User:Noteduck/sandbox: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 6:

Concern over recent edits and potential Arb Com notice

I was dismayed to see that you have made a false claim of breaking 1RR against another editor on a politically sensitive page, based on an apparent inability to tell "revert" and "edit" apart. You made aan almost similaridentical false claim against me on the Andy Ngo page, as part of what seems to be a pattern of hyper-litigiousness on your part, but apparently repeated the same incorrect interpretation of policy is order to try and garner sanctions against an editor with whom you disagreed. I called attention to these issues in the Arb dispute, where you regrettably made several blatantly false claims. I thought this might slow this pattern of editing down, especially after no less than seven uninvolved editors backed my conclusions, but worryingly it seems to have become even more blatant.

Despite extensive experience on Wikipedia spanning more than a decade, you are often remarkably naive about sourcing and Wikipedia policy, demonstrating misunderstandings of sourcing and basic policy. I was particularly dismayed to see that you advocated (even through the RS noticeboard) including material sourced from the deprecated Daily Caller(!) on the Andy Ngo page. I thought this was truly remarkable given your tendency to unilaterally reject highly respected sources with little discussion. In spite of this, on the Douglas Murray page you said that material from around a dozen academic sources was "poorly sourced", and remarkably, you seem to associate "open-access" journals with poor quality which is very ill-informed indeed. You dragged at least three sources that I added to the Douglas Murray page through the source reliability noticeboard. You're also back on the PragerU page block reverting material, I see.