Hi Noteduck! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

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

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Template:Z33

Noteduck, I think you are misunderstanding my intent. I'm OK with the content of you can fix the sourcing issues. Also you don't have consensus to restore that material. Per NOCON, a wikipedia policy, disputed content stays out until there is a consensus to include. I think the easy path forward is too draw on the academic sources discussed on the talk page. Springee (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, you haven't made a convincing case for any of the material not meeting Wiki's standards for inclusion. As I'm sure you're aware, "consensus does not mean unanimity"[1] and I believe (and other editors besides yourself have supported me) that the edits that have been made warrant inclusion. Please refrain from deleting the edits again absent more compelling evidence for removalNoteduck (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That you aren't convicted isn't the standard. That there isn't a talk page consensus is. You need to show the consensus else you are just engaged in edit warring. Your immediate restoration of the material is not a good sign. Springee (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, your complaints have been debunked by other editors. Please accumulate additional evidence to back your claims. Otherwise it is hard to see your complaints as anything but obstructionism. Again, I must call attention to the numerous accusations of NPOV problems and advocacy related to controversial topics on your talk page. Also, why is this sub-heading called "Murphy content"? Did you mean "Murray content"? Noteduck (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing editors don't agree with consensus. Neither the BLPN nor RSN discussions reached a conclusion supporting inclusion of this disputed content. What you want to say about Murray may be true but it must satisfy BLP sourcing requirements which it currently does not (at least there is no consensus that it does). I'm leaving an edit warring awareness tag here since restoring the material as you have done is edit warring. Note:corrected heading Springee (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Noteduck, please review WP:Consensus. The material you have added is disputed. Restoring without addressing the problems in the content is disruptive editing. Please self revert and return to three talk page to get consensus first. Springee (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee as User:Nomoskedasticity noted it is completely unacceptable to remove academic sources without basis, and especially a large body of academic evidence like the one that has been produced. Consensus is not unanimity. Unless you can provide firm rebuttals against inclusion of any of the material added, please refrain from unwarranted removal of material. Given the extensive concerns raised by others on your talk page about previous NPOV problems and advocacy on controversial topics on your part, please be cognizant of these issues Noteduck (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to the issue and here. The edit contained more than just good academic sources. Even if the sources are good that doesn't mean the edit is. Several editors have expressed concerns which you have not addressed. Please listen to the concerns of others and adjust your edits accordingly. I've found over the years that often the best edits come when two editors oppose what one another want to do and then work to reach a compromise edit. There is good stuff in what you are trying to add but also BLP problems. Let's use the talk page to fix the gaps. Springee (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, Conan The Librarian opposed your edits to the article. Per WP:BRD the correct next steps are to go to the talk page and try to find a compromise solution. Your restoration of disputed content is edit warring. Rather than edit warring we should be trying to figure out a compromise solution. You have some good sources and can probably find others to say the same things you are trying to say in the article. Let's pick that route rather than just playing a revert game. Springee (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee consensus is not unanimity and this is highly misleading as I've extensively addressed these issues on Murray's talk page. If you contest the material I've added, please find evidence that supports your contentions Noteduck (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, is not unanimity but we aren't there. More than one isn't the same as consensus. You feel you have addressed the concerns yet you have restored OpEd sources. How do you justify restoring those? Where is that consensus? Springee (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, please don't accuse editors of being obstructionist. That is not wp:AGF. I've been and will continue to try to work with you too find edits that will address both of our concerns. The response regarding Sludge was hardly overwhelming. It appears to be a weak consensus for reliable but weight is still a question. We can ask on the article talk page and if editors feel the weight is sufficient then I won't oppose a DUE level of inclusion. You might feel that I just and trying to protect Murray. I honestly have no idea who Murray was prior to ending with this article. However, I do see that despite your good faith intent to expand the article you were tripping over poor sourcing. Like you, I want this to be a good article and a neutral article. I think your enthusiasm is good and with just a bit of help you are going to make this article better. I'm not trying to give you a hard time. Springee (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add here, I don't know Springee or you Noteduck, so I am completely independent but am fairly new as an editor on Wikipedia and I understand some of the frustrations of trying to good faith edit information on articles that we may be passionate about. I have stumbled and bumbled through a few. I have given up on some and desperately fought for others. Recently I found out just how important sourcing is. It's not even, necessarily, the content which could be true or not, but whether the source is considered reliable by this community or not. That is always a hard distinction and I will probably still slip up going forward but I am learning. Noteduck, you seem like a potentially wonderful editor who has a lot to contribute and already has. Please listen to the advice of others. Please try to set aside your feelings on this and give discussion a chance. I have had poor experiences here in the past few weeks and months but the rewards have outweighed them. Talk this out to consensus with everyone on the talk page. This encyclopedia needs to maintain good editors like yourself. :-) --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, I'm not "removing" anything; I'm just trying to follow the standard WP:BRD process. There's agreement between the involved editors that some change should be made, but until we can hammer out what change exactly, we're supposed to go back to the original longstanding version of the article and work it out on the talk page. That's what I was trying to do with my last edit. So please revert to the original version and engage with me on talk. Also please assume good faith, and do not talk about other editors, only content. If you can't revert to the original, I will have to get an admin involved. Shinealittlelight (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shinealittlelight you've previously had this to say about the content on the PragerU page:

Now if you really want to see a revert, you should add a positive conservative opinion of Prager U to the reception section, which is now reserved for critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you've demonstrated your inability to be partial on this particular subject. You also described yourself as a "reasonable conservative" (19 May 2019) - it's concerning that you're opening voicing your political opinion as an editor. The edits that have been made are high quality and you haven't demonstrated a good reason for rejecting them apart from your own bias Noteduck (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Shinealittlelight (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noteduck. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And another note

...I have blocked your other account, User:Spungo93; the data leads me to believe that there was no nefarious purpose here. But that fight you're picking with Springee, you have to stop that. They can remove whatever (almost whatever) they like from their talk page, and you should not restore it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I apologize, I made User:Spungo93 years ago and forgot about it - you'll see there are no recent edits under that name. Unfortunately I believe I have a legitimate grievance against Springee, who I believe is engaged in a pattern of tendentious editing and suppression of any source they see as unflattering to conservatives. I've tried to treat each and every one of Springee's complaints as a good faith comment but am starting to believe I can no longer do so, and may need to escalate the matter to the admin noticeboard. I am newish to Wiki and may be unfamiliar with some of the relevant etiquette - I understand now that Springee is free to remove content from their talk page. However, it's worrying that Springee is so willing to delete commentary on his edits, especially since some of the grievances I've raised have been mentioned by other editors as far back as 2018. Thanks for your comments Noteduck (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: I figured it was something like that. You can escalate to ANI if you like but you'll need solid evidence (diffs); don't be disappointed if you don't get your way. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another note

I noticed that you're getting involved in some disputes on a few articles and I wanted to offer some advice. I also noticed that in this edit summary you said "I think 10 academic sources is consensus!" On Wikipedia, for something to be included in an article you are absolutely correct that it needs to be supported by reliable sources, content about living people even more so. However, just because something is verifiable and supported by sources doesn't necessarily mean that it must be included in an article. A consensus of Wikipedia editors may decide (usually on an article's talk page) not to include something in an article that they (the consensus, not a single editor) don't believe improves it. Additionally, the burden for providing those reliable sources is on the editor(s) who want the content in an article. The way a consensus forms effectively on Wikipedia is through, measured and focused discussion on article talk pages not in edit summaries in reverts (the talk page is the comment button). This is one of the reasons we have a policy against edit warring and that edit warring almost always leads to a block especially when on multiple articles. So, my suggestion to you is to stop reverting on the articles where you current involved in disputes (for example, Douglas Murray (author) and PragerU) and instead focus on discussing the policy-based reasons to include the content you want to add to the articles. You can use Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes (such as one request for comment at a time to resolve issues) to help but you also need to willing to accept that other editors may not agree with you and that may be the consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc thanks for your comments on the difficult notion of consensus. In terms of the arguments I have been in with other editors regarding controversial topics, I am happy to receive criticism and acknowledge the difficulties present. That said, I think my edits to the Douglas Murray (author) page in particular are high quality and give substance to what was previously a very minimalist and uninformative article. I'm well aware of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle principles. However, I am concerned that some editors treat the principle of Wikipedia:Consensus as a way to create an impossibly high evidentiary threshold for content being added to a page. I have sometimes been confronted with a hydra-headed mode of objection where the source is objected to on every possible ground, and then finally refused on the basis that no "consensus" (which does not mean unanimity) has been reached. I have voiced my complaints about certain editors on their talk pages directly for what I believe are valid reasons. Sometimes the editor has responded constructively[2] and sometimes (more often) they have just brushed aside[3] or deleted[4][5] my comments. By the way, I know that it's against Wiki's guidelines to undo someone's revert on their own talk page - I apologize and won't do so again. Thanks for your input Noteduck (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the whole talk page, but it looks to me like Springee has done a good job of trying to explain how Wikipedia views and uses sources of different kinds at Talk:Douglas Murray (author)#Links to the far right - heading or subheading under "views". Regarding the suggestion that we can/should determine whether or not there's a consensus of academics, see this section which basically states that you need a reliable, independent source to say that there is an academic consensus about something rather than heaps of examples of academics saying it. Before editing further in contentious topic areas (such as those involving living people, politics and conservatism, particularly the intersection of those) thoroughly reading WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV is necessary. I know it seems like a lot, and you may already have read parts of them, but if you want to edit in contentious areas you have to know and be able to follow the expectations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, I'm not sure how many times you have decided to revert other editors who didn't agree with your edits but this needs to stop. Kyohyi's removal of the Bridge material was acceptable as it is new, contested material and there is a dispute if it is self published or not (and DUE would also be a reasonable question). By now I think enough editors/admins (Callanecc above for example) should have made it clear to you that CONSENSUS is required when edits are in dispute. This repeated restoration when others are telling you to get consensus first needs to stop now. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, you've been repeatedly alerted about the meaning of "self-published" material in discussions going back as far as at least two years.[6][7][8] I alert you to this statement on your talk page from almost three years ago:

You've been around long enough to know the difference between what we call self-published, specifically " self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." and something like the SPLC. We wouldn't call the New York Times self-published either. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Bridge is an academic research project published by Georgetown, not a self-published source. Please read Wikipedia:What is consensus? - it's not unanimity - and Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Consider this excerpt from Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling:

Consensus regarding a proposal is determined by evaluating the arguments made by all those participating. It's putting the cart before the horse to simply argue that consensus opposes the proposal.

You've repeatedly challenged every source on the Douglas Murray page that could be considered unflattering to Murray.[9] Despite your keen interest in the page, you don't seem to have added any new material, even though there is material that urgently needs to be added - for example, the unanswered question of Murray's ideological self-definition.[10] Please help me and other editors to continue to improve this page Noteduck (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, when multiple editors dispute content in the article and you restore anyway, that isn't WP:BOLD, that is WP:RECKLESS. Please show good faith, respect the process and self revert then we can use the talk page to either get or not get consensus. Springee (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A volume" is almost meaningless, as far as I know 'evidence' is not measured in c.c.s, and no, the concensus is not that Murray is 'far-right' etc. Particularly among journalistic sources, he has many defenders. Often is almost as meaningless. If criticism were not reasonably 'often', we would not include it or would attribute it to the critic. Must go, real life beckons.Pincrete (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Template:Z33 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Noteduck. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-enwikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to note, your statement currently is around 1250 words long for your reference. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MasterTriangle here, I feel a little bad for suggesting trying arbitration without checking what that entails first, this is the only controversy I've been caught up in. I'm still happy to help with this but it may be best to try to contact an administrator for advice or use some of the more mundane dispute resolution methods. We recently received a notification that admins may place discretionary sanctions on accounts editing post-1932 American politics, which may be helpful, although I'm not too sure of the significance. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MasterTriangle12, the responsibility for launching the arbitration request is mine alone - you just offered a suggestion, and I could have done more thorough research about alternative avenues for resolution. I intend to file a dispute resolution request for what I maintain are serious problems with the PragerU page that require outside intervention. My plan was to list yourself, Springee, Shinealittelight and Hipal as "users involved" if that's alright Noteduck (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The case request Ongoing issues with PragerU page, which you were a party in, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but a permanent link to the declined case request can be accessed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, are you going to follow up at DRN? --Hipal (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, yep drafting now

Re [11]: Noteduck, could you please refactor this and your recent statements at DRN to demonstrate you are still attempting to follow the guidelines for participating at DRN as outlined in the very first paragraph of DRN, Wikipedia:DRN Rule A, and Robert McClenon's first statement as a moderator? Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, it's the moderator's task to make these kind of comments, not yours. Please make substantive rebuttals on the DRN page as per my repeated requests Noteduck (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you've chosen to respond so. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. I hope editors will address requests directly, rather than relying upon intervention from others.

About your repeated requests. Perhaps you can copy one here and I'll see what I can do. --Hipal (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On moving past stalemates and the like here on Wikipedia:

I hope it's clear from your interactions with me that I strongly focus on the references, their quality and weight.

When there's a dispute, I also like to work methodically, making sure that the basic content policies (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, etc) are met before moving on to the more complicated policies (WP:NOT, WP:POV).

I try to be concise. I've found lengthy discussions to be problematic, so try to avoid repeating myself.

I respond best to specific questions. --Hipal (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, I noticed your reply to Activist here [[12]]. I think you are both similar in that you have confused poor edit/editing with editor having it out for you. I don't have anything against either of you. You both have proposed, in good faith, edits that I and others have opposed. The problem is you both have also failed to follow good practices for resolving content disputes. The first thing to always do is not immediately restore the disputed content. Slowing down and getting consensus is fine. I've sometimes felt that the other editor was "clearly a POV pusher" but when I slowed down and tried to find some level of common ground the article was often better in the end. HiPal and Shinealittlelight aren't opposing your PragerU edits because they like PragerU. They oppose the edits because they see things like poor source choices or content that becomes a bit of a COATRACK that can lead to article bloat. A very common issue with articles on Wikipedia is when people try to stuff every criticism possible of an article subject into an article. The net result isn't a coherent article that looks like it was written to summarize the topic for the world. Instead they look like the comment section under a youtube video. Activist seems to feel that I have it out for them because I've oppose a number of honestly poor quality edits they made. Others noted the same thing (for example [[13]]). I think you may become a good editor but first you have to understand that not everyone who opposes you is doing so because they are POV pushing. Most are doing so because we have an understanding of how to get things done around here (not an easy thing to learn). Incidentally, this is why I've said things like your PragerU RfCs would be better if you corrected the low hanging fruit like poor sources. When the RfC launches you may find that editors who might support the overall edit will oppose because of these technical issues. Anyway, please assume good faith. Springee (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When Drmies blocked your other account Spungo93 (talk · contribs), you stated: I made User:Spungo93 years ago and forgot about it. Per the log entry, Spungo93 was created on 18 April 2020. You... misremembered the registration date by years? Very odd. Perhaps you could let others know your previous accounts, or atleast the one you had created years ago?

There was one quite prolific sockmaster in the Islamophobia/Great Replacement topic area, though it was stated that three of his accounts edited with a VPN. If Drmies discovered that you or Spungo93 edited with a VPN, I'd say that would be pretty suspicious. --Pudeo (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pudeo, I don't remember the exact results of that check; I don't see anything else in my log related to that one block, so I must not have found anything else. I do not, usually, look for proxies, since I am just not that technically capable. Looking back, I see that I probably should have said what you said, something along the lines of "ahem, that's crap", but I saw no collusion between the two account which is why I let that slide. We have some discretion in blocking; if there is collusion or other abuse of a second/third/etc. account, we typically block both accounts, though again there's some leeway depending on the gravity of the situation. So you're right, the user was not truthful, but right now I don't really have a reason to run the check again. Thanks for the ping, Drmies (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo, you've insinuated without basis that I may have used a sock to edit a page about a notorious conspiracy theory. I find this baseless and insulting. Can you please retract this insinuation in its entirety? And yes, I forgot about when I registered the old "Spungo93" account. I was never a prolific Wiki editor until December last year, and I have lots of usernames and passwords for shopping/library access/trial memberships all over the internet as most of us do. Please assume good faith Noteduck (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo can you please put a strikethrough the following sentence to make it clear you retract it: "There was one quite prolific sockmaster in the Islamophobia/Great Replacement topic area, though it was stated that three of his accounts edited with a VPN. If Drmies discovered that you or Spungo93 edited with a VPN, I'd say that would be pretty suspicious." Noteduck (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You tripped up saying you had an account years ago and master all the wikilegalese despite having been an editor barely for a month, but I need to strike that? You did not disclose the account you might have used years ago. Of course, you do not have to, assuming Spungo or this one is a valid WP:CLEANSTART. So tell me, did you edit as Perspex03 or Eurostatter? I'm getting bit of a deja vu reading Perspex's edit summaries and the AN/I thread he was blocked for (e.g. adding content about Eurabia/great replacement/white genocide that others perceive to be BLP violations, then fighting back to restore them with such edit summaries). Eurostatter was not CU-confirmed, but he was likely related. I noticed you added almost 9,000 bytes of sources to Douglas Murray's far-right views with this edit. I couldn't help but remember Eurostatter's extensive sourcing work and some smaller quirks. I try to assume good faith, but sockpuppets are extremely harmful (just a month ago I helped to catch a sockpuppet that illegitimately edited for 4 years). But without CU-data there is no silver bullet in behavior-only connections. --Pudeo (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo This is the last chance I'm going to give you to strike through your spurious allegations (none of which are true) before I consider resorting to going to W:ANI for a resolution Noteduck (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please self revert. You have restored material to the lead that has previously been disputed. That means you original edits were subject to the 1RR restriction. Your restoration of those edits violates the 1RR restriction on the article. If you don't self revert I will take this to the edit warring noticeboard. Springee (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the active arb remedies:

Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.

From the RFC:

There is a consensus to refer to the subject as a "journalist" in the lead of the article. The consensus, however, does not proscribe the possibility that other occupational designators could also be used, within the normal confines of policy and reason

There is no consensus to either keep or remove "provocateur" in the lead. Since, at the time the RfC was opened, provocateur was in the lead, it should probably be restored until such time as a consensus emerges to remove it.

I haven't removed the description of Ngo as a "journalist" and I've made one revert in the last 24 hours. It looks like adding "provocateur" would be perfectly within the bounds of acceptable conduct. If there are other RFC decisions or "clearly established consensus" per the arb remedies - not "disputed content" as you've contended - that I'm not aware of apart from Ngo's designation as a journalist let me know Noteduck (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would suggest you self revert and verify you have consensus for you changes first. Else this and your other behaviours will be reviewed on the notice boards. Springee (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've observed the clearly established consensus as per the terms of the RFC. It's worth adding some sources to to the header to back up the designation of Ngo as a journalist, since this has been contested. Thanks for reminding me of the 1RR restriction on the page. Given the multiple designations of Ngo as a "provocateur" (as recommended under the terms of the RFC) "activist", "self-described journalist" etc it's probably worth adding these to the header when one of us has time, with proper attribution of course Noteduck (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in the header with the academic sources is too long - I'm going to have a crack at pruning it. Comments, contributions etc welcome Noteduck (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, your comment on the Kenosha article is totally of topic. It clearly focuses only on the editor and not on the article. That is clear given your justification for placing the content after I removed your comment from my talk page. Remove the comment or this goes to the notice boards. Springee (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic you mean? Btw, the preferred Wiki policy is to archive talk page material if you need to cut it down, so I'm not sure why you're deleting good-faith comments. They can still be accessed through talk history. I've amended the Kendosha talk page. Please pay close attention to editorial policy regarding reverts Noteduck (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know so much about the preferred wikipedia policy? You have been here a very short time. Just over one month. Is there something to Pudeo's concern? Springee (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, can you please strike through your previous comment? Pudeo's allegations are spurious. Noteduck (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, let's put this socking thing to rest: if there was something to be found, I'd have found it, and repeating those accusations isn't going to improve anything. Well, I think I would have found it; please don't make accusations unless you can make a case at an SPI, OK? Thanks. Noteduck, I do have to tell you that it would really behoove you to be less confrontational. "Go high" is good advice. Anyway, I just came by to say I found a little sock drawer on Douglas Murray (author). Take care, and you too Springee--see you next time. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noteduck! I've noticed you commenting on the talk pages of articles, especially PragerU. Could you please make sure to indent your comment (using colons) so that your comment is one indent level less than the comment you're responding to? That's the convention here, and not following it when everyone else is makes threads you're in hard to follow. Loki (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Loki, noted! Noteduck (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noteduck! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Lacuna in SPS:BP policy - think it needs an update urgently to address think tanks, advocacy organizations, academic group projects, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad revert [[14]]. All the needed policy issues were in my edit summary. Unfortunately you really haven't listened to editors who have tried to help you understand how to effectively do things around here. This edit violates a policy and a guideline. The guideline is WP:RS, specifically that sources should be independent of the subject. In this case you have claims about what Kimball did citing two articles written by Kimball. The policy your edit violated was WP:OR. No where in the cited source did the article say, Kimball repeated "debunked and discredited" claims about electoral fraud. True or not it's really unlikely the guy is going to say it about himself. When someone tried to correct that you accused them of whitewashing. I will grant the correct solution was removal as both OR and failing RS. Finally, you say the content has been there for a long time. That doesn't matter if the content is OR and fails RS (be default all OR fails RS). Also when considering the stable version of an article both the number of edits and time should be considered. In this case the ONUS is on you to show the content should stay, not those objecting. Springee (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly overt reflection of partisan bias Springee, and the desire to purge Wiki of anything unflattering to conservatives. The prior paragraph includes several links to articles written by Kimball, yet you have only contested the one in which Kimball endorses a discredited right-wing conspiracy theory. Do you reject that the fact that the 2020 election result was the product of electoral fraud is debunked and discredited? The OR claim is quite bizarre. If a public figure says "I support Pizzagate", is it OR to say "X has expressed support for the debunked conspiracy theory Pizzagate"? I'm not surprised that other editors agree with me.[15] I've no idea what policy you're attempting to rely on - you're welcome to provide excerpts you feel bolster your argument - but I've read WP:PRIMARY and I can see that primary sources are not impermissible, but can not be used for interpretation. Absent stronger rebuttals I won't be reverting the sentence Noteduck (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no, this is a bias towards actually following policy. At least your accusation against my motives was on a user talk page vs on the article talk page. When it comes to citing an article by the BLP subject that can be done but generally only in two contexts. It can be done for basic claims such as where they were raised or which sports they like to watch. Alternatively, it can be done when an independent source talks about something they said in an article. So if the NYT says Kimball's Nov 2018 article was award winning, then we would link to the NYT article and could choose to also link to Kimball's article. I trust you understand that an article written by the BLP subject is not considered independent by wikipedia standards right?

Using your Pizzagate example. If Senator Smith wrote a column and said, "pizza gate is real" but no other sources said anything about it then it wouldn't be DUE for inclusion. WEIGHT says we have to see what RSs on the subject say. That means we find sources that talk about what Kimball says. We don't seek out what we think is significant from all the things Kimball has said. Adding a commentary about Pizza gate that was not in the source is OR or SYTH depending on how its done. Springee (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, comments like this are inappropriate for article talk pages[[16]]. Talk pages are for discussing the article, not editor behavior. If you think I haven't addressed an article level concern you can say so without accusations of bias that are unrelated to the article in question. I'm asking that you remove (not strike, remove) that content as it is off topic for the article talk page. Springee (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, this message is in regards to your comment here [[17]]. My first thought was, I no longer care and it's time to take this to the drama boards. However, Wikipedia has a view that any intervention isn't meant to be a punishment rather it's meant to protect Wikipedia. Topic bands and editing blocks are only to be used when needed to stop problems/disruptions and if the problem is solved then the block/ban would be punitive rather than protective and thus should be lifted. Since my intent is to fix a problem perhaps it would seem foolish to at least give 1:1 dialog a chance. My intent in preparing this material is to file it at WP:AE. I don't have a specific sanction in mind. I would actually be completely satisfied if the outcome is other editors help you gain a better understanding of how to work within the Wikipedia when dealing with contentious topics. Disagreement is fine and often the great work can come out of a disagreement. If you are open to discussing this or paring up with a moderator who might help with some mentoring I will be satisfied the problem is solved. I'm willing to offer my advice (which I would try to keep independent of my editorial opinions) but I understand if you don't want to accept it. Hopefully that helps you understand my position and intent. Springee (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, You just broke 1RR on the Andy Ngo page. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did, did I? I just (justifiably) reverted one of Shine's edits in a 24 period didn't I? Noteduck (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The material you changed was added in February. When you changed it the first time that was a revert. When you changed it the second time you hit 2RR. This is the sort of thing I'm concerned about in my other message. Springee (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I made one revert at 02:58, 12 February 2021‎. When was the other revert you speak of? Noteduck (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, I did not violate 1RR on the Andy Ngo page. Could you please strike through this entire section? Noteduck (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your talk page and you can remove the comment if you wish but that won't address the issue. Springee (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, stop accusing me and other editors of misbehavior on talk pages. It's against policy to do so. Talk pages are for talking about content, not editor behavior. If you have a problem with my behavior, you may raise that on my talk or at an appropriate noticeboard. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? Noteduck (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is Shine is referring to you saying Shinealittlelight and Springee I don't think I'll get much traction out of reminding you of policy and other similar things on Talk:Andy Ngo. If you think someone is breaking the rules, there's lots of places you can take it, and none of them are complaining about how terrible their behavior is. That's a personal attack and is itself against the rules. (So for example: WP:DRN, WP:ANI, you're already familiar with RfCs which are often useful for establishing that a consensus exists where some editors don't want to admit it.) Loki (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request discussion related to your editing here [[18]]