Not-PCwoke

Welcome!

Hi Not-PCwoke! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

As your username and edits indicate, you are a WP:SPA solely on Wikipedia to further your political WP:AGENDA, and are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. We do not discriminate against political viewpoint - before you make any reactionary accusations, this message is not to 'try silence the anti-woke' or whatever nonsense your edits indicate you want to believe - but we also do not add politicized opinions, especially ones with emotive language and completely unsourced, to articles, which you have been doing. Please stop, rethink what you can contribute to Wikipedia, and read the editing policies before continuing. Kingsif (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, all I have done is a) removed deliberately inflamatory or unnecessary descriptive language, or b) added descriptions that can be attributed to groups of people and their actions. I have not misrepresented sources, merely adjusted language to remove deliberate or uninformed bias.Not-PCwoke (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That's patently false, even if you believe it. Even your comments on talk pages are demanding coverage of WP:FRINGE theories. If you can't see straight, we can't help you improve editing, though I do commend you going to talk first and if you want to continue contributing, I would suggest running your proposed edits through experienced editors more. Again, we follow WP:NPOV and often tackle controversial figures through consensus, and you adding "left wing extremists falsely claim" and similar isn't conducive. Kingsif (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

My comments are not demanding of anything other than removing emotive and deliberately biased language. For example, it was the far left who came after Winston Marshall. Tim Pool is libertarian whose audience is not largely right-wing, and even if it were so, what relevance does that have aside from portray Pool in a way that does not accurately reflect him?

I will continue to make edits to remove biased language that does not accurately reflect people. You can continue to revert my edits if you feel the need to. I will use sources that contradict those that are there. You can continue to remove them if you wish. Backwards and forwards we will go. Not-PCwoke (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Backwards and forwards we will go" is a description of edit warring which is contrary to policy. Consider this a warning. If you engage in that behavior, you will be blocked from editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Marvellous. Then ensure sources that are referenced remain unbiased, and ensure Wikipedia is a free public encyclopedia rather than a pseudo-activist site. Not-PCwoke (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That's weak reasoning. Instead of edit warring, there are various forms of dispute resolution available to you, and if you have concerns about the reliability of sources, then discuss the matter at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I have no idea what "pseudo-activist" even means, but hundreds of millions of people use Wikipedia frequently, and we cover a vast array of topics, not just the latest bitter disputes in US politics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

An unbiased encyclopedia should be the goal of Wikipedia contributors and editors. I shall continue to post sources that ensure pages remain free from bias.Not-PCwoke (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dave Rubin, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It was a reliable source. The book was met with positive reviews.Not-PCwoke (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

TPUSA is a right-wing advocacy group. It's not a reliable source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Jacobin is a left-wing advocacy group. It is not a reliable source. It had best be removed.Not-PCwoke (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dave Rubin. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Then ensure unbiased sources are used.Not-PCwoke (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:BIASED. There is no prohibition on the use of biased sources, as long as they are reliable. Many sources are biased in favor of accuracy, science, honesty, democracy and so on. Those biases are perfectly acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

'There is no prohibition on the use of biased sources, as long as they are reliable.' Superb. As such, all of my edits remain as I used reliable sourcesNot-PCwoke (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC).

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Winston Marshall. Zudo (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I added a factual statement that was referenced. It was removed. Stop removing factual and referenced information. You’re an activist not a contributor. Not-PCwoke (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

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-1992 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.

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.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe you wish to discuss this in good faith. There are objectively biased sources and opinions on certain pages, and these need to be rectified.Not-PCwoke (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not care about what you incorrectly believe about my wishes because I am here as an administrator only to do my best to make sure that you comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nothing more and nothing less. Did you read WP:BIASED like I recommended earlier? I am trying to give you useful tips about how to be successful as a Wikipedia editor. The choice about whether to follow our policies and guidelines is entirely up to you. If you decline to do so, them your volunteer career as a Wikipedia editor is likely to be a short one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you remove the source I added to Winston Marshall’s site about Andy Ngo being a victim of an Antica attack? That is factual. If you removed it, then you have no desire to see Wikipedia as a public encyclopaedia. You just want to further misinformation and misrepresentation. So ban me. I’ll rejoin under a new name. Stop deliberately misrepresenting people. Not-PCwoke (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, it's not something that is mentioned in any sources that discuss Marshall's relation to Ngo. And that's before getting to the fact that very few reliable sources deem "antifa" to be credible. You're trying to construct a narrative; is the fact Ngo got attacked by people related to whatever Marshall's been doing or the reactions? Not that sources dictate. These are the main issues. We can help you if you want to ask and contribute, I swear, but you need to stop framing things to fit your political worldview. The bottom line is, Wikipedia is source-driven, so if you think that mainstream sources are biased against your POV then you're not going to get anywhere. But you're putting in more effort than a troll, and clearly believe what you're adding, so I'm certain we can reach compromises if you brush up on Wikipedia policies and are willing to discuss with us. Kingsif (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think Ngo wrote the book that Marshall praised? It’s absolutely relevant and provides the context for why Marshall was victim of online attacks and vitriol. It’s disappointing that you continue to want to portray Marshall as a right-wing sympathiser when this is obviously not true (his own words). Stop deliberately misrepresenting people. Not-PCwoke (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You wrote above "So ban me. I’ll rejoin under a new name." That behavior would be contrary to the policy Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. We have many tools to detect this type of misconduct and any sockpuppet accounts you create would be blocked immediately when detected without discussion. So, do not go there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You can't just claim people are deliberately misrepresenting people to try and get them to shut up, especially when nobody here is doing that. We're trying to explain how your edits (don't) fit within policy. Look, I don't know all the gory details of this incident, I watchlisted the Marshall article when an edit calling him a nazi stayed for like 7 hours because apparently nobody was checking in. And removed that, by the way, because I am not - and the edits back me up - trying to paint some guy I don't know as a right-wing sympathiser (whatever that means and implies, I don't even know). And because of trying to keep agenda edits from both sides away, I have read all the RS news responses to the tweet and then blog, and they only mention that people didn't like him supporting Ngo because Ngo apparently deliberately drums up fights between right and left wing activists. That is mentioned, briefly, in the article. Most of the sources also mention other things (Peterson, his father) and the tweet being "the final straw", so Ngo isn't massively significant. It's clear that Ngo getting attacked at some long-past point in time, and the political affiliations of those attacking him, is irrelevant. From what the sources say, which is what we follow, nobody decided to send mean tweets to Marshall because someone else got attacked, which would really make no sense anyway. It's not in the sources, so it's not relevant for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And you have to remember that's the mission we're sticking to: encyclopedic. Kingsif (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is an activist site, where people are represented by the sources deemed 'acceptable'?

English Wikipedia has over 6.3 million articles and you will rarely run across "activists", whatever that means, if you edit articles about butterflies or Renaissance art or minerals or asteroids or marine mammals or the history of textiles or thousands of other topics. But if you edit articles about the conflict between India and Pakistan, then you will encounter pro-Indian activists and pro-Pakistani activists. If you edit articles about the Balkans, you will run across nationalist activists of many varieties. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, including activists, but only if they comply with our policies and guidelines. As an administrator, I assist editors of all political persuasions who are doing their best to follow the policies and guidelines, and block those who refuse to comply. The choice is yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it is my choice. I shall continue to make contributions to a variety of pages, ensuring balance where necessary. I will continue to use reliable and relevant sources.Not-PCwoke (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Saying are doing are two very different things in your case, evidently. Please continue to discuss. Kingsif (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Rubbish. Quit the activism and start impartial research. Not-PCwoke (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I have been commended for my impartiality while editing in much more contentious political topics than you are getting heated about. And FYI, a username like yours actively shunning one side of a debate is nowhere near impartial. Since you're evidently not willing to discuss if it doesn't come to the result you want, let alone compromise, I'm sure we'll be seeing a ban soon. Kingsif (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

My username should only be ‘offensive’ to activists. I will continue to only actively edit activism and bias. Not-PCwoke (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it was offensive, I said was partisan. You are declaring that you are against political correctness and what you call "woke". Many people who are not activists believe in those things. You are not impartial, and suggesting that the only people who disagree with you are activists is telling as to your editing motivations and behavior. Discussion is key, stop being a keyboard activist yourself. Kingsif (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

MOS:CLAIM

"Claim" is generally avoided on Wikipedia, as it is a loaded term which not only calls into question credibility, but suggests that Wikipedia itself (and often in the view of the public, the neutral Wikimedia Foundation) is doing that. This can lead to assumptions of political discrimination. It is discouraged to go around adding "it is claimed" to appropriately-sourced statements, something often done to reflect a political agenda; it is simply unnecessary in most cases and so the only reason to add it is to cast doubt on something that you know is the accepted view but personally disagree with. Why unnecessary? Because the source is present, and is understood to be making the 'claim' of the statements it supports, as sources do for any statement they are attached to. If the topic is contentious or there are wikivoice concerns, it may be appropriate to add "according to [source]" instead, which is attribution. This both detaches the statement from Wikipedia and informs readers who is making it; people should be allowed to decide themselves based on their own view of the source. Kingsif (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jimmy Dore. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Philip Cross (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Then stop reverting my edit. I'm not engaging in an edit war, you are. You keep changing a factual statement, backed by a relevant source, back to what was originally written. What was originally written implied that Dore's accusation was false, and it was not. Dore investigated, and found accurate, the false accusation against the Syrian government. My edit will remain, lest you prove yourself another activist uninterested in objectivity.Not-PCwoke (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Not-PCwoke, I disagree that "[w]hat was originally written implied that Dore's accusation was false". Either way, whether you believe your edits are virtuous or not, you are engaged in an edit war. You need to stop immediately.

As Philip Cross mentioned, there is a process in place for edits such as yours. You need to discuss your changes on the article's talk page and reach WP:CONSENSUS with other editors. Repeatedly making the same edit is never okay, even if you believe your edits are properly sourced and encyclopaedic.

You are sabotaging your own efforts by acting this way. — Vigursii • 📨 09:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

stop reverting my edit [...] My edit will remain - please read WP:OWN. I mean, please just leave WP at this point of months of non-stop disruption, but you could at least show you might put some effort in by acknowledging that anyone can change things you edit at any point. Kingsif (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a process for edits like mine? If this were correct, my edit would have remained. Dore was correct, and my edit indicating this should remain. Unless, of course, you want incorrect language and clearly biased language to remain. Dore himself even commented on a recent podcast that his Wikipedia page is so obviously and amusingly incorrect, and that any edits made to rectify this are removed almost immediately. Now isn't that something....Not-PCwoke (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore

Let me say I'm 100% with you on editing Wikipedia's biases, but there are so many paid editors on this website that are there solely to keep that stuff in. Added to that is most of the admins will normally side with those people. I'm not saying they are all paid but there is a significant number of editors that patrol pages of right-wing figures just to keep the "conspiracy theorist" tags and the like. Jaydoggmarco has openly stated his bias on multiple occasions including here [[1]] and even got blocked for it less than a week ago. So trust me, I get the frustration.

That said I just wanted to point out that you are making yourself a target with your username (as you've probably already seen) and your edit history. If you are editing to "right the wrongs" of politics or make one side look better or worse than the other, you will get blocked pretty quickly. Edit warring also brings a lot of negative attention your way. Maybe try taking your concerns about Jimmy Dore to the BLP Noticeboard I linked above, or try to get a consensus on the talk page. Sometimes it's just easier to let it be until you have the okay in writing.TJD2 (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

but there are so many paid editors on this website that are there solely to keep that stuff in.

Unsubstantiated accusations like that are more likely to lead User:TJD2 into trouble than help things, so I would ignore that.

Oh, and the World Socialist Web Site is an awful source, no matter how convenient you may find it. --Calton | Talk 05:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Not about you, but it involves you (just to clarify).TJD2 (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely for disruptive editing, including edit-warring at multiple articles, non-neutral editing, and a battleground mentality. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You're an activist. No surprise that my impartial and factually correct edits backed by reliable sources have been removed.Not-PCwoke (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

For the last time: you were edit-warring and that is an indisputable fact. And edit-warring is wrong even if your edits are "impartial" and "factually correct" (according to you). — Vigursii • 📨 06:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps have impartial and unbiased information on pages rather than presenting the side you agree with. That way, people wouldn't have to continually re-edit to ensure a more accurate reflection of the individual is presented on their pages. How can I report you (and others) for edit-warring with me? You continually edited my changes despite them being backed by references. Reinstate me now, thanks.Not-PCwoke (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Not-PCwoke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unreasonable block. All edits I provided were accurate and backed by sources. Not-PCwoke (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia makes no claims that it is unbiased. Everyone, including me and you, has biases. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Those sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. You have also been told that edit warring is not acceptable even if you are correct, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. If you want to stay in your political bubble and be told only what you want to hear and read, you may want to find a project more compatible with your views. If you want to work with others in a collaborative manner regardless of political views or ideology, please tell us how you will do that and what topics you will edit about. I would suggest that agreeing to a topic ban from post-1992 American politics would be a good start, but that will be up to whomever reviews your next request, I am declining this one. 331dot (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

---

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

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

Not-PCwoke (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason hereUnreasonable block. All edits I provided were accurate, provided perspective which was lacking, and were backed by sources. Unreasonable denial of request due to confirmation of administrator bias 'Wikipedia makes no claims that it is unbiased......', '...edit warring is not acceptable even if you are correct....'. Administrators who engaged in so-called 'edit-warring' should be subject to the same bans as users.Not-PCwoke (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You need to provide assurances that you will not edit war in future. I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

---

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

{{unblock|reason=Unreasonable block. All edits I provided were accurate, provided perspective which was lacking, and were backed by sources. Unreasonable denial of request due to confirmation of administrator re-editing bias. Administrators should not engage in edit-warring with members who post accurate and reliably sourced edits, otherwise they should be subject to the same bans as users.Not-PCwoke (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Unreasonable block. All edits I provided were accurate, provided perspective which was lacking, and were backed by sources. Unreasonable denial of request due to confirmation of administrator re-editing bias. Administrators should not engage in edit-warring with members who post accurate and reliably sourced edits, otherwise they should be subject to the same bans as users. Quote from admin: "rm dup. Be careful or you will have your talk page access revoked." Then revoke my ban and cease removing changes I make which are factually correct and backed by reliable sources. Not-PCwoke (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've revoked your TPA. Not that it's terribly important, but the editor you quote is not an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

UTRS 46881

UTRS appeal #46881 has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

UTRS 47025

UTRS appeal #47025 has been declined. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

UTRS 48036

UTRS appeal #48036 is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)