Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:31, 30 July 2021

Disruptive and POV editing on Douglas Murray page

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Douglas Murray (author). Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Hi Conan. You made three recent edits on the Douglas Murray page. I think your restoration of the WP:NPOVD template seems to be based on personal opinion rather than policy and should be reverted, but seems to be in good faith. However, your next two edits look tendentious and a breach of WP:NPOV policy. You obviously have a strong disagreement with what many academic and journalistic sources have said about Murray and that's fine, but please don't put accusations of source bias or lack of NPOV without basis. I recommend starting a talk page heading if you want to discuss the material or if you have objections to the quality of the sources used. I researched and added many of the sources, and you're welcome to start a discussion about them on my talk page if you wish. Thanks and please be more careful to observe NPOV. Noteduck (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

You've been campaigning against Murray since day one, and have been cautioned many times against it and placing these daft notices on people's pages. Please keep the political campaigning off Misplaced Pages, especially when you are denigrating writers just because you disagree with them - that's not what Misplaced Pages is for. Conan The Librarian (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've maintained a neutral point of view editing on Murray but every source will have its own perspective - I think WP:NEUTRALSOURCE is instructive on this. I had a flick through "The Strange Death of Europe" and thought the academic assessments of Murray on this page were very much accurate. Noteduck (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It is patently obvious that Conan the Librarian is attempting to insert their own POV. Accusing both RS and editors of "radical" bias is a behaviour common to editors lacking neutrality. Frankly, Noteduck was right to issue a warning, but should have also considered referencing policy against fanboyism. 67.69.69.252 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please have the courtesy to use your wikipedia username here and the various edits you have made on the article in question. If nothing else, it will divert suspicion away from the obvious candidates for the sockpuppetry who may be unfairly maligned by your actions.Conan The Librarian (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Innocent users would not be "maligned" if you dishonest lot stopped making baseless accusations. You accused several different people involved in Douglas Murray of being sockpuppets already, apparently being a go-to accusation whenever you face criticism67.69.69.68 (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

CtheL, I believe this is another IP used by the editor discussed here ]. They have been repeatedly blocked. Springee (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

CtL, I think this is the same IP sock who has been blocked here ] and here ]. I'm not sure if this is the same editor as the other two IP's that recently acted at the same article. Springee (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Springee. Conan The Librarian (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Political Quarterly published a response by Jonathan Rutherford which says "He then picks two right wing thinkers Roger Scruton and Douglas Murray, neither Blue Labour, and wrongly and malignly accuses them of belonging to the white nationalist right ..." Blog post so useless for the discussion but maybe nice to know. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Interesting, thank you - yes, it seems to convey the point some of us have been trying to make about the frustrating editorial and possibly covering similar ground to that in the Quarterly reply referenced in the Talk page. Sadly I suspect these points also apply more generally to some of the other references used for the more extreme claims about Murray. Conan The Librarian (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The NPOV *badge of shame* has been hanging over the Douglas Murray page for *eight months* - far too long

The NPOV *badge of shame* has been hanging over Murray's page for *eight months*. I recommend having a look at some relevant sections of the Template:POV page:

More importantly, this set of instructions below.

When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

I think point 2:

It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given

is critical here. The only remaining debate on the talk page is an obscure argument challenging a single source (apparently on DUE grounds?) the removal of which would remove only one part of a footnote from a composite footnote which contains many others. The NPOV badge has been hanging over the page for *eight months*, which is not conducive to keeping Wiki streamlined and professional. A wealth of academic, expert, and high-quality journalistic sources bolster the claim that Murray has ideological links with the far-right, plus white nationalism, Islamophobia, and far-right conspiracies like Eurabia, the Great Replacement theory etc... I recommend reading a few of the scholarly sources and perhaps, and perhaps you'll understand why many experts have to this conclusion about Murray's links to the far right and other similar extreme ideologies. Super happy to discuss some details/questions about RS policy on my talk page if you feel like. Absent more substantive rebuttals please don't restore this material again. Noteduck (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(I think you inadvertently removed this reply in your latest edits so restoring it:)

I disagree, there has never been consensus for any of the controversial points, as discussed ad nauseum. Conan The Librarian (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm an academic and I thought these sources were very strong and comprehensive, and I'm astounded at how strongly some people attacked the sources. You obviously disagree strongly - for you, what would it take to set things and for the "POV badge of shame" to be removed at last from the page? Noteduck (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

best discussed on the actual page I think.Conan The Librarian (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Your comments at Douglas Murray

After looking over some of the discussions at Talk:Douglas Murray (author), I have a few concerns about your approach to editors who you disagree with. Our Focus on content policy and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith guideline are the foundations of civil and productive discussion. I'm sure it's not your intent, but comments such as "personal campaigns against the ones you disagree with", "what appears to be activist intent (in the sources if not the edit) to besmirch a mainstream writer"; "Your Orwellian campaign to traduce writers whose politics you disagree with"; "attempts to suppress him as somebody beyond the pale which is a classic witch-hunting tactic" and "a small cadre of editors (one in particular who has supplemented his efforts by chasing other editors round to their personal pages issuing warnings) have seemingly spent a lot of time and effort digging up hatchet job references" come across as focusing too strongly on personal conduct and seem to imply that other editors have a partisan agenda. It's best to refrain this type of language on talk pages to avoid accusations of treating Misplaced Pages as an ideological battleground. That said, if it's true that one or several editors are conspiring to paint Murray in a bad light in violation of NOPV, there are several options available to you. WP:DRV and WP:ANI are the standard venues to address intractable conflicts or poor conduct. And since this is a BLP, it's subject to tighter conduct restrictions which can be enforced at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement provided they meet the . I'll post a "D/S Aware" notice below, A) so you can see how it's done and B) since you're actively editing/discussing a BLP and should be aware of the special sanctions. I know this is a lot, but I encourage you to approach my feedback with an open mind and reach out if you have any questions. Happy editing! –dlthewave ☎ 21:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

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

You have shown interest in 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 Misplaced Pages'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