicit in this situation because we refuse to deprecate Fox, even though its unreliability and partisanship is well-documented.

Trump has said he attacks the media so people won't believe them when they report negative stories about his (dubious) actions, and we have editors who are incompetent enough to fall for that tactic. They are fringe editors who lack the competency needed to edit and comment on political articles. They should be topic banned.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BullRangifer (talk • contribs)


 * While I'm sure you know I'm in complete sympathy with your general attitude, I'm afraid I must disagree with your call for a topic ban for these fools, because even fools have something to offer. I'm going to suggest that you read Chapter II: OF THE LIBERTY OF THOUGHT AND DISCUSSION of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, but if you're in a hurry, here's Mill's own summary:


 * We have now recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any object is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * EEng, I love it! Mill is so right. There is much wisdom there. How that translates to Wikipedia is another matter. What editors believe is one thing, and we allow plenty of divergence there, but when they start advocating fringe views, without using RS, and start endlessly disrupting articles and discussions, we can't tolerate such disruption for long. That is when we use topic bans. That's all I'm talking about. Editors don't get topic banned for their political POV, or for their personal beliefs. They get topic banned because of disruptive behavior.
 * Elsewhere I'm developing what I saved above, and it will become part of an existing essay, where this part about disruptive behavior is already described. In that context things will be more clear. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mill would have been site-banned within a month of his arrival. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If he was disruptive, he would indeed. I've even helped get a Nobel Prize winner blocked here. We don't tolerate disruption. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Below is the improved version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Improved version
The "Trump effect" isn't just a "reverse Midas touch", alluding to the fact that whatever he touches turns to crap, whoever he associates with gets their reputation and credibility damaged, and themselves become (more) corrupt and compromised. No, it also has another meaning of special relevance to Wikipedia, because Trump's war on the media has negatively affected some editors' perceptions of reliable sources and fringe sources, and that is a serious problem.

Trump's supporters completely distrust and demonize the mainstream media, and some editors don't see the huge difference between credible sources like ABC News, CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times on one side, and Fox News and Sinclair Broadcast Group, which are partisan propaganda networks, on the other. They may say the media are all equally biased, yet they completely trust a limited number of very fringe and unreliable sources, most of which are so unreliable that we don't even allow them as sources here.

The Trojan horse in this slippery slope away from reliable sources is Fox News, which they trust, because Fox consistently supports and enables Trump, rarely reports anything negative about him, and parrots one-sided stories from fringe, fake, and Russian sources which defend Trump's and Putin's nearly identical POV and agendas.

Trump's motives for attacking the media are clear. Before a 60 Minutes interview, while Lesley Stahl and her boss were sitting with Trump, he began to attack the press. She then asked him why he kept attacking the press, and she later recalled his answer: "You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you." We actually have editors who are fooled by his tactic.

Worse yet, Wikipedia is complicit in this situation because we refuse to deprecate Fox for political subjects, broadly construed, even though its unreliability and partisanship is well-documented. We should send a strong signal to Fox News that Wikipedia will not lend its support to their deceptive reporting, and also a strong signal to Trump-supporting editors that they need to sharpen their crap detection skills. They should know better than to use crappy sources. Those who don't understand this are fringe editors who lack the competency needed to edit and comment on political subjects, and they should be topic banned if they get disruptive.

What editors believe is one thing, and we allow plenty of divergence there, but when they start advocating fringe views, without using RS, and start endlessly disrupting articles and discussions, we can't tolerate such disruption for long. That is when we use topic bans. That's all I'm talking about. Editors don't get topic banned for their political POV, or for their personal beliefs. They get topic banned because of disruptive behavior.

(Placing a full ref here so it shows up below. )


 * Maybe you should fill in your citation [3]. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the citation; I have now read it. It has Lesley Stahl paraphrasing something from memory that she says Trump said to her about 18 months earlier. There is no independent corroboration; I doubt she made the whole thing up, but we are relying completely on her memory of Trump's words and her interpretation of his meaning. Nevertheless you accept it as gospel, as undisputed fact, framing it as "Trump has described why he attacks the media:"and presenting Stahl's paraphrasing as if it were a direct Trump quote (since that's how you see it). Quite unintentionally and unconsciously, but as a result of your political leaning, you are guilty of the very same careless use of sources as you are condemning Trump-supporting editors of. It's highly unlikely it's an isolated occurrence. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If it were for an article I would word it differently and attribute it, but I can do that here as well, even though it's just an essay. No problem. I'll work on that. BTW, Trump supporting editors of the fringe type don't just use sources carelessly, they depend on views coming from unreliable sources. They start from a faulty foundation and things go even further downhill from there.
 * There is no reason to doubt her as she is infinitely more trustworthy and credible than Trump. To quote the famed MPants: "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We've discussed Fox briefly before. Unless and until you can sell the Wikipedia community on the idea that Fox is generally unreliable, your claims about about that are no different from Trump's "fake news" claims. I guess you're free to say it all you want in user space, which is easily ignored, but without the rigorous examination of a full public hearingcomplete with objective evidenceit will forever be just another biased viewpoint in my book. As far as I've seen, you've been wise enough to keep it off article talk pages for the most part. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's my viewpoint, one shared by many esteemed editors and admins here. Generally only fringe editors and strong Trump supporters disagree. Some day we should get it deprecated for political subjects, but I'm not pressing the issue, just expressing it as my personal POV. I do have that right. It's not a fringe POV, but one which defends the mainstream media and POV found in RS. That you don't see Fox's clearly partisan agenda (the ONLY reason it was created by Ailes!), as described in RS and by fact checkers (it rates last in reliability), as a problem, is worrying, but you also have a right to that POV. If you do see it as a problem, then I sure wish you'd express those doubts, because you're on the same side as fringe partisan alt-right conspiracy theory pushing hacks when you defend it, and I know you aren't such a person. You just aren't. With the exception of Shep Smith, it isn't even on the same playing field as normal journalistic sources. Fox Entertainment Group is even honest enough to classify Fox News as "entertainment", not news, and they did drop their deliberately misleading "Fair and Balanced" motto. Keep that in mind. They don't even pretend anymore, and yet they do.... -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My biased viewpoint about Fox is pretty much the same as your biased viewpoint about Fox. To me, that's completely beside the point when it comes to Wikipedia editing. It matters little to me how many editors share our biased viewpoint. I want to see all available objective evidenceI'm too old, lazy, and apathetic to do that legwork myselfand I want the opposition to have equal opportunity to provide theirs. If the evidence clearly supports our viewpoint but fails to get Fox marked unreliable, then Wikipedia truly is doomed as a neutral source of information, the whole thing is an enormous group fantasy, and it isn't worth fretting over. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I share that concern. If Trump's attacks on the media succeed in getting good sources equated the same as bad sources, then Wikipedia, and America, are screwed. Keep in mind he's carrying on a war against the very concepts of credibility and truth. If he can get enough people to think truth doesn't exist (that's the situation in Russia), then he succeeds in his goal and democracy, republicanism, a free press, and personal freedom are doomed. That result is Putin's aim for America and the world, a goal Trump shares. These are autocratic, authoritarian tactics. They are not new. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Trump has any such goals, or any goals at all. I'm serious. His only goal is gratification of his own ego – being able to say, "I won!" I don't think he cares what it is he won at. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You may well be right, and the fact he's friends with world leaders who do have these goals has no effect on his goals. Those consequences may just be the end result of an egomaniac with no restraints, as the system of checks and balances, and separation of powers, is no longer functioning as it should, and he likes it that way. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * For the avoidance of doubt I should say that Mill's philosophy applies here at Wikipedia to the discussion about articles (so that, ideally, all voices help decide what goes into them) not to the content of the article (because it's not the goal of Wikipedia to have its articles present the thoughts of the foolish on equal footing with those of the wise). Also note my use of ideally: it may not always be possible to extend fools unlimited opportunities to show themselves fools, because time and resources are limited and we cannot allow the functioning of the project, or any corner of it, to be jeopardized. But we should keep Mills' ideals in mind as a touchstone to which we aspire. Thus endeth the lecture. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good points. Yes, we should allow various views in discussions, but they need to be based on RS. If they aren't, then that part of the discussion needs to be discouraged. That's when we usually do things like hatting fruitless comments from editors who won't stop. My attitude for varied views in discussions is expressed in the box at the top of the page (with the image): "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." That's been my attitude for years. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Just stopping by to check in
Hey, I hope things in the real world are doing better/well these days. Springee (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Other than dealing with grumpy patients (people in severe pain don't act rationally), and those who are nearly dying, and then some back pain, a pretty good day. I survived! Here there are just the current stresses of trying to defend a new article from spurious attempts at deletion, even though it's a very notable subject. (Psst... Trump isn't exactly "honest" all the time. Who'd a thunk? Some editors think it's so minor a matter as to not deserve an article.) Some people persist, against multiple other editors, in insisting that their interpretation of policy is the only right one, even though a large consensus is against them. They can indeed start an AfD, and that's very disruptive. Let's hope they don't. If they do, well, their career at Wikipedia will be shortened. A boomerang (with notches they have put in it) may well do it. So yes, another day....
 * How about you? What's happening with you? What articles and issues are you dealing with? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Man, Trump articles are way to scary for me! Really I haven't had much time for extensive article development due to real world time commitments.  Extensive rewrites like the Ford Pinto article (the last big one I did) take more time than I can give.  It's that much worse when dealing with some of the hyper political topics.  Anyway, I may start going through some of my personal library and see if any of those books have interesting stuff that could be added here.  I'd like to do some race car related work but that again is hard due to sourcing.  For instance, even though the Swift DB-1 was one of the most influential race cars of all time I would have only limited sources that would count as WP reliable (The car effectively obsoleted all Formula Fords that came before it and marked the start of the fall of FF as a starter series for professional greats).  Most sources would be web pages published by those who were involved directly or as competitors.  I would have few published books/magazine articles on the subject.  That's too bad since there is a lot of good information out there and for at least a few people it would be very interesting stuff.  Anyway, glad things are going well.  I would wiki stalk your edits but I don't even want to enter the Trump debates!  :D Springee (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Synthesis
Please do not restore unsourced synthesis, as you did. If you think this is true, find a source that verifies it instead of adding your own personal analysis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the section, which is based on RS. What you deleted is an accurate summary of those sources. That's perfectly acceptable practice here. The summary does not violate the sources. If it really bothers you, you can add the sources. They're right there.
 * I'm not going to edit war over it, but the section is poorer without it. One editor created that content in three two edits, and when I read it I thought: "That's pure genius. Good prose." I've read many reviews, and it sums up their collective essence quite well, but in a general way which wisely avoids getting lost in the weeds of nitpicking speculation, or limited by the opinion of some particular critic. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Combining sources to come to a conclusion not found in any of them is the very definition of synthesis. Please read the linked policy: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.  In other words, I'm challenging that this is an accurate summary of the critical consensus.  Once I've challenged the unsourced analysis, it needs a citation.  You can't just restore unsourced content and say, "I think it's true." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very well aware of the policy. I'm no newbie. We just have a difference of opinion about what's in the sources, and whether the deleted content summed them up properly. I think it did a very good job. Each little part of that deleted content could be traced to one or more of the sources, and the sources cover a lot of territory. That summary did not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated" in the sources, just as little as a good lead does not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated" in the sources used in an article. At the time the content was added, that certainly seemed to be the case. I had read the sources that were in, or had been in, the article, and even more, and it rang true to the sources. I can't vouch for it now, so will let it lie as is. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, this is the disputed content:

Let's analyze each part of it:


 * "Bohemian Rhapsody


 * 1) received mixed reviews from most critics,
 * 2) but a more positive response from audiences;
 * 3) as many praised Malek's performance as Freddie Mercury
 * 4) and the Live Aid sequence,
 * 5) but criticized the film's real-life inaccuracies and direction."

Every one of those points is true and is (or was) covered in the sources. This was my only edit related to this content. I have no ownership feelings about this article. My only other edits (three) were reversions of vandalism.

If I had followed the method described in my essay, I couldn't have written that content better than   SizzleMan did. If I had done it, I would probably have used the sources in my summary. That's just my style (and we wouldn't be here).

SizzleMan's addition of that very nice introductory summary made that section better. Now the section immediately starts with a jolting tit-for-tat listing from a jumbled mess of sources. The section is poorer without that intro. We're encouraged to use good prose and writing style here. That's what was done, and what you rejected. It's not our fault that you were unfamiliar with the individual aspects told by the sources. We saw the summary as an accurate and faithful description of the sources, and you didn't. All you saw was an unsourced SYNTH violation. We have a difference of opinion that is seemingly based on knowledge or lack of knowledge of the sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello
I have heard through the grapevine that you have had some personal losses recently. I just want to wish you the best. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've heard nothing (don't even know where the grapevine is), but I'll add my condolences. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. It's much appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Gandydancer, please AGF and spare me the vitriol. I don't need the grief. I've got more than enough for several lifetimes. Right now nothing in life for many thousand people, my family included, is functioning normally, and won't for a very long time, maybe never. We're alive, barely. My memory is totally out of whack, and I was being polite. I finished my comment, and then later realized I hadn't pinged you. If you activated your email, I could explain. I have done so to Cullen328 and Mandruss. They understand. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You did nothing wrong--I was being overly sensitive. BR, I want you to know that some of us really do appreciate what you have done to keep WP's political articles honest and unbiased for the past two years.  I watch over certain articles, MT's for one, but you have been down in the trenches fighting the battle for all this time while I have stayed on the sidelines working on less difficult articles. In fact someone recently gave me a brownie for one and upped it to "a nice glass of whiskey" when I complained about how meager just a brownie was. OK, just hang in there while I go shopping for some fine whiskey...or perhaps there is something else or a special brand you prefer???  Best, Gandy  Gandydancer (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All of the above sounds good. Would that brownie have any "herb" in it? After 15 years here, that would be nice. (Actually, I haven't touched pot since 1973.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Just learned...
I don't know what happened, BR, just that something did - and I hope it has nothing to do with this issue. I stopped by to wish you the best, and I hope that whatever pain and sorrow you're dealing with now will soon pass. Kindest regards...<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 20:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fortunately that issue was handled and I seem to be in the clear. It's a very different type of issue. I'll explain by email. Thanks so much for your concern. You have a good heart. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

IP edit of Snopes
Regarding your remark to the IP editor of the Snopes article, please note that the last edit by that IP has not been reverted. (Maybe the IP's last edit is OK; I'm not sure.) —BarrelProof (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but how?
Not sure how to say "thank you" for your impressive work at List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations? Template:Trump Barnstar has, well, Trump on it. If you you like tea (or coffee), or maybe something with ethanol? Wiki-snacks? Or maybe Template:Curious cat, or even something less dignified and muckraker-ish (Hopefully you don't find it offensive, but as intended):  X1\ (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Love it! We have two dogs and one cat. The latter is missing in the Camp Fire (2018). We hope he survived and will be reunited with us soon. Life's a bit of a mess right now, but we're alive. Cats are one of those things that make life more special. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Holy shit!  I am glad to hear the rest of you are together.  Cats are semi-wild, really they domesticated us.  They are smart (except for string and laser pointers), so if your cat wants to re-domesticate you, they'll show-up.  Again, I am so sorry to hear of your intense challenges.  Thank you for continuing to edit here.   X1\ (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Editing here preserves my sanity. I just don't have as much time right now. Things will return to normal at some point in the distant future. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I saw you got busy a couple of days ago. Take care. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Being homeless is a busy situation. Time flies with seeking aid, meeting appointments, and waiting in long, long lines. If this were a normal "lost their home in a fire" situation, we'd be able to buy another home quickly and get on with our lives. In this area there is absolutely nothing available. Dumping 45,000 plus people, within a few hours, into a city of 90,000, just doesn't work. Every single rental, home, and storage container was immediately taken, with most people left without proper shelter. Many have left the area to stay with family elsewhere, but many are forced by other circumstances to stay in the area. We are among those. It's more difficult for us. We're safe, warm, and okay for now. This nightmare will end someday. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

History and Charges
Hi. A thought experiment. You are charged today with 10 felonies. On Monday, you are tried, and convicted of zero felonies. Do details of your charges appear in a BLP? I argue no. On the law side, American prosecutors follow RPC 3.8(f) and other rules, which make them say familiar lines: "These charges are only accusations and the subject is innocent until proven guilty in court." On the WP side, a BLP is a conservative account. A person known for crimes, as this Dutch man is, is only fairly known for crimes he committed. The encyclopedia shouldn't even mention charges that weren't proven. I recently removed 11,000 characters from Suge Knight's BLP of lengthy speculation about how he might have killed Biggie and Tupac. While a wiki is a powerful place for such speculations, none of them belong on Wikipedia. Maybe there's some kind of reach about "Folk tales about involvement in murders" but nope, I don't even think that fits here. Some facts don't go in the encyclopedia. In criminal matters, removing the pre-verdict noise helps history and the reader understand what the person is known for. Mcfnord (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What you left in the section "Murders of Tupac Shakur" is totally unacceptable. It makes no sense and is unsourced. Actually look at it.
 * You deleted very public history. Millions of people know about it. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, notable accusations, including false ones, must be described, and denials (per my change to that policy) must also be mentioned. When accusations are so publicly known, their resolution is important to document, and the dropping of charges, clearing, declarations of innocence, etc. are just as important, maybe more so, than the convictions of guilt.
 * Yes, due weight applies, and sometimes some paring is in order, but you have trashed the hard work of numerous editors and deleted many RS. Follow WP:PRESERVE and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We document the good and the bad. We document all aspects of the roller coaster ride, from start to finish. Yes, some of it can be summarized better, but get a consensus for such drastic changes. If your arguments are reasonable, other editors will welcome skillful reductions of fluff. Use the talk pages to show how a "before and after" actually looks, then get consensus for your proposed "after" version(s).
 * Right now you look more like a rogue, solo-editing, blind butcher than a skilled surgeon who works collaboratively and through consensus. You no doubt have thought about your edits and know exactly why you're doing it, but others need to be involved and understand your process. They are not obligated to accept it all on faith. Exercise caution when deleting properly sourced content. Look at it as the property of someone else, so remove or alter it gently and wisely. Of course it doesn't "belong" to anyone, but it represents the good faith hard work of other editors, so show some respect. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Editors work hard on good faith mistakes all the time. Amazing how I haven't thrown a single word away on Wikipedia, due to its advanced tracking system. But what belongs in a BLP?

I re-read BLP rules and it generally doesn't say what you're saying. Suge Knight, a notorious criminal, is known for many crimes (and some productive deeds). Speculation about who he murdered is outside the scope of BLP, unless perhaps contextualized that these are unsubstantiated claims. Where does Wikipedia allow unsubstantiated claims? And in a BLP?

To leave the factual statements about two men related to Death Row murdered is a better outcome than leaving speculation that a BLP murdered them.

That's my position, but I'm new. Regrettably, you haven't dissuaded me of much. WP:PRESERVE applies well everywhere except to BLPs. I expect together we'll be examining BLP brass tacks in the near future. Here we are, involved together to reach a consensus. Throughout WP, the details of a legal matter accumulate as they are discovered by the press. Where can I find a non-crowdsourced encyclopedia these days? And how will its coverage of 10 criminal charges resulting 1 conviction be covered? Not like a police procedural play-by-play, I imagine. So there's a typical pattern that requires routine culling after verdicts and plea agreements are established. To some degree, the matters of state, as represented in the Mueller investigation, may be different, but unproven claims simply aren't handled properly without modification by, say, some rogue. You can, roguely, if you wish, review my entire history of changes and roll back every last pattern of unsubstantiated claims removal, if you're that sort of rogue unpersuaded by my appeals to BLP rules. In time I hope we reach consensus about this particularly strict WP policy. Mcfnord (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. That's you. Regarding speculation that Knight murdered two men, is the work you reverted written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. This also applies to the unproven accusations you restored about the Dutch man. Call them charges or whatever you like. Mcfnord (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Where does Wikipedia allow unsubstantiated claims? And in a BLP?" Very specifically in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which ignores privacy. Public figures get little protection, unlike private persons, who are treated much more daintily.
 * These principles are also found in libel laws. Public persons can be libeled nearly at will in the USA, and they can rarely succeed in defending themselves in court, if the person making the injurious claims believes them to be true. Even worse is claims made on the internet. A specific law was made for that which protects anyone who republishes the libelous statements, even if they know them to be libelous. Only the originator of the false statements can be sued, and then still with difficulty. (See Barrett v. Rosenthal for more about that. It's an unfortunate ruling, IMO.) Many public persons just ignore the matter, and Presidents NEVER sue for libel (well, rightful presidents...IOW not Trump).
 * If the conditions mentioned at PUBLICFIGURE are fulfilled, then the claims, charges, rumors, libelous statements, whatever, should be documented here, but then your other words come into play (contextualize, write conservatively, attribute, etc.). Unfortunately for Suge Knight, his privacy is not respected, unlike non-public persons. If multiple RS have made the claims, then we are supposed to document them. That is from BLP. We are uncensored in many ways. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

We might not agree on how libel and criminal law work today, but at issue is how PUBLICFIGURE works. Also at issue is the neutrality of prosecutor statements themselves, and how they relate to court conclusions. Nine times out of ten, the court's conclusion is the best, most neutral summary of events, so much so that inclusion of unsubstantiated charges post-conviction violate UNDUE. I'm still not decided about non-conviction details (like arrests and charges) of PUBLICFIGUREs, but see many problems with their emphasis as neutral explanations of alleged crimes. I don't think PUBLICFIGURE changes that much for me. Mcfnord (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if/how the notifier works, but I've written to you here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alex_van_der_Zwaan

This man's not PUBLICFIGURE due to having one sole involvement in public discourse. I'm sure we can agree to collapse his noteworthy facets into the Mueller narrative. Or let's quibble about your preference for listing his criminal charges. We can start there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Joe was charged with Foo.

After conviction, reflexively change to:

Joe was charged with Foo, but the court found Joe not guilty of the charge.

Charges are clouds you might want in front of your clarity. If you want them, then after conviction, each charge should be challenged, if indeed it feels important to keep. You can go look up whether the charge was substantiated. Until you do that, or someone does that, it's conservative to doubt the claim. This seems like the logical progression of conservative biography. Maurice Clemmons is a subject I want to fold into his singular claim to notability, the 2009 Lakewood shooting. Take a look at the 2009 shooting page, under Accomplices. I've been trying to finish that, but unless the topic is prosecutorial miscondict, it's critical in that mess to find conclusions rather than mistrial after mistrail. Fundamentally, listing charges without immediately connecting to resolutions of those charges (when known) is not conservative. We cover the conclusions, and can't let interstitial claims and views (especially claims of fact untested by trials) get in the way and mislead readers about what history, not the various daily speculations, substantiates.

You have written quite a bit, and clearly have developed informed views. At some point you'll return from real life to attend school here with me regarding conservative BLP magic. Accept my Alex van der Zwaan change because it's on the money. That private man, notable for one thing and not deserving of a page, deserves conclusive, rather than speculative and often sensationalist, coverage of his criminal deeds. Prosecutors can be sensationalist, too. Courts, not prosecutors, qualify as NPOV sources in biographies. Mcfnord (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like our collab isn't working well. How many will you harm by subverting BLP principles? Let's go to Wikipedia court! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 02:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop treating this disagreement like a battlefield. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Start responding to specific concerns. Mcfnord (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It's The Truth
Re:

Debates about the Truth are debates with no possible resolution except for a count of the number of editors on each side; i.e. a democratic vote. Truth has no basis in Wikipedia policyfor good reasonand by going there you validate a lot of the other extra-policy arguments that occur in these discussions. I just stick to RS and leave the word Truth out of it. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  18:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. We go by verifiability, not truth, but with this subject, we're dealing with verifiable, RS, documentation of falsehoods debunked by the facts, and that produces the hard data statistics which we get from fact checkers. So yes, I understand what you're saying, and it's certainly something to keep in mind, but I'm not fighting for "the truth", but for our daring to properly use the abundant verifiable documentation of his falsehoods. We have been far too reticent to use them to actually state that Trump "lies". We've even created ad hoc, non-policy-based, special exceptions for Trump, rules we haven't used for other presidents, to avoid using the words "lie" and"liar", even though RS were using them. That's completely non-NPOV editorial behavior. We should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing fringe Trump editors, who don't follow RS, to trump our practices in their efforts to protect him. That's simply BS. We are not Trumpipedia. We are not Alternative Facts Central. Chuck Todd was right: Trump's alternative facts are indeed falsehoods.
 * The "misleading" statements are obviously a bit of a gray area, but like the outright lies and falsehoods, we stick to the RS and their choice of wording, whether it's falsehoods, lies, liar, misleading, exaggeration, gaslighting, etc. The days of refusing to call Trump a "liar" are over. If he should and can know better, then we don't care if he actually does know. We don't care about determining his motives anymore, since his main motive is to do whatever, no matter how dishonest, to deceive in order to win. That's all he cares about. Truth is never a factor in his thinking. If he repeats a lie again and again, then we call him a liar, and that's what he does all the time. Fact checkers even created a new category because of him (and he's the only one who inhabits that region, as normal liars don't go there), the Bottomless Pinocchio. Wow! That's reserved for someone who has zero credibility, no moral compass, "no external reference points" (Comey's description), and no respect for truth.
 * BTW, I want to thank you again for your help in the situation we're in. You have no idea how much that means. Things are starting to look up. There is hope ahead. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Dossier
Hi, BR. About that essay-sized edit you were proposing to make to the dossier article (and I admit I didn't read all of it, and probably nobody did; it kind of defines TL/DR): I am willing to see if it can be trimmed down to a usable section in the article. Where do you propose I do that? Not at the talk page, certainly, but someplace where we can both work on it and talk about it. How about putting it in a user space draft under your own name? Might you consider first trying, yourself, to look at it with a critical eye toward trimming it?
 * P.S. Oh, I found it: it's in sandbox 5, right? Where we can see that it would add another 30 kb if added to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you got my ping, I assume. Please read the whole thing before you start. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

As you can see I have been working today on trying to trim some of the bloat from the article, which at 225 kb is much, much bigger than it should be. For comparison the entire Donald Trump article is 386 kb. There is a lot of unnecessary detail, and some redundancy because the same subject is discussed in several places. I'm inclined to continue working on that, a section at a time, and maybe tackle the conspiracy theories material later. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we need to keep something in mind when comparing article size. Trump has a million subarticles, whereas this is just one article to cover a very notable subject that's still mentioned every single day. It is the key and roadmap for the whole Russia investigation. Just keep that in mind. It's very important. Also try to save the references. Such BLP sensitive stuff must have multiple sources, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Otherwise, simplifying is often welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Annual DS alert refresh - American politics
― Mandruss  &#9742;  18:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

AE
There is a discussion involving you at Arbitration Enforcement--Rusf10 (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Do not email me
I do not appreciate insulting emails sent to me. Do not do that again. Keep it here onsite.--MONGO (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, you insulted me here at Wikipedia, and I didn't want to do this publicly. It's your choice, so next time you say I have a tendentious editing history, at least notify me and back it up with evidence. I would love to improve, and if I've violated any policy in my editing, I would really appreciate help to improve. That's part of what collaboration is all about. We should try to help each other, so your aggressive response really isn't helpful. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

For context, here's my email, which included this diff, which won't work in the quotebox:

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All I can do is await your next insult and wait till someone takes you back to AE where it will be summarily swept under the table all because you have struck it. Last thing I do is defend anything fringe.--MONGO (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you going to help me at all? You apparently see me as tendentious. In what manner? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Come on BullRangifer. You're being coy.--MONGO (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Between the two of you, MONGO, you're the only one calling the system corrupt because it failed to see things their way. That constitutes a disdain for Wikipedia's version of rule of law, and that's all I need to know. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandruss, no idea why you keep following me and commenting with your insults. But if this is your standard operating procedure, since I do not watchlist many userpages, how about you ping me or show up at my talkpage and have a discussion there, rather than chiming in places such as this.--MONGO (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't how it works. Any editor is allowed to chime in on any user talk page, for any non-disruptive reason, unless the page's "owner" has asked them not to. There are few private conversations on-wiki, certainly none on user talk pages, and to take it to your talk page would have taken it out of contextand made it a bigger deal than it needed to be. You're hardly the arbiter of what editors say on BullRangifer's talk page. I hardly "keep following you" anywhere, criticism is not insult, and I daresay you dish out more than you receive. Have a great day! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandruss is very welcome here, and any contructive critics are welcome to participate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MONGO, if you were to check the interactions between me and Mandruss, you will find that Mandruss doesn't always agree with me or my actions, and their constructive criticism is very treasured. I hold Mandruss in high esteem as a good editor, a collegial and collaborative editor, and a compassionate human being with good values. When Mandruss speaks, I drop everything and listen! From my experience, I suggest you do the same when they speak. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to check your interactions with anyone except me. Same applies to this Mandruss character. You all should be reading what a FA level writer has written about how we use RS, what constitutes a BLP and what qualifies and quantifies a FA rather than a self appointed arbitrator that has performed 3K edits to an article that remains far below par for even a GA rating, much less FA. Mandruss stifles discussion at the Trump article because he basically has arguments with everyone yet has nothing substantive on his wiki resume to lead me to believe he has any idea what it would take to get such an article to a high level. Why would I waste my time listening to him? I proofread the Hillary Clinton article at FAC 5 times before I agreed that it met FA standards and I could have easily roadblocked that article but I didn't. That's a level of commitment and nonpartisan participation I do not see you doing BullRangifer but sure do hope you prove me wrong.--MONGO (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

MONGO, unfortunately(?), being coy isn't part of my nature. Maybe it should be! Seriously, I'm well aware that being tendentious comes in many flavors and shades, some truly serious, others much more subtle, and some that are simply differences of opinion. Like assholes, we all have them, and it's okay to have opinions, as long as we don't violate, or work against, policy. OTOH, expressing opinions against our policies and/or contrary to what's found in RS, or not bowing to the wisdom of the community's decisions is tendentious, and I don't think I've been doing that.

I truly need your insights on the matter. I'm not in the best position to understand myself. We all need to "see ourselves as others see us," and when someone like you expresses a concern, my first reaction is to take it seriously and ask for more insight.

Collaboration here would be great. Please help me. What things about my editing are tendentious? Are they just irritating, or are they against our policies? (I'd like to know about both.) I hope you can enlighten me so I can do something about it to become a better editor and human being. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway. You crossed the line with the Rusf10 comments, and it appears you accept that. Outside of behavior complaints and user talk pages, we can't personalize things even when we're right (I'm not claiming to be perfect in that regard). (That's not saying that I think you were necessarily "right" in that case; I know very little about Rusf10.) I think you and others make too many comments presenting your views as fact (Trump is...), when we need to stay completely focused on sources (RS says Trump is...). I disagree with you on a few things about editing and policy issues, but I generally don't see these things in black-and-white. Most important to me, you appear to make an attempt to collaborate and follow the rules, and I take your openness to criticism as sincere. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your frankness. We need more constructive criticism. I can build on that. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry BR - I wish I could offer some"constructive" criticism, but I can not as I've been unable to follow all of the contentious Trump articles closely as I'd have little time to do much else. But I continue to follow them to some degree. I will say this:  Many times I have been very appreciative to have such a hard-working editor diligently working on our Trump articles in an attempt to keep them truthful and unbiased.  It concerns me that too many good editors will just cave in and let bias take over... Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's okay. If you at any time feel I'm stepping outside our behavioral guidelines or editing in a tendentious manner, feel free to shoot me an email. I'd really appreciate it. The advice of experienced editors is always appreciated. None of us deliberately do these things. We just get caught up in the heat of the moment, get tunnel vision, or otherwise lose track of the big picture, and then we do less than the best work. We need each other's POV on these things, so friendly, constructive, criticism is welcome to bring us back on track. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings about this "we need each other's POV" philosophy. I don't think it's necessarily a bad way of approaching things, but I also don't think it's the best. Certainly encountering the points of view of others can help you discover your own blind spots, and making the effort to actually understand and empathize with multiple points of view besides your own will enable you to better write neutral content. But I think it's a bit idealistic to expect editors in American Politics articles to say "Here's my POV, now you tell me your POV, now let's find a compromise that will fairly and proportionately represent all our points of view." I mean, that would be nice, but I don't think it's very practical, and there are more direct paths to writing good articles.
 * It is far better, in my opinion, for editors to completely set aside or compartmentalize their own points of view and, for the purposes of Wikipedia editing, to try to adopt the points of view of high quality sources. The best sources—particularly the academic peer-reviewed ones—tend to write from a dispassionate neutral point of view, so if you manage to channel that into your writing (both in articles and on talk) then you will also be following NPOV. I feel like most editors in this area dig up and use sources to support their own POV, using sources like game pieces or playing cards, trying to collect the best or the most. You make a contentious statement on a talk page, somebody challenges it, so you do a quick Google search and post links to the first 4 sources you find that support you. The other side does their own Google search and links their sources and you continue fighting it out. I would prefer to have that turned on its head. I'd prefer that you start by searching for the very best sources, absorb them, adopt their POV as your own, and then let that guide your editing. Become a POV pusher for a POV that is not your own. I've tried it before and it's actually quite satisfying because you tend to win a lot of arguments...not because you have the best sources on your side, but because you're consistently on the side of the best sources. ~Awilley (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 100% agreement regarding editing and sourcing, which seems to be your main focus. My comment isn't about that, but is a repetition, using other words, of my comment up above: "I truly need your insights on the matter. I'm not in the best position to understand myself. We all need to "see ourselves as others see us," and when someone like you expresses a concern, my first reaction is to take it seriously and ask for more insight."
 * While it's true that because of the fact we all "come from different places", and are thus more likely to be familiar with different sources, and in that sense "need each other's POV" so we get acquainted with good sources we may have missed, I'm not talking about that there. I'm talking about my need to see other's POV about my actions. If constructive criticism enlightens me to my blind spots, I truly appreciate it, because I certainly have them. Otherwise, your view about editing and sourcing is completely in harmony with my thinking. We are just talking about two different things. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear BullRangifer, we have been interacting for a long time, so I believe you know me well and I know you well, at least in the limited terms of our usual styles of editing and argumenting on this wonderful encyclopedia, and mutual respect has been established and confirmed repeatedly. As you are specifically asking for feedback on your personal behavior, I'll make an exception to my usual stance of refraining from commenting on editors. What I have found disappointing is your almost total predictability. Every edit of yours is perceived as pushing the narrative that one side is right and the other is wrong (and by the way here are 15 sources backing the "truth"). You're probably old enough to know that the world is not that black-and-white. Take a longer look at what your "opponents" are saying before dismissing them out of hand because "bad sources / bad people / bad reasoning / bad bad bad". The WP:POVFIGHTER section of WP:TEND describes your attitude very well when it asks "How often do you edit against your own bias?" Try it, surprise me, and perhaps you will surprise yourself! — JFG talk 14:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right that my talk page interactions could be improved, and I will take your wise advice to heart ("Take a longer look..."). Thanks for your honesty. Much appreciated.
 * BTW, my editing for the opponent may not always get noticed, but it often takes the form of quietly letting properly sourced content get added that I may initially find offensive, but allowable according to our policies. That's what we're supposed to do. We may not find such sources and content, but when someone does find such content and adds it properly, our duty is to protect and improve it, not just delete it because it goes against our personal beliefs. That's whitewashing, which is an egregious violation of NPOV. (I deal with this in my essay NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content.) I'll even tweak it to make it better. In fact, if it's from RS, such content tends to modify my existing views and gets incorporated into my core beliefs, IOW I let my views be guided by the sources. It may take time (even though I'm a scientific skeptic, I have the natural, conservative, tendency to resist change), but I'm duty-bound to follow the evidence and allow new evidence to change my understandings. Others may not notice it happening, but it does happen. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Nunes' folly
As the story went viral and the popularity of the defendant accounts soared, quickly exceeding followers of Nunes' own account, observers began citing this as a prime example of the Streisand Effect.

The public response included a summary by Brad Heath, DC Justice and Investigations Editor for USA Today, who described the suit: "Rep Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is suing Twitter because a fake cow was mean to him on the internet. (He's also suing the fake cow.)" Numerous others mocked Nunes on the internet.

Other commentators noted the irony of Nunes having previously co-sponsored the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act, with the Editorial Board of The Washington Post considering the suit "part of a dangerous trend":

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Creation–evolution controversy
Please see the discussion of the talk page at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy. What you call "summaries" included block cut-and-paste content without attribution. If you are going to restore it again, please use an appropriate edit summary to cover the copied text: Copying text from other sources. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll let others deal with it. I just like to see WP:PRESERVE followed, IOW improve and not delete. Mass deletion is lazy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, in general, but copy and paste is lazier. Pages like that have the ability to devolve into rebuttals of random creationist website claims which have not had appropriate scholarly review. I'll cite Articles for deletion/Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts as the model I don't want to see repeated. And sorry about leaving the section heading blank. BiologicalMe (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice
Rusf10 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be very careful with trying to promote conspiracy theories about why Roger Ailes created Fox News or what his intentions were. That's a BLP violation and consider yourself warned.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ailes is dead, so no BLP. You should do a bit of reading. This is old history, not conspiracy theories:


 * BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP still applies to the recently deceased.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. If these were undocumented or unusual claims you might have a point, but this is old stuff, from the Nixon library and is relatively old knowledge which has been discussed many times here at Wikipedia, with no one raising any BLP objections. You're the first one to raise such an objection, possibly because you weren't aware of this history. Ailes worked for the GOP. He was their chief message manager, so to speak. He had ambitions and, even if some of the ideas were from other members of the Nixon administration, he quickly ran with the ball, and after several attempts with GOP controlled "news" channels, he got together with Rupert Murdoch and they created Fox News as the fulfillment of his dream. The rest is history. Read all about it. Fox was never intended to be a normal "news" channel, and it has a very well-documented GOP bias, to the point of twisting facts and refusing to report on real news which was unfavorable to the party line, and now Trump, at least not without massive spin. Them's the facts, and pretty common knowledge here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you are so blinded by your own bias, you have no idea what you are talking about. No one is disputing Ailes was a Republican. Just like Ted Turner (former owner of CNN) is a Democrat. But statements like "he deliberately chose to side with the criminals" are not appropriate.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to disagree on that. My position in this case is based on known history and RS. It's a fact that Ailes chose to side with the Nixon administration (proven and convicted criminals) and made war against The Washington Post, the ones who had uncovered their crimes. I doubt that was accidental, do you? Ailes has always fought the Post, and he has used Fox News in those efforts. This is pretty obvious history, and hardly controversial. Start noticing. Fox and Trump ALWAYS oppose the Post as a source. Trump literally wages war against it. IIRC, he even uses the word "war" about it.

You will note that this battle against the Post as a source is carried on here at Wikipedia by editors who side with Trump/GOP/Putin and get their misinformation from Fox "News" and even worse sources. That too is an undeniable fact. Those who fight against the Post, which is considered one of the most reliable news sources in the world, are fighting against our RS policy and thus deserve to be labeled tendentious editors. We don't tolerate such editors well because they are fighting against the basis of all our content, which is RS.

Another, rather automatic, side to that story is, when they defend the misinformation pumped out by Fox News, they are also engaged in undermining our RS policy by supporting Fox News when it misinforms us.

My modus operandi in such cases is this: To be on the safe side, whenever we find good information on Fox News that's worth including here, we should stop and double check it with more RS. If it's not there, it's not worth including. If it is found in such sources as The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, The Guardian, etc, then use them as the source and don't use Fox News as the source. That's the safest procedure. My priority is to use good sources and avoid bad ones. I hope you share that goal. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post is "one of the most reliable news sources in the world", don't make me laugh. Even the liberal Huffington Post has called out the Post for bad reporting. --Rusf10 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Try taking that attitude toward the Post to WP:RS/N and see what happens to you. You don't like the Post's factual reporting and POV? That's one thing (when it's at a personal and unvoiced level), but dissing them publicly like that? You're fighting against our RS policy and showing an unfortunate attitude toward a major RS.
 * Yes, every single news source can make mistakes, but they have an excellent track record and they correct their errors. They don't make a habit of spending most of their time on an unfactual propaganda path, like Fox News.
 * You just happened to choose an unfortunate, and rather muddied, example. Myriad major news sources documented the same story, and fact checking backed it up. Of course, the Trump administration pushed back and unreliable sources performed "fact checks" to back them up. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post has a green check mark in the second column at WP:RSP. Unlike Fox News (news and website), it has no caveats in the fifth column. Outside of WP:RSN, that ends any discussion about the Post's reliability as a source. If that makes you (derisively) laugh, you have no business editing Wikipedia. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , while I don't dispute that BLP applies to talk pages, common practice is to only sanction the most egregious violations. Why? Because the community needs to be able to engage in reasoned discussion that isn't chilled by the threat of administrative action. BullRangifer's comment was perfectly reasonable and appropriate. Notice that you're the only editor who complained. Your warning reads as more as a threat than as a constructive comment. You've been involved in a shit ton of drama compared to your edit history and I suggest in good faith that you lay off the admin reports and threats for a while. Your batting average is low and at some point the pattern might be seen as disruptive and boomerang back at you. R2 (bleep) 23:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde again
Just letting you know that L'Origine du monde may need to be watched again. I already knew that the editor was unblocked; the community has agreed to give the editor another chance. As you may remember, the editor would repeatedly spam penis and related articles with urination and urolagnia material, and make other problematic edits. I just reverted this. I don't think it's standard to include "commons category" like that. I also left a recent message on the editor's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh... I feel we're dealing with a fetish and/or OCD here. I doubt this will end well, but how much disruption will we have to deal with before they get stopped? I'll keep my eyes open. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just saw that the editor also started a move request at Talk:Urolagnia. I went ahead and weighed in there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Some questions for Trump supporters
I don't want to misunderstand any of you, but to avoid doing so in further discussions, do you believe/deny that:
 * 1) there was Russian interference in the election?
 * 2) that it was for the purpose of helping Trump win?
 * 3) that there were numerous secretive meetings and connections between Trump family/campaign members and Russians/Russian agents?
 * 4) that they (including Trump himself) lied again and again about these meetings?
 * 5) that several have been convicted for doing so?
 * 6) that these meetings and lies were sufficient to justify strong suspicions of (a) conspiracy/collusion, (b) that it might have affected the election results in an unfair manner, and (c) that Trump might be a witting or unwitting Russian asset?
 * 7) and that it would have been very negligent of intelligence agencies (American and foreign allies were doing this) to not react by starting perfectly proper investigations of the (a) interference, (b) roles of Trump campaign and Russians, and (3) whether Trump was (and still) is acting just like a Russian asset, wittingly or unwittingly?

What's your position on these very well-established facts? Feel free to use the relevant numbers for your answers. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly, get a blog. — JFG talk 22:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

LOL. Do YOU believe anyone read anything on social media and decided to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton? Provide a reliable source that shows evidence of this happening because the concept is truly unfathomable.Batvette (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Batvette. It's been some time since I've seen you. We don't edit many of the same articles.
 * The idea of social media affecting people's opinions is hardly unfathomable. The opposite would be the case. Advertising, targeted media campaigns and such like would not be used if they didn't work. Plenty of sociological and psychological research has proven that beyond a doubt. (I could easily provide you with some references, also including the effects on the 2010 election.)
 * That specifically the 2016 election would exist in a bubble where that didn't apply would indeed be unfathomable. It's not a question of IF it had an effect, but of HOW MUCH of an effect it had. That we don't know. The final result with the electoral college was so close that only a few votes swung the election, giving Trump the victory, for, as we know, the popular vote doesn't elect the president, although there is usually harmony between the electoral college result and the popular vote result. This was the fifth(?) time it didn't happen.
 * Was it Cambridge Analytica, the Russian media campaigns, the Russian support of Bernie and Stein to draw votes away from Clinton, or something else that did it? Again, we don't know, but it all must have had some effect or they wouldn't have done it. When someone convinces people that Hillary is a horrible person who had Seth Rich murdered, and that she misuses the Clinton Foundation as a slush fund for personal use (something Trump has been proven to do with his bogus Trump Foundation), and other unsavory things, those beliefs would be enough to turn people away from Clinton and toward Trump. Right? If you think about it, you have the answer to your question, unless you're just here to troll me. I doubt that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)