Talk:Fred Malek

April 2008

The information here is almost all negative, and some of it may raise WP:BLP concerns. Looks like this is a new page, and not a very good one. But it meets WP:NOTE so it shouldn't be deleted. This page will probably get more traffic as the presidential campaign continues, so this should include more information on his business work and political activities and personal background, at least. --Loudon clear (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

If this is the same Malek who was involved in negotiating for the Nationals to come to DC, that should probably be mentioned. Jenseits (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing problematic sub-section, keeping article focused

A user named Yellow Rain has a few times now added a sub-section relating to an incident in 1959 in which Malek was arrested along with friends for animal abuse; the charges were dropped and later accounts indicate that Malek was present but not necessarily participatory.

Upon adding the section back, Yellow Rain included a long paragraph quoting the person who did take responsibility. I think this all runs very close to violating WP:BIO, and may in fact step over the line. The whole paragraph has a "when did you stop beating your wife" quality.

Moreover, this incident has nothing to do with the reasons for which Malek is notable. Per the comment section, Yellow Rain says the person who was responsible was later a general, but this has no bearing on an article that is about Fred Malek.

A similar case with Yellow Rain and the SEC finding against Malek/Thayer -- the section certainly deserves to be in here, as Thayer is an important part of his career. But the detailed information about other players in the case is irrelevant to Thayer/Malek and gives undue weight to the situation. --Loudon clear (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The shortening of the SEC/Thayer section is fine enough. Could you explain why the dog-barbecuing section would be a WP:BIO violation, please? After all it was covered in the mainstream media. Also, I don't see how you can say there's a "wife-beating" quality to it when the way that section was worded, it makes clear that it wasn't he, but his friend the future decorated Army Colonel, who had is way with that dog. Yellow Rain (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Clarifying reasons to remove the section

Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. What I meant was WP:BLP, where it says BLP articles

"must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

It also says:

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

Now, I am not saying that your reason to include this was to be sensationalist, but that is the effect. This seems all the more true when you consider that Malek seems to be innocent of the charge. So why should it be in an encyclopedia entry about him 50 years later? To edit conservatively and with respect for privacy, I think the incident does not seem at all relevant to his life or career, in the way that the BLS controversy or SEC fine clearly are. That is what I was geting at. --Loudon clear (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just removing some indents. --Loudon clear (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Other work section

I updated the article to reflect a few more recent things, such as to note that he is Chairman of the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. I placed this in a new section titled "other work", since it seemed like it wouldn't exactly fit under any of the other existing sections. If another Wikipedian has any thoughts on an alternate title/placement of this within the body of the article, I'd welcome discussion. Egleasen (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View BLS

The second paragraph in the BLS Controversy section reports a controversy as to Mr. Malek’s involvement in and enthusiasm about his role in counting Jews at the BLS. On the one hand are Mr. Malek’s after the fact characterizations of his intent and role, a matter in which he has a self-interest. On the other hand are a set of contemporaneous documents, authored by Mr. Malek himself, and articles quoting from those documents authored by reporter Timothy Noah of Slate. Mr. Noah has the usual bias of a reporter who looks for an interesting story.

One could argue that the fairest way to present this would be set out the Malek position as his "assertion" and to compare it to the facts revealed by contemporaneous documents, which are the subject of the Noah reporting. At worst, one would expect that a neutral point of view would describe Mr. Malek’s position as what he "asserted" after the fact and what contrary conclusions Mr. Noah "asserts" should be drawn from the documents. Alternatively, the controversy could be presented as what Mr. Malek has “said” and what Mr. Noah has “said.”

What the presentation does, however, is report Mr. Malek’s years-later assertions as fact and Mr. Noah’s review of contemporaneous documents as assertion. If that is even handed, then reversing the approach would be even handed as well. I set out below the way the paragraph now appears, the way it would appear if the “even handedness” were reversed, and finally the way an even handed presentation should appear.

CURRENT VERSION

Malek provided the data on Democrats after a check of voter registration rolls, but balked at fulfilling the rest of Nixon's query. "I refused four times. The fifth time he came back and gave me a direct order through Haldeman, so I gave him a number. I regret my compliance. It was a mistake."[18] Malek did not have access to BLS employees' religious affiliations, so his list comprised those BLS employees with "Jewish-sounding names", and two months after he sent the list, two of the officials on it were reassigned to "less visible jobs" within the Labor Dept.[19] Slate columnist Timothy Noah, however, asserts that a September 8, 1971 memo from Malek to Haldeman appears to contradict Malek's assertions of limited involvement, in which Malek states he has recommended to the Secretary of Labor "fairly drastic moves" including the "compromise" reassignment of three officials. Documents released by the Nixon library in January 2010 also appear to contradict Malek's statement.[17][20][21]

REVERSING THE CHARACTERIZATION (new material in ALL CAPS, deletings in [BRACKETS])

Malek provided the data on Democrats after a check of voter registration rolls, but ASSERTS HE balked at fulfilling the rest of Nixon's query. "I refused four times. The fifth time he came back and gave me a direct order through Haldeman, so I gave him a number. I regret my compliance. It was a mistake."[18] Malek did not have access to BLS employees' religious affiliations, so his list comprised those BLS employees with "Jewish-sounding names", and two months after he sent the list, two of the officials on it were reassigned to "less visible jobs" within the Labor Dept.[19] AS REPORTED BY Slate columnist Timothy Noah, however, [ASSERTS THAT]a September 8, 1971 memo from Malek to Haldeman appears to contradict Malek's assertions of limited involvement[, IN WHICH] IN THAT MEMO, Malek states he has recommended to the Secretary of Labor "fairly drastic moves" including the "compromise" reassignment of three officials. Documents released by the Nixon library in January 2010 also appear to contradict Malek's statement.[17][20][21]

A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW Malek provided the data on Democrats after a check of voter registration rolls, but SAYS HE balked at fulfilling the rest of Nixon's query. "I refused four times. The fifth time he came back and gave me a direct order through Haldeman, so I gave him a number. I regret my compliance. It was a mistake."[18] Malek did not have access to BLS employees' religious affiliations, so his list comprised those BLS employees with "Jewish-sounding names", and two months after he sent the list, two of the officials on it were reassigned to "less visible jobs" within the Labor Dept.[19] Slate columnist Timothy Noah, however, [ASSERTS] SAYS that a September 8, 1971 memo from Malek to Haldeman appears to contradict Malek's assertions of limited involvement, in which Malek states he has recommended to the Secretary of Labor "fairly drastic moves" including the "compromise" reassignment of three officials. Documents released by the Nixon library in January 2010 also appear to contradict Malek's statement.[17][20][21] Cale111 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Cale111

Neutral Point of View BLS

The second paragraph in the BLS Controversy section reports a controversy as to Mr. Malek’s involvement in and enthusiasm about his role in counting Jews at the BLS. On the one hand are Mr. Malek’s after the fact characterizations of his intent and role, a matter in which he has a self-interest. On the other hand are a set of contemporaneous documents, authored by Mr. Malek himself, and articles quoting from those documents authored by reporter Timothy Noah of Slate. Mr. Noah has the usual bias of a reporter who looks for an interesting story.

One could argue that the fairest way to present this would be set out the Malek position as his "assertion" and to compare it to the facts revealed by contemporaneous documents, which are the subject of the Noah reporting. At worst, one would expect that a neutral point of view would describe Mr. Malek’s position as what he "asserted" after the fact and what contrary conclusions Mr. Noah "asserts" should be drawn from the documents. Alternatively, the controversy could be presented as what Mr. Malek has “said” and what Mr. Noah has “said.”

What the presentation does, however, is report Mr. Malek’s years-later assertions as fact and Mr. Noah’s review of contemporaneous documents as assertion. If that is even handed, then reversing the approach would be even handed as well. I set out below the way the paragraph now appears, the way it would appear if the “even handedness” were reversed, and finally the way an even handed presentation should appear.

CURRENT VERSION

Malek provided the data on Democrats after a check of voter registration rolls, but balked at fulfilling the rest of Nixon's query. "I refused four times. The fifth time he came back and gave me a direct order through Haldeman, so I gave him a number. I regret my compliance. It was a mistake."[18] Malek did not have access to BLS employees' religious affiliations, so his list comprised those BLS employees with "Jewish-sounding names", and two months after he sent the list, two of the officials on it were reassigned to "less visible jobs" within the Labor Dept.[19] Slate columnist Timothy Noah, however, asserts that a September 8, 1971 memo from Malek to Haldeman appears to contradict Malek's assertions of limited involvement, in which Malek states he has recommended to the Secretary of Labor "fairly drastic moves" including the "compromise" reassignment of three officials. Documents released by the Nixon library in January 2010 also appear to contradict Malek's statement.[17][20][21]

REVERSING THE CHARACTERIZATION (new material in ALL CAPS, deletings in [BRACKETS])

Malek provided the data on Democrats after a check of voter registration rolls, but ASSERTS HE balked at fulfilling the rest of Nixon's query. "I refused four times. The fifth time he came back and gave me a direct order through Haldeman, so I gave him a number. I regret my compliance. It was a mistake."[18] Malek did not have access to BLS employees' religious affiliations, so his list comprised those BLS employees with "Jewish-sounding names", and two months after he sent the list, two of the officials on it were reassigned to "less visible jobs" within the Labor Dept.[19] AS REPORTED BY Slate columnist Timothy Noah, however, [ASSERTS THAT]a September 8, 1971 memo from Malek to Haldeman appears to contradict Malek's assertions of limited involvement[, IN WHICH] IN THAT MEMO, Malek states he has recommended to the Secretary of Labor "fairly drastic moves" including the "compromise" reassignment of three officials. Documents released by the Nixon library in January 2010 also appear to contradict Malek's statement.[17][20][21]

A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW Malek provided the data on Democrats after a check of voter registration rolls, but SAYS HE balked at fulfilling the rest of Nixon's query. "I refused four times. The fifth time he came back and gave me a direct order through Haldeman, so I gave him a number. I regret my compliance. It was a mistake."[18] Malek did not have access to BLS employees' religious affiliations, so his list comprised those BLS employees with "Jewish-sounding names", and two months after he sent the list, two of the officials on it were reassigned to "less visible jobs" within the Labor Dept.[19] Slate columnist Timothy Noah, however, [ASSERTS] SAYS that a September 8, 1971 memo from Malek to Haldeman appears to contradict Malek's assertions of limited involvement, in which Malek states he has recommended to the Secretary of Labor "fairly drastic moves" including the "compromise" reassignment of three officials. Documents released by the Nixon library in January 2010 also appear to contradict Malek's statement.[17][20][21] Cale111 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Cale111

Special Forces

That category Category:Members of the United States Army Special Forces was added based on article saying he served in the Special Forces in Vietnam, however, there should be a reliable source added that supports this statement. Otherwise, the statement and the category should be removed. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Dog stuff

@Bbny-wiki-editor: Did you mean to put up a shortened version of that section which preserves the WP:RS? I don’t see anything, it looks like you’ve completely removed the section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I simply meant to delete the text you restored, from your new Wikipedia account, that violates Undue Weight. It's not clear that any part of that incident even belongs here. We don't log every dropped misdemeanor charge against someone with a biography. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you be specific about how the proposed text violated WP:DUE? We appear to have multiple feature pieces on this from WP:RS, it could almost be its own wikipedia page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

DUE speaks for itself. Adding five or six paragraphs for a dropped misdemeanor charge is absurd when the person's entire Early Life section is only two short paragraphs. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It does not, it is an inanimate webpage. You’re going to have to be specific. Its also the incident thats notable in general not specifically the dropped charge. Note that it was an incident that continued for a long time, it was still relevant in 2012. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If the incident is "notable in general" and not because of Malek's involvement, then try creating a page for the incident and see how long it lasts before being deleted. Good luck. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I choose to make it here, what is your specific objection based on WP:DUE? You appear aware that Washington Post is a WP:RS even if you profess to resent that fact. You are also aware of The Atlantics WP:RS status? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you arguing that anything that appears in a RS is relevant and must never be deleted from a Wiki bio? That's...not how it works. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I am clearly not. What is your specific objection based on WP:DUE? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand the concept of "undue weight." That's the problem here. "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement,..." If someone was writing a summary of the first 30 years of your life, would you believe it was fair if 95% of the text related to a dropped misdemeanor charge? No, you wouldn't. The same applies here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

We do not concern ourselves with what is “fair." In what way do you think undue weight is being given here? Your 95% also appears be hyperbolic, if not maybe check your work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You're not "concerned" "with what is fair"? Fairness is the central point of DUE. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand, we must fairly represent the sources not treat the subject fairly... Thats a completely different concept. Note that removing all coverage of the incident and its consequences violates the core of WP:DUE "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You are still dodging the question: In what way do you think undue weight is being given here? You seem to be hinting that length is a concern but you also seem to be objecting to any coverage whatsoever no matter the length. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't dodged anything. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me phrase it differently: How would you fairly represent all significant viewpoints published in the reliable sources you removed, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources you removed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You're now arguing that the purpose of DUE is to be fair to the sources rather than to the subject? If you found twenty sources, would you believe they should all get a mention? Do you really not understand the section of DUE I quoted for you above? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If all were WP:RS and did not overlap massively then yes we would have to include all of them. Remember the operative word "fairly represent all significant viewpoints.” The section of WP:DUE you quoted above gives several ways that undue weight can be given, you need to be specific about how you think this is undue weight (it cant be all of them after all). Just to be clear though you can use undue weight as an argument for less coverage, it cant be used as an argument for no coverage which seems to be what you’re doing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Earlier you question the WP:RS standing of the Washington Post, "since WaPo coverage is presumed to be gospel (which, of course, is nonsense)” on what grounds were you doing so? We appear to have a strong consensus for reliability when it comes to that particular source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm done going in circles with you. Re-read the part of DUE I quoted above and stop wasting my time. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I read it, its not a justification for removing the text although it might be justification for shortening it up. Is there some consensus version you wish to propose that fairly summarizes these reliable sources or are you going to let my fair summaries stand? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to "let your fair summaries stand," because they aren't fair under DUE. That's the whole point here. In a two-paragraph Early Life section, that incident probably doesn't even belong here. At most, it gets one or two sentences, without a section subheading. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

But it has multiple feature pieces in WP:RS and the rest of his early life has none, it needs to be at least as long if not longer per WP:DUE. Can we settle on two or three paragraphs? Or perhaps given the Romney era stuff we move it into its own section, that part certainly isnt in his early life. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

What we cover is based on how much stuff was covered by WP:RS, its not supposed to be some sort of proportional breakdown of someones life. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

No, we can't settle on two or three paragraphs, because that would be a clear violation of DUE. You still don't get it, do you? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

How would that violate WP:DUE? If I dont understand its because you *still* havent explained your position, how exactly does this violate WP:DUE? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

We give American Friends of the Czech Republic a whole paragraph yet we have *zero* feature pieces for that (its all passing mentions), unless you’re proposing we cut that section its hard to imagine giving the extremely well sourced dog BBQ less than a paragraph. Again what we write is proportional to the *coverage* of the subject's life by WP:RS not to how much time the person spent doing the different parts of their life or anything else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe you still don't understand this: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement,..." - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You realize undue weight applies to both too little coverage and too much right? You actually have to explain how you think undue weight is being given, is your argument about depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, use of imagery, a combination of them or something else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I already explained all that. Six paragraphs about this in an eight-paragraph Early Life section is the very definition of Undue Weight. It's like writing a 100 page biography and making 90 pages of it about one hour of one day. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The "Dog-barbecuing incident" section has been debated previously and retained for twelve years. That sounds like a consensus to me. However, I do think the wording could be tightened up. (BTW, it was four paragraphs out of six, not six out of eight.) My first draft would reduce the text by about a quarter:

Dog-barbecuing incident

In August 1959, Malek and four other men were arrested in Vicary's Park near Peoria, Illinois after a dog was killed, eviscerated and barbecued on a spit. Charges of cruelty to animals were later dismissed against all but one of the men, Andrew P. O'Meara, who testified that he alone had struck and killed the dog, skinned it and tried to cook it, in order to teach the others something about living off the land.

The story came up again when Malek became an advisor and fundraiser to Sarah Palin in the 2008 presidential campaign. Amid accusations that Malek himself had killed and barbecued the dog, Malek, in his blog, quoted O'Meara, a retired Army Colonel, taking "full responsibility" for what happened.

During the 2012 presidential campaign the incident once again came up when Malek's hosting of Ann Romney's birthday party was brought up by the semi-satirical group Dogs Against Romney.

References

-- Pemilligan (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That's still way too much. Every time someone mentions this it gets a new update? If that's how it worked, Bill Clinton's page would have 50,000 Lewinsky updates. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned it over the cheese course last night as an amusing story, but as I am not a WP:RS theres no need to add anything to this page. I think it goes without saying that anytime theres significant coverage of Fred Malek we should assess whether to update the article, thats how wikipedia works. The Clinton–Lewinsky scandal is notable enough to have its own page btw. Your non-policy based objections (as well as supposedly policy based objections you refuse to explain or specify) are bordering on WP:TENDENTIOUS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I prefer this draft to the original, its tighter and more encyclopedic while still representing all the major viewpoints found in the WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"Tendentious"? You want tendentious? Tendentious is you spending five days pretending not to understand what "undue weight" means, and using multiple Wikipedia accounts, in an effort to reinsert this material. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you still pretending you don't know what undue weight is? Thats unfortunate but statements like "It's like writing a 100 page biography and making 90 pages of it about one hour of one day.” do suggest that you think its about applying weight to different parts of someones life rather than being proportionate to the coverage received by the different parts of their life. If someone is only notable for that one hour of their life and in-depth WP:RS coverage is only of that one hour then their wikipedia page would be almost entirely focused on that one hour. What do you mean by multiple Wikipedia accounts? I’ve never used two accounts at one time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there an echo here? I'm not the one who doesn't understand DUE. Also, a person who's only notable because of one event shouldn't have a bio at all, per BIO1E. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

You proposed the hypothetical not me, I’m glad we agree that in your scenario the wikipedia page would focus almost entirely on the hour rather than the rest of the life. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the section with the shorter text given above. This subject has been debated multiple times over a dozen years. Individuals have advocated removal but never achieved a consensus in favor of doing so. The consensus has been, and remains, to keep it. -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Where's the consensus to keep? I see one prior discussion in which two or three people participated. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your shortening of the shorter text as it violated WP:DUE, for example by removing Malek’s self-published defense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted your bad-faith revert, since you still don't seem to understand DUE. Do this again and I'll report you to an admin. Maybe your new Wikipedia account can get banned like your last one. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I have never had an account banned, please retract both that assertion and your assertion of bad faith. Please actually engage with us in reaching consensus rather than sabotaging the progress we have made on this page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You've been suspended from Wikipedia. Also, if there's no consensus, then you're admitting to violating Wiki rules with your recent edits here. Thanks for that. It will be helpful when I report you. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not been suspended from Wikipedia, I was once blocked though. Since we’re on the topic do you mind elaborating on what happened in August 2018? It seems theres a flaw in your holier than thou attitude. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Per NPOV/DUE "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” Your edit removed Malek’s blog which is a WP:RS usable under about self which leaves out a significant viewpoint. It also violated DUE, although in a less concrete way, by being too short as well as not giving the incident the appropriate amount of prominence. Also your version, specifically "Decades later, the incident was brought up by Malek's opponents during the course of political campaigns,” fails verification... The sources don’t say its Malek’s opponents who bring it up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The "appropriate amount of prominence"? That's the point of DUE, which you still don't understand. A section covering three decades of Malek's life shouldn't have 90% of it devoted to a DROPPED misdemeanor charge. I've wasted enough of my time on this, so I'll be reporting this to an admin and you can take it up with them. I see you're already in hot water with at least one admin from your behavior last week. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

None of the proposed versions "have 90% of it devoted to a DROPPED misdemeanor charge” once again I think you’re mixing up real and hyperbolic numbers. Please stick to real ones from now on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

When this started, five out of six paragraphs were about the incident in question, plus it had a subheading that drew further attention to it. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Look at your own first revert, it was 3 out of five paragraphs and one of those was a single sentence paragraph [1]. Where are you getting five out of six? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The dog incident should definitely be included, whether abbreviated or not. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

False edit summary

@Bbny-wiki-editor: You have falsely accused me in your edit summary of "a clear violation of the three-revert rule." The three-revert rule states, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page...within a 24-hour period." My most recent edits to this page were

• 20:32, 23 November 2020‎, Undid revision 990279279 by Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) There is no consensus supporting your efforts to have this removed
• 02:51, 22 November 2020‎, Dog-barbecuing incident: Restored a more summarized text
• 23:39, 11 August 2020‎, Dog-barbecuing incident: Reference details
• 22:57, 11 August 2020‎, Dog-barbecuing incident: Reference details

Only one of these was a revert, and did not come within 24 hours of another edit. Please take more care with your words in the future. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't read 3RR as allowing ten different editors to each revert and restore the same material up to three times per day before it's considered a problem. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It states, "The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together." I am one person with one account who made one revert. There is nothing that even suggests that multiple accounts operated by multiple editors count together. Your edit summary also accused me of "making things up as he goes along." It's becoming very clear that you are the one doing that. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pemilligan: ironically that revert took them to four for the day so I’ve opened a case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bbny-wiki-editor reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: ). Seems fair given their perpetual threats to get admins involved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)