User talk:Factchecker atyourservice/Archive 3

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexian Lien beating.

Bearian (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Alexian Lien beating are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was discussion about the article. I responded to baseless speculation about Alexian Lien with reasonably well-informed speculation about why groups of biker thugs violently accost motorists. Not sure why you removed one and not the other. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's one thing to cite actual sourced opinions about what may have happened, but it's disruptive to post inflammatory accusations with no sources. Speculation about the possible crimes or evil intent of living persons, which in no way can be used to improve an article, is disruptive editing. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As I just said: it was about the article. You are utterly full of it. The comments that you refrained from removing were baseless crime accusations with zero source. It would appear they just didn't bother you because the accusations weren't against motorcyclists. My comments were just general LEO comments about what gangs of thugs usually try to do after forcing an innocent motorist to a stop and basically imprisoning him on the open road. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cecily mcmillan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cecily mcmillan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This would appear to have been in error. In any event the re-constituted article now contains additional information regarding subject's notability. thanks Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cecily mcmillan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cecily mcmillan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. G S Palmer (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Cecily McMillan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cecily McMillan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecily McMillan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. M. Caecilius (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm replying here rather than on the talkpage of the above article. I put up the first version for speedy delete because the article did not contain any real assertion that this is a notable case. The second nom (by somebody else) is really the same, I don't think the addition of "credible" makes any difference. I'm actually on the fence on this article now, having read up on it a little: it could be a case that is of more than passing interest. A lot depends on what the sentence is.TheLongTone (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to conduct a cursory examination of the subject after having the article deleted. In the future I can only hope that you will take deletion criteria a bit more seriously. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, I hope that in future you will try to include some reason for the subject of an article is notable before creating an article. Refreences don't hurt either.TheLongTone (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please adjust your editing style to suit my tastes. Message me when you're done. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am overwhelmed by your sarcam. Not. I was offering some sensible advice.16:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's my Talk page, and I'll snark if I want to. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cecily_McMillan. Thank you. M. Caecilius (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you weren't able to substantiate your claim with any text. Eerily similar to your policy arguments. Cheers, Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Black Bike Week. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is a personal attack and you have been warned before of the NPA policy. — Brianhe (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It was richly deserved. It would appear this guy has personal issues with me, or else a very very serious misconception about proper WP policy, and little or no ability to work with an opposing editor without exploding into accusations of ill intent and WP:TRUTH suppression. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering, have you actually read WP:TRUTH? I don't think it says what you think it does. — Brianhe (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it — and without the slightest hint of what you mean above, there's not much more I can say to you other than Yes. Have you actually read WP:Verifiability or WP:NPOV ? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's your answer. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Conversation with IP regarding Alexian Lien article

"Please be careful when writing WP prose based on a source. You wrote that a New York Times article claimed that Christopher Cruz was not attempting to cause a collision with Alexian Lien. The source does not say that."

No. It was an ABC news television interview. I merely transcribed it. Cruz himself makes that claim in the interview. Watch the video. Perhaps you didn't see the source I cited [attempted to cite].

"The source does say that stunt riders often attempt to slow other motorists down, but does not claim that's what Cruz was doing, and does not claim Cruz was not attempting to cause a collision."

That's the next cited source that says that, not what I wrote. Why are we not discussing this on the article's talk page, btw?

"Nor can we as WP editors draw that conclusion ourselves; that would be WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of original research."

I understand that, and that is not what I did. Thanks for taking the time to explain it anyway. Again, see the actual source (video interview with Cruz).

"For a defense of Christopher Cruz's actions, you would need a statement that is specifically about his actions. I am guessing there are plenty of published quotes by Cruz's lawyer which could be included. But even then, our article would read something along the lines of, "Cruz's attorney stated that Cruz was not attempting to cause a collision", because we would need to attribute the statement to the person making it, rather than presenting it as plain fact. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)"

Again, watch the interview. That's why I included only Cruz's actual words to the interviewer, not my own thoughts or opinions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOo-UW1UCT8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.222.253.74 (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

SUV/Motorcycle - Watch the interview with Cruz - I transcribed his actual words, no O.R.

"Please be careful when writing WP prose based on a source. You wrote that a New York Times article claimed that Christopher Cruz was not attempting to cause a collision with Alexian Lien. The source does not say that."

No. It was an ABC news television interview. I merely transcribed it. Cruz himself makes that claim in the interview. Watch the video. Perhaps you didn't see the source I cited [attempted to cite].

"The source does say that stunt riders often attempt to slow other motorists down, but does not claim that's what Cruz was doing, and does not claim Cruz was not attempting to cause a collision."

That's the next cited source that says that, not what I wrote. Why are we not discussing this on the article's talk page, btw?

"Nor can we as WP editors draw that conclusion ourselves; that would be WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of original research."

I understand that, and that is not what I did. Thanks for taking the time to explain it anyway. Again, see the actual source (video interview with Cruz).

"For a defense of Christopher Cruz's actions, you would need a statement that is specifically about his actions. I am guessing there are plenty of published quotes by Cruz's lawyer which could be included. But even then, our article would read something along the lines of, "Cruz's attorney stated that Cruz was not attempting to cause a collision", because we would need to attribute the statement to the person making it, rather than presenting it as plain fact. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)"

Again, watch the interview. That's why I included only Cruz's actual words to the interviewer, not my own thoughts or opinions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOo-UW1UCT8

Due to the way the contents of the revert looked, I thought you had added the NYT material, but that was another editor. My bad. That was the material that misrepresented the source. As for the YouTube video, in general we try to avoid YouTube videos where possible (should be an official copy out there). And you can't make your own "transcript" of a video and then cite its exact words. That's WP:OR. I replaced the extended interview material with a paraphrase. Also, when it appears (to me) that a new IP user needs some basic policy guidance I usually post on the IP's talk page rather than the article page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'm fine with the paraphrase. Admittedly, it was probably a ham-handed attempt on my part, as I'm not that familiar with Wiki formatting. But, since Cruz himself was disputing the speculation given in the Times article, I thought it was important to get that info in there. 108.222.253.74 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries do not suffice as "discussion"

It is your responsibility to engage in discussion on Talk:2013 IRS controversy and gain consensus for your proposed removal of longstanding text that is the result of significant prior debate, discussion and compromises. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You ignore that it is POV-pushing OR. You're taking a government document and then adding your own personal observation that they're all Republicans, as if to call into question the motivations or credibility of the committee members. If you want the WP article to pointedly make that observation, at minimum, you need a secondary source pointedly making that observation (and probably a rather notable one at that).

You also misunderstand BRD, which is not a Wikipedia policy.

Finally, edit summaries absolutely constitute discussion, and I also note you didn't even respond to the additional comment I made on the Talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not in any sense OR to acknowledge that the source of a particular document is the partisan leadership of a committee. The document is not authored by "the government." It's authored by the majority party on the House Oversight Committee (i.e., Republicans). That is how committees in the United States Congress work. Requiring a secondary source for that is like requiring a secondary source to reflect that the current White House Press Secretary speaks for a Democratic President. And, yes, the document absolutely reflects the motives of its authors: in this case, to suggest that the IRS is engaging in politically-motivated targeting. Similarly, a report from the minority party on the committee would likely reflect the motives of ITS authors. It's hardly controversial to acknowledge the source of a document so that readers can draw their own conclusions as to its reliability. Dyrnych (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a government document, despite being authored by evil Republicans. And it is OR to build in information that's not in the source, for the specific purpose of calling the primary source into question. That is what notable commentators do with primary sources, and even then we only touch their opinions when those opinions find their way into reliable sources. WP editors do not enjoy the same privilege. Please see WP:PRIMARY. Going around slapping unsourced partisan identifiers on view proponents for the purpose of questioning their credibility is OR.

Readers may inspect the original source for themselves and if they are interested they can discover the political affiliations of the authors, with a little research. Or you can cite to a secondary source that notes the political affiliation and draws some conclusions. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that you will find no support for the notion that noting the authorship of a document is OR. But, hey: maybe you can prove me wrong. If you think it's OR, there's a noticeboard for that. Dyrnych (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find much support for the position that unsourced material must be inserted so that readers will know not to trust the source being referred to. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So your argument is that an identification of the authorship of any document must be sourced independently? Interesting. Dyrnych (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that, redname. But adding an unsourced identifier for the purpose of putting an unsourced editorial spin on a primary source document is quite deep into the territoriy of inappropriate editing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Is "redname" supposed to be some sort of insult? I can't fathom why you'd address me by that moniker, though maybe you have some argument for why the term is intended to facilitate constructive dialogue. That aside, your misreading of WP policies continues, unless you're arguing that the authorship of the piece is not attributable. It interests me that you assume that knowing the source of the claim would cause readers to distrust the source. Again, though, if you're unclear on whether attributing a source to its author is OR, feel free to refer the matter to the noticeboard. Dyrnych (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Straw men for sale. Buy ten! No need to respond to what the other guy actually says! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No straw men here, buddy. You're claiming that including the authorship of the document would (1) be original research and (2) call into question the document's credibility in the minds of readers. As to your first claim, WP:NOR states: "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it." Similarly, the authorship of the source is not in question; we know that sources exist for it, because we have the rules of the House Oversight Committee for the 113th Congress and a record of the votes taken in committee, including the vote on the report. The authorship of the document is not (and should not be) in controversy, and there is no need to find a secondary source that attributes the document to its authors. As to your second, the fact that the authors have a partisan motive is highly relevant in evaluating its reliability. I would insist on similar attribution were this a report by the committee minority's staff, because the authors have a similar partisan motive in releasing the document. This allows readers to draw their own conclusions about the reliability of the document, which is precisely the opposite of "putting an unsourced editorial spin" on the document. All that said, it's pretty clear that we're not going to reach any sort of resolution; you seem to be much more interested in impugning my motives and insulting me rather than engaging with my arguments. Dyrnych (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

If a secondary source notes the alleged political affiliation of a government official making a report, or perhaps if the document self-identifies according to political affiliation, then that's fit for inclusion. Otherwise you are engaging in either unsourced editorializing or OR. Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis

Regarding this edit and your edit summary "Again remove source-misrepresenting, OR-containing, POV-pushing material reflecting non-notable opinions, tendentiously reinserted". Actually my edit was the opposite of tendentious. It was consistent with WP:BANREVERT. I reverted Special:Contributions/221.7.11.9 on the basis that they were 'probably Jeremy aka Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis', who is site banned. You should probably familiarize yourself with this editor because you are likely to see them again (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis). The edit summaries and the targeting of specific editors and articles are characteristic of this person. They also often issue death threats and threats of violence against editors. Many of their edits, and they had made thousands, are revdel'd. They have been doing this for 10 years since they were about 15. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but since you reinserted a chunk of extremely bad material already repeatedly reinserted by a couple of TEs, with the inscrutable edit summary "probably Jeremy aka Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis", my immediate assumption was that you were joining in on what looked like a tag team. You can of course understand my confusion. In any event, it would appear the gentleman does occasionally make a good edit.

Also it would appear you failed to abide by the linked policy, which reads "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." Please take additional care in future. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jennifer Rubin (journalist) - Cwobeel (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be more productive if you participate in the WP:DR above. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I did. It's closed because the lead Palestinian axe-grinder didn't participate. The content, which violates multiple policies on its face and which you have made zero effort to defend or even explore on the article talk page will again be reverted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You did not participate at all. I will report at WP:AN/I - Cwobeel (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not even sure what you mean by that, but I can tell you know how to file admin reports, so fire away. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy 4th, Sunshine

You behavior has been noted. -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

(Complaint dismissed as meritless) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not see your response at WP:DR. I have refactored the AN/I posting. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: pardon me

F.C.A.Y.S,

Yes, I removed the header on your user page, like I said in the edit summary , it violates Polemic . I see you put it back up. No problem, I won't touch it again. Just be aware that it violates that guideline . Kosh Vorlon   16:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC) _{PS: Your current signature doesn't have your nickname or your name so it may violate WP:SIG.}

In the edit summary, you linked a non-existent policy. Now that you have linked the correct policy, I don't see how it applies. I'm not going to bother asking for the finer details of your opinion, since I suspect you are a fellow who is generally uninterested in details. However you must understand that such a terse and mystifying statement is not going to make me "aware" of anything. Note that the essay has been considered for deletion before.

Your small-text comment regarding my sig is also puzzling. Is "Centrify" not my nickname or my name? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

2013 IRS controversy reversion

I've now reinstated almost all of the edits that I made yesterday and which you've indicated were non-controversial. This encompasses eight individual edits where no content was added or removed (I've also made a couple of edits that changed content and which I'm not including in this count). I understand that you have objections to several of my edits from yesterday, but I think a better policy than mass-reverting my edits (most of which are non-controversial) would have been to dispute the few individual edits with which you had issues. Dyrnych (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool, it would also be better not pave the way for a "reorganization" and then bury major POV changes amidst all the effort, because then those major changes might go unnoticed and undiscussed. Generally it's also better to actually discuss those POV changes when you wish to make them, especially when you add a paragraph of editorializing at the end of all that and the net result is a major change to the tone of the article. Surely you can understand my concern that all of this might go unnoticed due to the way you made and talked about your edits, and at minimum it should be no surprise that I wanted to talk about it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the changes that I made were major POV changes and in any event I think I documented them adequately in my edit summaries (which is pretty much the opposite of "burying" them), but I accept that discussion was warranted in some of those cases. I think I was pretty transparent on the talk page about my desire to include a subsequent reactions section (which I dispute is "editorializing" or a "major change"). I'll discuss that further at the talk page for the article, though. Dyrnych (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You giving a "summary" of the course of events, highlighting what you think have been the contours of the debate and placing it in what you think is proper perspective, is SYN. We let sources do that. And I find it surprising that you find it surprising that I objected to your removal of critical viewpoints without discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not defending the content of my edits here. I'm noting that the effect of my edits was clear in nearly all cases. We can discuss the content of the edits on the article's talk page. Dyrnych (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm just noting that your discussion leading up to these edits, and the actual conduct of the edits themselves, together with the absence of expected discussion on a subject where you were sure to encounter resistance, all combined to give the impression that you were merely reorganizing the content and nothing more. A less careful editor than myself might never have noticed the un-discussed POV changes, which you knew would raise objections. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that that impression was given. And, honestly, distilling a number of quotes down to a descriptor of those quotes did not seem particularly controversial to me. In any event, there's a remedy for changes that are controversial: the BRD cycle. I had and have no objection to you reverting the edits that you disagree with. My objection was to the wholesale, sledgehammer reversion of even noncontroversial edits. Dyrnych (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you refrain from making edits that clearly call for a sledgehammer, your other edits are less vulnerable to collateral damage. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Rubin

You have been reverted by three different editors over the past week. A slow-motion edit war is tendentious editing, and you are the one carrying it on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Editors can't gang up to violate policy, esp. not core policies. Please stop re-inserting manifestly inappropriate material into a BLP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 14 July 2014 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Factchecker_atyourservice reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Conduct at 2013 IRS controversy

I am trying to be civil to you and address your concerns, but I am honestly not sure how I can continue doing this given your disruptive conduct and frequent edit warring. I would like to resolve this between us rather than seek any other dispute resolution. Let me give you three examples of the type of conduct that I'm concerned about.

1. Your wholesale reversion of my reorganization (which you keep referring to as a scare-quoted "reorganization"). We've discussed this above, and your entire thesis for the necessity of this ham-handed maneuver rests on your view that my motives in reorganizing were bad. Therefore, you reverted the entire effort. As has become clear, you've mistaken both the content and the effects of my reorganization; you have admitted in part that this is the case, although you maintain that the drastic step of reverting an effort that took me quite some time was necessary to restore material that you believe should have remained unsummarized in the article. To my knowledge, that and the presence of the Subsequent Reactions section (more below) are the only concerns that you have explicated and not withdrawn. After I manually restored the reorganization, you have said nothing that suggests that you believe that your conduct was disruptive or unwarranted; you've instead tried to justify it by reference--again--to my supposed motives in paraphrasing a series of quotes.

2. Your "discussion" of my proposed Subsequent Reactions section. My initial reorganization did in fact add a Subsequent Reactions section in which I noted that many liberals now believe that the targeting was not motivated by politics. In support of this, I cited four sources. In addition to these sources, I added a link to a recent poll noting that public opinion remains suspicious of the Obama administration--a view that does not in any sense fit your stated notion of my bias. Rather than restoring the section, I created a section on the article's talk page to discuss the propriety of adding the section. When I recapitulated my rationale for the section, you did not acknowledge my previous sources and simply stated that I "need a source noting this shift." I am assuming based on your previous edit summaries that by this you mean that citing those four sources for that proposition is WP:SYNTH. While I disagree (because noting that several sources come to the same conclusion is summary rather than synthesis), I nevertheless found numerous other sources in an attempt to mollify you. One of those sources was the House Oversight Committee minority's report, which directly states the proposition that investigation has found no evidence of political motives. Following this, you demanded that I post a source or delete my comment "per NOTFORUM." This discounts all of the sources I cited above and literally everything I said about the necessity for the inclusion of the viewpoint: that it exists and is notable, not that I am currently advocating for it. I asked you to explain how NOTFORUM was implicated or at least address my sources; to date, you have done neither. Additionally, I posted a link to a source that directly states that such a shift has occurred; you have not responded to this either. I am virtually certain based on your previous conduct that any attempt that I make to include the material, even thoroughly sourced as described, will result in a reversion from you based on a flimsy excuse such as a failure to discuss (which I've done at length with virtually no reciprocation) or lack of notability (despite being the view of the minority party in the House Oversight Committee and of the numerous sources I've named) or undue weight (despite amounting in its previous form to a tiny fraction of the page).

3. Your handling of yesterday and today's plagiarism/copyright infringement issues. You can read my post on the article's talk page in which I specifically note that your previous conduct convinced me to take a much more cautious approach and, nevertheless, you reverted my edit. But the most puzzling aspect of this for me is your contention that by raising these issues, I was "tilting at windmills to get the quotes removed on a technicality", seeking their removal on a "hypertechnical or mistaken reading of WP policy on copyrighted material." There is no evidence for this claim beyond--again--your interpretation of my motives. Similarly, you ignored my stated assumption that the plagiarism was inadvertent in favor of characterizing my concerns as some kind of personal attack on the editor in question and the fact that I followed WP policy in resolving this situation as further evidence of my bad motives.

In each case, your objections seem to stem primarily from your subjective view of my motives rather than any real critique of the content. Regardless of the accuracy of your view, this is a form of personal attack ("[u]sing someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views") and eliminates virtually any prospect of substantive, consensus-building discussion. Rather than assuming my good faith, you state that I have agenda-driven motives, that my edits are evidence of this, and that they are immediately suspect because of my supposed motives. This leads you to misconstrue my arguments in favor of your preferred interpretation of my arguments and misinterpret my edits as being done in bad faith. Meanwhile, you frequently refuse to engage in actual discussion about content, preferring to shift the argument back to my supposed motives.

I'm sure that you have concerns about me as well. If those concerns relate to my conduct and not to your assessment of my motives, I'm happy to address them. But if they ARE related to my supposed bad faith in editing, I would suggest that dispute resolution of a different type is necessary; I am not going to (and should not have to) go through a protracted discussion (divorced from any discussion of actual encyclopedic content) to reassure you once again about my motives prior to making any edit to the page.

The foregoing relates specifically to me. However, I am also concerned about the fact that beyond reversions, your edits are largely confined to the article's talk pages. Per WP:DE, while "such disruption may not directly harm an article, [...] it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article." This is precisely what I believe to be happening to the article in question. Dyrnych (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Your conduct related to deleting those quotes and subsequent efforts to remove or minimize them was very suspicious. Despite the existence of AGF, you should take care that you don't make edits that look like you're trying to sneak POV changes in through the back door.

Your entire "Subsequent Reactions" section was synth, which you seem very close to realizing for yourself. You need a source that explicitly notes the shift you're talking about, not a series of sources which you think support what is actually the novel conclusion about other sources that you're making (inappropriately).

Suggestion for the future: if you think a piece supports certain WP article text, cite specific source text so that some discussion can be had, instead of simply listing URLs and declaring that they all confirm you're right. Editors are not mind readers and you cannot reasonably expect that others will know which text in which source you're talking about, or whether you are interpreting the text faithfully.

Also, consensus is a two-way street, not simply a requirement that other users get your permission before reverting changes that you made without discussion in the first place. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. So your reply is, in essence, that your conduct was entirely appropriate in all instances? Dyrnych (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it was far, far, far, far less inappropriate than yours. Purported editor-courtesy violations are not an excuse to violate content policies.

The "subsequent reactions" SYNTH that you wrote was removed quite appropriately. And the section of actual published media reactions, which you removed without comment in order to make room for your POV-pushing SYNTH, was restored quite appropriately. Question: has anything you've done so far been appropriate? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Other than that accusation of SYNTH (and I dispute this strongly), you have identified no content policy that I've violated. And that's my issue: whatever accusations you've leveled at me have stemmed entirely from your mistaken perceptions of my motives ("POV-pushing," etc.). I've already justified my actions at length; you have not in any sense engaged with those justifications. I can see that this is going nowhere, as you've already retrenched to your usual MO of hyperbole, mischaracterization, and insult. Dyrnych (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, pointing out that you're violating a content policy is not a personal attack. Nor is referring to material as POV-pushing. The material you are trying to insert pushes a POV, which is definitely a problem because the POV is as yet unsourced.

Dispute all you want; it's SYNTH, as I have patiently and repeatedly explained to you. Find a source making the observations you want the WP article to make, or STOP ARGUING, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

Reading your talk page is like watching a line of people repeatedly smash their heads into a brick wall, except I can't figure out who's the wall and who's just crazy... a disturbing but fascinating journey that will almost certainly lead to my giddying descent into madness.

I love it. Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever accused me of being sane. Rational, sure, but that's not quite the same thing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Missle map

As I pointed out on the talkpage Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#locations of the crash site and missile launch post the source is from the Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense and not confirmed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So? Start a discussion on proper wording of the caption? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if I were to do that how would you go about explaining the red square? The map is good just take the red square out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What does the cited source say about the red square? And why are we having this chat on my Talk page? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that you have performed three reverts within an hour. Per WP:3RR, the fourth revert will get you blocked without any further warnings. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I usually don't worry about 3RR when reverting improper edits and diligently pursuing discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysian Airways

I didn't necessarily mean that it is rare to have such "doubles". However, indeed it is very rare. What is important is simple: are there reliable sources in order to have the info included? From this perspective it is not important if similar coincidences occurred in the past or not. Dmatteng (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I took your use of the "small" text template as an invitation to chat informally about it. Like we were whispering notforum-y stuff. I certainly don't think we should be reflecting such an observation unless an RS has. Anyhoo. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't use small template lol, you did. I'm also proposing to use the information only if reliable sources are present. :) Dmatteng (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You used small, I replied in small. As I said, I thought we were chatting. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? I don't see I have used small. I think you are referring to editor MilborneOne, he indeed used small. :) Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_4. Do you think we should include some information on the coincidence however? There was at least one reliable source proposed by another editor http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/second-disaster-strikes-malaysia-airlines-as-jet-goes-down-over-ukraine/story-e6frg6so-1226992992291?nk=4ee621ae8ebac3ffcf8e8078b38f6add. I also think if to dig a little more reliable sources can be uncovered. I would think we can summarize such sources in Coincidence section of the article. I don't really see how other editors do not consider it important. In my opinion it is a very encyclopedic material. We have two very rare and impossibly unusual crashes. It is written in the reliable source: "Two Boeing 777s. Two incredibly rare aviation disasters. And one airline." and "mind-boggling coincidence." Happy editing. Dmatteng (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought I was talking to the other user. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That is just fine. You are welcome. Dmatteng (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject israel listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikiproject israel. Since you had some involvement with the Wikiproject israel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Just FWIW in case any editor is curious as to why I suddenly cared about a redirect: I attempted to use the Search feature to search for "WikiProject Israel". The engine returned no results and asked, "Did you mean WikiProject Islam?" Well, I think it's highly unlikely that anyone would type in one, but hope to find the other. I saw that the only reason WikiProject Islam was yielding a result was because someone had created a redirect. Seemed pretty dry and uncontroversial so I did the same for WikiProject Israel. When a few editors immediately tagged the redirect for deletion, I added the Islam project redirect so future users don't get that potentially annoying "Did you mean...?" message. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

IRS controversy edits, 27 July 2014

Your recent editing history at 2013 IRS controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

You do not have consensus for the edit you keep reinstating (obscuring the authorship of the Oversight Committee staff report), as you should be aware from the fact that multiple editors have objected to your formulation and none has supported it. Please reinstate the stable version and either discuss this on the article's talk page or seek additional opinions if you feel that there should be a change. Dyrnych (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you're edit-warring yourself (and wrong on the policy) you might want to make sure you don't take a boomerang hit along with any possible sanctions that I'm rewarded with for attempting to keep you from writing the article as if your thoughts are a reliable source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jennifer Rubin (journalist). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  - 2/0 (cont.) 22:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits at List of incidents of misuse of the Internal Revenue Service‎, 31 July 2014

Your recent editing history at List of incidents of misuse of the Internal Revenue Service‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Apparently you literally just came off a block for edit warring. Please stop doing this. Dyrnych (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop doing what? Having a summary article accurately reflect the topic it's supposed to summarize? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand that that is your position. However, I have already noted several objections to the material. The appropriate thing for you to do in this circumstance is to leave the page as is pending discussion of your controversial changes or to seek dispute resolution, not to reinstate your preferred version over the policy-based objections of others. That is edit warring. Dyrnych (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe you have read the material I added, which was specifically adjusted to meet your prior objections. Also, why are we having this chat at my Talk page? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

We're having this discussion on your talk page because in our last conversation, you accused me of objecting in bad faith to your edits and explicitly stated that you would "probably not respond" to my "surreal nonsense." Therefore, I thought it best to wait for other editors to respond before making substantive changes of the kind that you've made pending some other opinion rather than (1) having another argument between us that ends in you making inflammatory accusations or (2) me posting objections on the article's talk page and you declining to respond, as you've stated that you would do. Dyrnych (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

More nonsense; I didn't say that. You made a BS unsubstantiated claim that I"portray[ed] [the controversy] as unambiguously one way or the other [in violation of NPOV]". The claim was BS, and I asked you to redact it or substantiate it, and when you didn't, I said you were making the accusation in bad faith.

Are you still making that claim? If so, I still request that you either redact it or clearly substantiate it. (Hint: you can't, because I didn't do what you accused me of.)

You need to have thick enough skin to distinguish between being insulted and simply being shown wrong. If you want to talk about the article content, let's talk about it. If you're just here to expound upon your misperceptions and hurt feelings, please leave me alone. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It is factually accurate and demonstrable that you DID state what you are now claiming not to have stated, but it's immaterial to the fact that you are edit warring to keep your preferred version: the precise thing that you were JUST BLOCKED for doing. I am asking you to self-revert and try to get some kind of consensus for your edits, per Wikipedia policy. Dyrnych (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

More nonsense. I now ask you again to substantiate or redact, else you are simply a liar. You do realize there is a paper trail of every word, right?

I will not self-revert, because the version I wrote abides by policy very well, and the version you wrote did not, and your rantings about consensus reflect little more than an expectation that you be allowed a free hand to unilaterally write WP articles from a biased left-wing perspective, and then revert and purport to demand "discussion" — even though it turns out none is forthcoming — when another editor tries to reflect a notable side of a debate that you don't agree with. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 1 August 2014 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyrnych (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

nice try

Saw your user talk comment at Michael Ridgeway's. Nice try to give some guidance, but he is bound and determined to prove that wikipedia is a big conspiracy against his truth. Every time someone reaches out to him, he twists it into another attack. Ah well. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Thomas Jackson (police officer). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The G4 of Thomas Jackson (police officer)

I didn't notice your comment on the G4ing of Thomas Jackson (police officer) until after I left my own request for clarification.

My understanding of WP:CSD#G4 is that it is authorized when someone takes a copy of previously deleted article, and restores it, essentially unchanged. As I commented to User:Davey2010 it appears User:Cwobeel drafted the current version, ab initio.

Are you in a position to offer an informed opinion as to whether or not Cwobeel's draft was a mere duplicate of the deleted material, not a brand new attempt to cover Jackson? Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I did not know that there was a previous AFD until after I started the article, so it could never have been a copy of the deleted article. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you started a brand new article -- in which case G4 was definitely out of order. Geo Swan (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the article and at the original deletion discussion and saw that all of the original reasons for deleting the old article also applied to the new article. The policy does not require it be an exact copy. In any event, I lack permissions to view deleted content & so I don't believe I'd have a ready means of checking.

I also saw the G4 nomination by RockMFR, saw that he is an 8-year veteran, and trusted that the nomination was apt (and based on what I saw, it appeared quite apt). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 14 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Shooting of Michael Brown page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Continuation

I believe that, if an editor consistently advocates for edits that favor one side, he is by definition a POV-pusher. And I've noticed that from the gentleman in question for a long time. At the same time I trusted other experienced editors to keep him in check—in ways that don't involve violations of AGF and PERSONAL. It's possible my trust was misplaced, but the fact remains that the issue needs to be addressed elsewhere for the reasons I gave. It should be relatively easy to compile a list of his edits (and proposed edits) and show that they never favor the police point of view. If that's not enough to get a sanction, then I'm completely full of shit. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP is full of very experienced editors, yet Cwobeel has never received even a temporary block. In my opinion, that should suggest something about the effectiveness of WP policies and procedures for dealing with axe grinders. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, if experienced editors have taken it to the appropriate place and presented a strong case. Have they? Does he have friends in high places? Or is it just a general inadequacy in dealing with POV-pushers in particular? From what I've seen, it's quite possible to get sanctions for other types of offenses, if you (1) have good reason to complain, and (2) present the case effectively. I don't think I've looked at POV issues though. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe the answer is No, nobody has tried to make that case, and I suggest to you that this might be evidence of the process being ineffective. In any event, if you had further issue with my comments on that talk page, you'd be stuck pursuing the same sort of admin intervention that nobody has bothered with regarding Cwobeel. I believe that a great many editors have already concluded that such procedures are more trouble than they are worth, and, like me, have resigned themselves to boldly working in service of what they see as The Project — without much concern for the very occasional interventions from on high. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good luck with that. I think it can only lead to Wikipedia meltdown, akin to a room full of people all screaming QUIET!!!!!! at the top of their lungs because they can't hear. When everyone is a vigilante, civilization collapses. But what do I know. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's as dramatic as all that. In any event, I'd rather have anarchy with respect to civility policies than anarchy with respect to content policies, which is what we've got if certain users are not kept in check with an occasional, restrained bit of gruff language. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Food for thought. Thanks for the conversation. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Likewise. Sorry it had to be like this! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEWBLPBAN

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just what are you trying to say? Cat got your tongue? Since this message is "informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date", what am I to make of the fact that you posted it on my talk page without any additional comment? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's procedural. What he did was officially make you aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the Tyson article. Under the rules, an editor cannot be sanctioned under the Discretionary sanctions procedure unless they are officially aware discretionary sanctions are in place, and you now are officially aware. Any editor can make another editor "aware" of this fact, and that's what AQFK did. Because of that, any admin can now instantly sanction you if they feel you have violated the terms of the sanction. It's all detailed in discretionary sanctions Marteau (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The rules for alerting an editor say that we're not supposed to change anything in the alert. I'm not sure if adding an explanation is the same thing changing the alert, so that's why I didn't, but I figured that if you wondered why I posted this, you would ask and I could explain. I posted it because of this.[1] That is completely unacceptable, and given that you've been on Wikipedia since 2007, you should know better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It would certainly appear that Wikipedia has a real big fucking problem with editors who "ought to know better". But then, I'm talking about unimportant content policies, whereas you are upholding the important important social policies that remind us to sit down and shut up when the masses of endlessly misbehaving progressive editors shout us down. Cool name, by the way! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Strike it!

Hey, Factchecker, I urge your to delete or strike your comment about "dumb progressives." It could very well give an itchy trigger-finger the opening to block you. Please don't get yourself in unnecessary trouble. Cheers, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've been around this block. Cwobeel is playing a game with you. You are spending 10x more effort trying to counter his inappropriate rhetoric and editing efforts than he is spending himself. And since there are vastly more progressives editing WP than centrists, conservatives, or even plain old Liberals, all of the disingenuousness and insincere posturing becomes part of a larger aggregate in which a large mass of people can use WP's social policies to ignore or countermand its content policies. I believe you yourself are complaining of a phenomenon that sounds achingly similar. I applaud your patient willingness to calmly articulate the problem without stepping over any lines yourself. I hope that you do not have cause to regret that patience and generous spirit. Myself, I feel I have already been burned. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There are several other instances where your tone with other editors has been immoderate. I'm thinking of these in particular: "shut the hell up", "I, also, give zero fucks about what you think", "you're in fact colossally bad at editing WP and understanding its policies". Please recall that you agreed to be more agreeable at ANI. As that resulted in a "last warning" for you, consider this a courtesy call in lieu of another ANI case opened by me. — Brianhe (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I trust you also censured Cwobeel for saying he didn't "give a fuck" what I think, in the comment I was replying to when I said the same thing? I trust you censured Cwobeel for abusing the Talk page in the section in which I instructed him to either start using Talk for its intended purpose or stop talking? I trust you went and censured Michael-Ridgway for openly musing that all the other editors on that article lacked a conscience, in the comment where I responded that maybe he is just doing it wrong?

No, actually I trust you didn't do any of that. Why are you here, then?

ANI knows where I live. Knock self out. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I likewise find some of your comments over the top and abusive. I agree with your position (and even many of the facts about the liberal bias), but try to be a bit more civil about it. You harm your own position on the issues when you are uncivil as everyone starts to dismiss "that side" of the debate. --Obsidi (talk ) 19:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that. I am a strong supporter of including information about "Quotegate" but I think the tone you are taking in the discussions harms the inclusionist cause and only makes your opponents even stronger in their views that they are right and we are wrong. Many of them do have feelings of wanting to protect people they like, Neil Tyson included, but coming out with verbal flame throwers against the man on the talk pages is not going to win the day. Reasoned, rational discussion is the way, in my view. Marteau (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines reminder

Hello. In this edit, you interjected comments that 1) did not address the topic under discussion, 2) interrupted an already ongoing discussion, and 3) distracted the thread with a top post. Per WP:TPO, " To avoid confusion, the latest comment in a thread should be posted in chronological order and not placed above earlier comments." Hopefully, this will be the last time I'll have to remind you of this. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What a quaint but largely misguided complaint. My comments (1) directly addressed the topic; (2) contributed to an already ongoing discussion; and (3) do not appear to have distracted anyone. To avoid confusion, I placed my comment immediately underneath the comment to which I was replying, and made several extra indents to make it obvious that the reply had not been immediately posted after the replied-to comment.

Meanwhile, while you're busy complaining about the most innocuous and harmless technical violations of chat-page policy, you're egregiously trampling on the very core of Verifiability and NPOV. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Compromise: something everyone dislikes

Centrify, would you consider supporting the "alternative text" that begins "In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific understanding . . ." I'm not in love with it, either, but it may be the best chance to achieve a consensus compromise for inclusion. Please consider. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Meh. As long as we're discarding NPOV as a mere inconvenience, would it be OK if we had the WP prose refer to Tyson as "confirmed big dumb poopyhead Neil Degrasse Tyson" ?

But seriously, no I would never support anything like that, and the very fact that you're considering this as a means of "compromise" is the essence of what I was complaining about earlier re: progressives ganging up to violate policy. I don't believe I will be on WP much this weekend and I certainly won't try to undermine any efforts you make, but I do not believe this suggestion would be a wise or proper course. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

3RR warning

Factchecker, you have reverted the edits of others to resinsert the same information three times. [2] [3] [4] If you do it again, you could be blocked for edit warring. Please seek consensus on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WP policy doesn't allow multiple editors to gang up to violate policy; that's not what consensus means. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 20 October 2014 (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. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Alison Lundergan Grimes

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at this edit warring complaint (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think Cwobeel should have gotten a longer block with extra-special boomerang bonus; this guy shows a troubling pattern of edit war --> threaten anyone who objects --> attempt to neutralize editor via sanctions. More generally he seems to view admin processes as an alternative to hashing out content disputes, and "consensus" as a rhetorical tool useful for justifying relatively clear NPOV violations.

Other than that, no concerns. Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you stop?

You keep accusing me of "snipping" at you, but I have done nothing of the kind. Your continued accusations in talk page discussions are not helpful and distract from the task at hand. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems your contribution to that discussion consisted almost entirely of you being confused about stuff and making personal attacks against me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(a) Check my contrib list. You may not like my edits, but that is not a reason for your continued harassment; (b) Please show me where did I attack you (I only see your attacks on me, otoh). - Cwobeel (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Civility

I think your comment to Myopia123 at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown about "silly navel-gazing", and your suggestion that they post their thoughts on their own Talk page instead of at the relevant article Talk page, was both uncivil and uncalled-for, and this is not the only example I have recently witnessed of this behavior on your part. It isn't necessary and is rarely productive to insult those you disagree with. I am only an editor, not an administrator, but if I was the latter I would be talking with you about potential sanctions if the behavior continued. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Empathize with stupidity and you're half way to thinking like an idiot" likewise seems directed at another editor, not just a philosophical idea tossed out into the breeze. If it's still hard for you to refrain from this kind of thing, why don't you take a break? — Brianhe (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

After Myopia123 made the eminently trollish comment that it's probably unconscious racism that explains why we refer to mr. giant-ass Michael Brown as a "man" instead of a "boy", I was simply pointing out, another possibility is that this idea of his is a load of garbage. I really don't think an editor who really doesn't know anything about anything can just come out swinging like that and expect a candy-coated response. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a middle ground between candy-coated and idiot? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact is there are a lot of people who think that unconscious racism (or conscious racism) explain a lot of things. It's never going to be constructive to tell them that this idea is "a load of garbage". Did you expect Myopia123 to say, "Oh, you must be right, how silly of me"? Ain't going to happen. As I said, I think it was constructive that we had the opportunity to offer some more plausible (and less onerous) reasons why the article used the wording that it did. The best way to address silly ideas is not just to accuse people of being silly for thinking of them, but to give them a reason to think so too. However, and candidly, I don't think you were really thinking in terms of correcting Myopia123's misimpression, or about improving the article. Based on what I see here and have witnessed myself, I think you were primarily focused on improving your own ego. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, am *I* really supposed to react, "Oh, I thought I referred to him as a man because he's a gigantic violent criminal, but really it must be my unconscious racism, thank you so much for pointing it out"? No, it was meaningless slap-in-the-face rhetoric, virtually devoid of reference to reality, impossible to prove, it's worthless other than as a self-congratulatory gesture and as a message to the other side that their views are worthless. Perhaps a more appropriate response would have been to collapse the whole talk section as irrelevant to improving the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So, is your ego really so delicate that you must react to such a statement by resorting to insults and name-calling? I did not feel I had been "slapped in the face" by Myopia123's rhetoric, and I don't understand why you would have done either. I thought they were mistaken, so did you, but you apparently found a reason to take it very personally. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So long as Myopia reacts with that same calm, cool logic to my suggestion that his idea was silly, we'll be fine. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A final comment on my part here: No, just because other editors are wise (or lazy) enough not to take your bait doesn't mean it's OK for you to keep baiting other editors by launching personal attacks. This is ultimately going to hurt you (in terms of your role as a Wikipedia editor) more than it does them. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Spare me this livid lecture; OP's comment was insulting and unconstructive and trollish. Go yell at him please. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A calm and well-reasoned counter-argument is always more effective than calling someone an idiot. The latter makes it too easy to write you off as simply a crazy troll person who has nothing of interest to say (by others as well as your target). The former also keeps you from running afoul of civility policy, so it's a double-win. If they are in fact an idiot, that will be apparent enough to the others without your pointing it out. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Also please note that Shooting of Michael Brown and "associated pages" are under discretionary sanctions for, among other things, violating standards of behavior, including civility. — Brianhe (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, the very first time you templated me for civility, it was silly and sort of looked like an effort to stop me from participating in a content dispute. Ditto the second time, where you seemed utterly unconcerned by the other editor's telling me he "didn't give a fuck" what I thought, but then you turned right around and warned me when I responded in like language.

When confronted with policy the first time, you clammed up, filed against me at ANI without another word, and got shut down with boomerang warnings. The second time around, you just clammed up. Now you've given me the obligatory DS warning in connection with a page you don't even edit, and a quick search reveals you've never even posted a single byte of text at its talk page. Pardon me, sir — but I get the impression you are being motivated by something other than a desire to improve the encyclopedia; seems more like you want revenge for your prior embarrassment. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not assume good faith and take my note as a cordial heads-up to you? Accusing me of seeking revenge just makes you look more like someone who can't cope with a cooperative, self-regulated environment. — Brianhe (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"cooperative, self-regulated" contemplates editors who cooperate, and regulations that are observed, not a political fist fight where all the proggies gang up to violate policy and harass users who don't have the correct views. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you stay, if you find it to be such a battleground. I'm sure there are other places you would find comfort with strictly like-minded people. — Brianhe (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and that means helping to keep discussions focused on content, not contributors. When you see discussions turn again and again away from content and into pissing contests, and then you notice that the common thread that runs through these pissing contests is the presence of one particular individual, then it's obvious that the best way to make the encyclopedia better is to get that individual to change their behavior. In other words, Factchecker, stop being a dick. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate all of you taking the initiative in this but I think giving this dude more attention is a waste of time and exactly what he wants. Thanks a lot though. -Myopia123 (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What an adorable comment from an obvious troll. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Fuck you too. -Myopia123 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

such intellect much wow Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop it both of you. You are all expected to be civil and failure to do so can result in a block. Chillum 19:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I had enough of your behavior

I have a think skin, but you have just pierced it. Go fuck yourself. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a fine little essay, that thick one. I particularly like the part where it says: "sometimes you will find that person obtuse, insufferable, and annoying. Don’t take the bait and become yourself obtuse, insufferable, and annoying to that person." Perfect. Just perfect. Nietzche said it similarly: "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster." Nietzche would agree, there's lots of "monsters" on Wikipedia. And they ALL point their finger at the other guy, never taking a moment to look in the mirror for what they are and have become. Marteau (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that essay. But when you are persistently harassed, day after day, it sucks the fun of editing the pedia. FCAYS has made it his leitmotif. I think he gets a lot of pleasure from being a enfant terrible. But I had enough. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, it's way past the point where you could be misrepresenting sources in an accidentally partisan way. It's impossible to believe that time and time again, you just accidentally misrepresent sources to trash a person, and it just turns out to be a person whom you don't like, or whose politics or views you despise.

After the dozenth time it is no longer possible to maintain credulity when you say "oopsie!". And this time you didn't even say "oopsie", you just angrily threw it back in my face.

Notice: you can cuss at me all you want, template me, etc.; I don't care. I'm not going to complain to the civility cops. All I want is for you restrain your objectively improper editing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So, OK, I screwed up on that edit. But that does not mean that you have to always make snide comments about me or others: Discuss the edit and not the editor. Now, if you think you are the Defender of the Wiki, I can assure you that that type of behavior is not only silly, but quite arrogant actually. Wikipedia does not need you. Now, go and do some useful editing instead of complaining about the edits of others. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, how is it that you think removing improper defamation from WP articles is not useful? Do you think you bear any responsibility for leaving all sorts of poopy little messes all over the place, or is it all the fault of the pooper scoopers? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove, explain the reason for your removal, and leave it at that (or better, fix it). Just don't add your opinion about the reasons or motivations of others, because more often that not you may be wrong about both. That only diminishes you and demeans others. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Another user had already removed and explained, you ignored the explanation and edit warred, and also issued a bunch of improper threats to the other editor.. I came in, removed again, explained further, you again ignored the explanation and again edit warred, and complained that I wasn't complaining about your improper editing in the proper format. You even accused me of not reading the source, even though it was my correct reading of the source that helped put your "confusion" to rest. This is umpteenth time this exact scenario has played out; you defend obviously improper content with tooth-and-nail edit-warring, and then come out pointing fingers after you're shown wrong. Query: do you think you have any obligations at all to other editors — and when you obviously violate policy, are other editors allowed to talk about it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Shooting of Michael Brown. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Personal attacks such as the one in this edit summary are unacceptable. Please stop doing this. - MrX 15:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

For reference

I improperly alerted you, sorry. --RAN1 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Deconstructing the controversy section

I was wondering if you happened to have already reviewed the "controversy" section. Since the Talk:Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor) page has had them copied over, can you reply with your thoughts on a few highlighted sections? Parloff through Rudy Giuliani. I think removing the Rudy Giuliani bit is first - it abused Giuliani's words from support to attack. Cintron is biased and irrelevant. Toobin is just uninsightful and Sullivan is a BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, looks like quite the thornbush, what are the chances that I can just close my eyes and make it go away? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

None while Cwobeel is defending criticism by critics who do not understand what they are talking about. Seriously, adding the "criticism": "But critics contend that this evidence did not undergo rigorous cross-examination by opposing counsel, giving the prosecutors sole control over the shape of the case?" is indicative of the problem. I don't know, but it is the "WE MUST INCLUDE ANY AND ALL CRITICISM IN SOURCES" stance that just does not follow reality. Grand jury = no cross examination by the defense. Preliminary hearing = cross examination. These critics do not know what a grand jury is or does and Cwobeel is adding it to attack the process. Sticking with the "legal playbook" - the prosecution acted appropriately except for that whole bowing to public pressure aspect. Then it became a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Cwobeel does not understand and seems to be leading the reinsertion of nonsensical criticism because it exists and feeds public unrest. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to refresh your memory on WP:NPOV: which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. So regardless of your opinion about mass hysteria, and damn if you do and damn if you don't, we follow the sources, not our personal POVs. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV also has WP:YESPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV that requires evaluating each case one at a time. In this case the criticism that the grand jury did not include cross-examination by the defense would be under ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is because of the fact that grand juries do not have rigorous cross-examination by the defense in the first place. The type of hearing which that is done is a preliminary hearing. So that is raised points 1, 2 and 4 of YESPOV. Furthermore, I do not want to attack the NYT because they do not construct and advance the argument in the first place - they just carry someone else's stance in apparent contradiction of the legal process. That is a big difference. Just because "Crazy Joe" is given an opinion published in the NYT does not mean it is "factual" or endorsed by the author or publisher. Sorry if I seemed a bit extreme there, but notable or persistent POVs deserve a place. The criticism referenced above follows WP:EXCEPTIONAL and those that do get multiple reliable sources on a major subject should receive that attention and space. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, abject stupidity has become de rigeur at certain levels of liberal journalism. NYT often manages to show restraint. Unfortunately, it is also the gold standard of traditional print journalism, and in view of that, when there is shoddy journalism in the NYT, it becomes a relatively serious problem for WP — in that I am not confident that there are any real processes which would actually prevent misleading analysis from high-quality sources from being not just included, but given very substantial weight. I'm not sure of all the details, but I gather this is one of those situations where there actually isn't a source out there which notes & responds to the faulty analysis? (If I'm wrong correct my lazy eyes.) If that is case, then we are left only with whatever caveats the NYT authors made for themselves, I am really not sure what to do, or again, whether there are any processes or forums, ad hoc or otherwise, for addressing situations where high-quality sources get it wrong. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Have fun:

• WaPo In atypical approach, grand jury in Ferguson shooting receives full measure of case [5]
• The New Yorker How not to use a grand jury [6]
• St. Louis Post Dispatch Legal experts react to grand jury process in Michael Brown shooting [7]

- Cwobeel (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This reeks of desperation. Smerconish: Ferguson grand jury got it right and The Michael Brown grand jury process was fair are two good starting points to deconstruct every single one of the inane and irrelevant "criticism" being put forth with simple facts. The Washington Post one is a must-read for Factchecker, but Cwobeel should read Smerconish first for some much needed context and background. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't

... remove comments from talk pages as you did here. Withdrawing from a discussion is part of WP:DR. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ARE Notification

An ARE request has been filed regarding you. --RAN1 (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Re

"You could have removed Nolan for low-quality sourcing of exceptional claim, and saved yourself all this discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 18 December 2014"

Even after explaining and removing it, the subsequent RFC shows the character and limitations of personal disputes. In personal disagreements there is no arbiter or authority to declare correctness when one side cannot comprehend the other. With that in mind follow the logic and see how far it takes you. Six steps... now do you understand what's above? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement warning: WP:NEWBLPBAN

The following thread[8] was closed at WP:AE wherein you, along with 3 other users, have been admonished for conduct incompatible with WP:BATTLE on pages covered by WP:BLP and thus WP:NEWBLPBAN . In particular the interaction between you and Users Myopia123, Cwobeel & Brianhe is noted as the locus of the issue here.
All 4 users are reminded that casting unfounded aspersions about other editors or misrepresenting their communications is unhelpful.
Furthermore you are singled out for ad hominem remarks. While you are all strongly advised to avoid making any personal remarks about other editors, speculating on their intentions or making value judgments about their contributions you Factchecker atyourservice are on your last and final warning here. Any further personalized remarks that fail the WP:CIVIL test as laid out here will result in blocks. This is an Arbitration enforcement warning and comes under the discretionary sanctions rules. Please note that recidivism will result in escalating sanctions. Multiple avenues of dispute resolution are open to resolving disputes productively (rather than trying to “win” by excluding the other) and without breaching the rules--Cailil ^talk 13:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty surgical disposition, thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

blp ds alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Thanks, Gaijin, but in case you haven't noticed, issuing threats when you're on the wrong side of a content dispute does not faze me at all. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion that something is obvious does not make it so. If it is obvious, and I am just blind, others will obviously agree with you, so you have no reason to worry about the outcome. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That reasoning is specious but I have no patience for explaining why. For you, I recommend a vision exam. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement block

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for continuing to engage in incivility and personal attacks [9], you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

Since you were replying in kind I have decided not to topic ban you, but given that you had been warned for making personal attacks and personalising disputes I feel that a block is needed to prevent the issue continuing. Let me make this clear though, next time it will be a topic ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

AE Notification 2

An AE request has been filed regarding your conduct at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Photo Threaded discussion. --RAN1 (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your signature

Why are you signing your comments "Centrify"? I sign my comments "BMK" because it's an abbreviation for "Beyond My Ken" and I figure that after almost 11 years on the project I might be well enough known to use an abbreviation, but what does "Centrify" have to do with "Factchecker_atyourservice"? Signatures are supposed to help other editors identify who posted a comment, how does this signature help them to identify you? If you want "Centrify" to be your account name, go to WP:CHU and request a name change. BMK (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I considered changing the username a while ago, but it turns out there are all kinds of practical reasons not to do it. (Somewhere in my Talk archives there should be a discussion about it, if you're interested.) I don't think anyone is getting confused about my identity, but thanks for your concern. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for blowing me off, but I don't consider that a reasonable response. Either change the name of your account, or bring your signature in line with your account name, please. BMK (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your original, uhm, inquiry seemed unnecessarily pushy and arrogant, as does your follow-up and your duplicate post on the ArbCom project page, not to mention your edit-warring on my user page. I don't think you have a right to make this demand, I don't think you are genuinely confused by the signature, and I'm not pleased by the way you've brought it to me, so in lieu of a more substantive chat on the practical merits of changing the sig or username — and in absence of anything showing I ought to change it, much less that I have some obligation to do so — I'm just going to say No. I also note that WP users have all kinds of different creative sigs in use, and that many do not precisely match their associated usernames, and also that my current sig which you are complaining about actually contains an acronym for my user name. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SIGPROB says:

Wikipedia's Username policy describes accepted practices and behavior in naming and operating a user account on Wikipedia that apply to both usernames and signatures. A purpose of your signature is to identify you as a contributor. If your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it. Our guidelines for talk page usage also permit editors to change signatures that contravene this guideline back to the standard form. An editor with a confusing signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other inappropriate behavior such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing signature contributes to the disruption.

Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in User:Nickname or Nickname) can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make your signed comments appear to be from a different person. Alternatives include changing your username and including your account name in addition to the username, e.g. in the form User:Example/Nickname.

Please bring your confusing signature into line with these rules. BMK (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I can attest that I was more than once genuinely confused by your signature some months back (during your tendentious editing of Shooting of Michael Brown), so the policy is applicable. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is remarkable I've been signing my posts this way for nearly 5 years and nobody complained until I started arguing that the ArbCom charges against Collect are politically motivated. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 10:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well hell, if we're quoting a guideline as if it were the Eleventh Commandment and we're Fred Phelps, let's at least be consistent. It says, editors may request that you change it. I see no request in this thread. I do see multiple demands with the word please appended, but that's not a request. It's a demand with the word please appended. (Btw, prior to earning my place on BMK's shit list, I have made sure all my ducks are in line with the letter of every Wikipedia policy and guideline (even some essays) under the sun.) ―Mandruss ☎ 11:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ooooooo, s-nap, aren't you the snarky one?

@Factcheck_atyourservice, pretty please with sugar on top follow the policies and guidelines I have brought to your attention by either making your signature match your user name or changing that user name, and by removing the offending material from your user page. Oh, and stop removing other editors' comments from talk pages other than your own. It would be deeply appreciated.BMK (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No, since you've been such an arrogant jerk about it, and because your motivations are suspect. I've removed your comments about my username from the ArbCom page again. I think reasonable minds can agree there's no need to conduct multiple discussions about it all at once. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your user page

The banner at the top of your user page is in violation of WP:POLEMIC, which disallows user pages from containing:

*...statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).

I will be removing it again, please no not restore it without bringing it into line with with instructions on WP:POLEMIC. BMK (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, who do you think I'm vilifying? And do you think that perhaps the offense could be avoided by you just not reading my essay which appears in my userspace? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing other editors' comments from discussion pages

Please note that per WP:TPO, you are not allowed to remove the comments of other editors from any talk page except your own, as you did here on an Arbitration case talk page. If the comment was "a distraction", the clerks are more than capable of removing it5 - that is their job. Please do not do this again. BMK (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary distraction and you're only placing it there to try to make me look bad, which is irrelevant to the ArbCom case. I'm leaving your message here intact. If the ArbCom admins want to add my username to the case then that's fine. Meanwhile I'm deleting that pointless comment once again and I sincerely request that you cease all this pompous, self-important huffing and puffing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 10:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything to "make you look bad", you take care of that yourself. BMK (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary distraction which is irrelevant to the ArbCom case and you're only repeatedly placing it there to try to make me look bad, because you are dumb and a jerk. I notice that you're not harassing JBhunley about his signature, which also does not match his username. I assume that's because he is on the same "side" as you in the campaign against Collect, and thus you feel no need to attack him? Or maybe it's because his sig has an acronym for his username (oh wait — so does mine!). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Extension of Time for Evidence Already Denied

Your request for an extension of time to post evidence was already denied. Making this request again in the form of a response to a criticism is tendentious: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=655688335

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to note that the clerk team, and ultimately the Committee, has the authority to ban users from arbitration cases, that those bans may be enforced by block, and that the Committee has instructed us to adopt a zero tolerance approach to disruptive or inappropriate conduct of whatever nature on case pages. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a renewed request and I certaintly didn't expect it to be acted upon. I was merely arguing that it was ridiculous for MastCell to be complaining about me not placing diffs on the evidence page, when he knew full well the reason for this. Also, I am keenly aware of the risks I am currently running, but I feel that I am taking an honorable path which is necessary for the well-being of WP. I truly believe that this case threatens to set a dangerous precedent, however sound and reliable your judgment may be, and I am very concerned about its potential to chill legitmate editing activity and drive legitimate editors away. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Biding my time?

You say, .... he was biding his time and laying groundwork for a future effort to have Collect sanctioned or removed from Wikipedia. That is not anywhere near the truth. All I wanted in 2008 was for the other editors at Sara Palin to know what they were dealing with. I was too much of a novice to know anything about sanctions or bannings or blockings. I thought Collects essay was a step-by-step instruction page of how he edited. If you look at it that way you'll understand why I was perplexed. Plus, that was the end of it for me. You suggested it wasn't as serious as I thought and I dropped it and never pursued it. If I had evil intentions toward Collect, do you really think I would wait 7 tears to implement them. You can defend Collect all you want, but you don't need to tear me down in the process. I am an established good-faith editor with a sterling reputation and history. . Buster Seven Talk 07:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Man, in your very first line you willfully take my statement out of context. This is one of the reasons I'm not optimistic about this admin action against Collect. Even here you're giving things loaded interpretations and even distorting what I'm saying to make it sound more worthy of complaint. Pardon me if I suspect that's exactly what's going on with the case against Collect since I have yet to see a single piece of unambiguous evidence that is damning against him.

No, I didn't say you were biding your time, I said you left a message which gave that appearance. And you did. Are you denying this? Was there any other way to interpret it?

Come on, dude. Please don't go nuts and take my claims further than I've taken them. Even if you didn't have the intentions described, you gave Collect a reason to think you had them. That's all.

And again, Collect hasn't been here any longer than you. The "babe in the woods" cry rings hollow since you both started editing at around the same time. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Actually, looking back, I think "babe in the woods" fits for me. And what I thought I had found was a wolf in those woods. A wolf "in sheeps clothing" so to speak. Reading the history, I remember now that what really set Collect against me back then was that I said "it should be obvious to all of us that Paid Political Advocates are present". It only made sense that both parties would try to steer the article. It was a general comment about the state of affairs at the article but Collect took it personal and took offense. And so, "Bob's yer uncle". The die was cast. And, here we are..... Buster Seven Talk 17:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect, I really could have used a paycheck for all that editing at Sarah Palin. Lol. I've gotta market myself better. That said, it's really easy to hear vague talk of paid editing and assume it's an accusation that's being directed at you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I think its very easy for all of us to mis-interpret what we are reading and why it was written. last week you said something I thought HAD to be about me but it wasn't. Being misunderstood is a major problem for us all. Whats that old thome? I know you think you understand what you thought I said/wrote, but I'm not sure that you realize that what you heard/read is not what I meant.. . Buster Seven Talk 17:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Workshop

Threaded discussion in the arbitration workshop comments subsections is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Posting to ArbCom Clerk Talk Pages

A clear statement was made that the posting of case-related posts to the talk pages of ArbCom clerks was not permitted. Further posting of such non-permitted posts is not a useful way to get questions answered. It will only lead to sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least you've posted a clear statement about something. Is there any way to get questions answered, or is it just sort of an optional recreational activity for the clerks? Is 24 hours not enough time to make a simple — and, I think, much-deserved — explanation? Also, if you didn't want to communicate via our talk pages, why did you start posting on my talk page instead of responding over at the ArbCom page? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't post to clerks' talk pages

When it's a specific question about a case, post to the appropriate case talk page. If it's a question about clerking of course, you post to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks but please do not post there about a specific case or about the issue you are asking User:Robert McClenon about. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I did post it on the appropriate case talk page. It was hatted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply at Arbcom

Replying here to avoid 'discussion' on Workshop page. Thank you for taking the time to explain that. I can see the validity of what you are saying and it is even possible that through discussion with you I would have come to accept your point of view but then again after reading the sources you may have come to accept mine :) That is neither here nor there though. The issue is that Collect did not explain his view he just kept up a drum beat of BLP, BLP, SYNTH, SYNTH, A&B + B&C != A&C, "guilt by association", "Jewish doublt loyalty", "CPUUSA.. McCarthy" over and over again through several talk page threads, a half dozen noticeboard threads and AfD. While ignoring the consensus arrived at in those discussions or stopping participation when they started going against him.

My first opinion when I entered the dispute at BLP/N was that the list, through its shear size, was UNDUE in the PNAC article. I then asked Collect to expand on the SYNTH claim since I felt he had not really explained it. He never replied. About two weeks later I saw the same debate was going again so I started participating. I and others asked him several times to explain his position but over and over he refused to do so. Finally I got fed up and spun out the list to its own article since I had already stated I thought it likely too long considering the size of the article. Based on my understanding of policy and the sourcing I felt is qualified but was convinced at AfD that it was a potential POVFORK.

There are several problems with the analogy to McCarthyism: It is needlessly hyperbolic, there is a major difference to people signing a newspaper article and high profile people signing a high profile document specifically for the purpose of changing national policy based on the weight of their name these and others were pointed out to Collect. He had also already used other offensive analogies and comparisons in the debate. He made repeated reference to the Mischling Test every time he mentions "one Jewish grandparent" or anything to that effect he is referring to Nazi policy, "Jewish double loyalty" (Anti-Semitism) and claims that it was promoting conspiracy theories. Any one is bad but good faith goes away after three such offensive comparisons. Throw in all the other things I presented in my evidence (All of my evidence relates to this one topic which seems to be a microcosm of Collect's editing strategies) and what I see is an editor who is not capable of collaborating in a project such as this.

I guess the TL;DR point is that when I asked a question about SYNTH you gave me a clear, well thought out answer. I bet in short order one of us would be able to convince the other or someone else would show up and it would get hashed out. What would not happen is a drama that stretches over weeks generating a hundred or so diffs of potential policy violations and tens of references to horrible events in history. What should have been a few days of editors working things out through good will turned into... this Charlie-Foxtrot.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to explain where people can be seeing SYNTH. It helps me understand where people are coming from. PS diffs for everything are in my evidence or opening statement. Jbh (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the statement. Hope you don't mind but I'm going to request that this exchange be moved back to the Workshop page because I think this has been some of the most constructive discussion so far (at least, that *I* have been directly involved in).

I think my most salient reply is this: it was actually not all that easy to put the SYNTH claim into words; I struggled with it for a bit. Yet at the same time, in a certain way it's intuitively obvious: since the list itself is necessarily a product of editorial judgment, and implicates some tricky and ambiguous subjects, it seems there is strong potential for improper SYNTH.

This bears repeating; it's an odd scenario but I think important to point out: in my opinion, the SYNTH concern Collect raised was both subtle and obvious at the same time.

Notice also, all the rancor that took place before we got to that point of mutual understanding. And it's just one point of limited mutual understanding. Look what it took to get here! Maybe there's a like-minded editor out there who shares most of my views but is more docile. Perhaps this hypothetical editor could have made the argument better and without getting involved in hostile exchanges with other editors. But if so, I don't think he showed up, and I think it turned out that I was the best available proponent interested in making this point. I do think it was an important point to raise.

Much of the conflict on WP occurs because of a conversation that was never had. But there are lots of reasons why an opportunity for a conversation can be missed, and it's rarely the fault of just one person, IMO. In this case, putting myself in Collect's shoes, I can imagine a feeling of being besieged by a group of other editors who, in his mind, refused to see something that seemed very obvious to him.

If we further suppose that Collect found it difficult to put his concern into words, I think we start to see the outlines of a very frustrating scenario: he felt unshakeable in his conviction that there was something wrong, SYNTH-ily wrong, with the list, and yet an array of other editors lined up against him seemed to be ignoring what was, for him, an obvious problem. Add all the layers of personal disputes playing out in conjunction with these content disputes. Although right now I don't want to look into the question of blame for those disputes, offhand I'd be surprised to be shown it was really all due to Collect's behavior.

Taken together, I think that's all the ingredients for creating a BATTLEGROUND scenario. I think a lot of factors combined to form that scenario, and I think that Collect's contribution, whatever else may be said about it, was motivated both by a sincere devotion to The Project (capital TP, not merely one editor's novel idea of what the project is) and a relatively sophisticated understanding of its aims.

FWIW, I think this is a very common problem among articles that implicate contemporary politics. Personally, I think there ought to be heightened sourcing standards for articles about subjects that are so controversial and so open to subjective interpretation and debate. And not to be confrontational, but I think that this list we're discussing is a good example of article material that simply would not exist under such heightened standards — instead, we'd need direct sourcing for the list itself, not merely a collection of sources that could be interpreted to support the validity or meaningfulness of the list. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree in principle with what you say. It is subtle and the debate seems to have been long and ongoing between Ubikwit and Collect well before I got there. The problem I saw with the SYNTH claim (Not to re-open the discussion but to illustrate what was going on) is sources with material like this:

”Of the eighteen figures who signed the PNAC’S 1998 letter to Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq, eleven took positions in the Bush administration. In addition to Armitage, Rumsfled, and Wolfowitz, they were Elliot Abrams (Senior Director for Near East, Southwest Asian and North African Affairs on the National Security Council); John Bolton (Undersecretary, Arms Control and International Security); Paula Dobriansky (Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs); Zalmay Khalilzad (President’s Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Ambassador-at-Large for Fre Iraqis); Richard Perle (chair of the Defense Policy Board); Peter W. Rodman (Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs); William Schneider, Jr. (chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board); and Robert B. Zoellick (U.S. Trade Representative). Other PNAC associates and/or prominent unipolarists who landed positions included Kenneth Adelman (Defense Policy Board), Stephen Cambone (Director of the Pentagon Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation); Eliot Cohen (Defense Policy Board); Devon Gaffney Cross (Defense Policy Board); Douglas Feith (Undersecretary of Defense); I. Lewis Libby (Vice President’s Chief of Staff); William Luti and Abram Shulsky (eventually, directors of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans); James Woolsely (Defense Policy Board); and David Wurmser (Special Assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control)”.

Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana, Gary Dorrien, Routledge, 2004>

Which are essentially the list in text form were being presented. Not just one or two but thirty-eight mostly scholarly sources(Ubikwit posted a copy of the list and refs here User:Ubikwit/sandbox). All of which tied together significance, signing a document and having a position in the administration. To use Collects analogy the list asserted A+B+C and the sources reported A+B+C. I am not sure how the 'Jewish double loyalty' and conspiracy BLP claims entered into it either but he was claiming those as well so I admit to a predisposition to look on Collect's claims with a more critical eye.

Having a problem articulating an issue is no excuse for what happened. Although if Collect had at any time said 'You are not understanding what I am saying. It is hard to articulate...' that would have been OK. I do not think it was an issue of not being able to articulate though. In addition to the talk page discussions there were five noticeboard discussions Collect opened not including the simultaneous thread he opened on exactly the same subject on Jimbo's talk page. Combine that with the way he worded those openings and that he did not notify any of the other editors and we are not talking about a misunderstanding. Rather that is tactical editing to win a content dispute. Based on the other evidence this behavior was not a one off but instead a long term pattern of behavior.

To be clear I do not believe that Collect should be sanctioned simply because of his behavior in this dispute. I think that this dispute is illustrative of a long term pattern of problematic behavior that he has not improved on or moderated. If I thought Collect would change his behavior I would support sanctions which would allow him to demonstrate his ability to do so. These issues were bad enough for a RfArb and RFC/U back in 2009 and seem to have continued unabated since then.

This was maybe the fourth collaboration I have worked on at Wikipedia, if I were not thick skinned and already familiar with the drama that Wikipedia is prone to from stalking the noticeboards and reading the talk pages of most articles I look up I would have run screaming from Wikipedia editing. I can not imagine the number of less prepared editors who just did not want to put up with his behavior or even experienced editors who just got fed up and stopped working on articles he becomes involved with or simply quit all together. That is the hidden, unquantifiable cost of Collect's behavior. I do acknowledge that others have contributed to his behavior but he is still the common factor across time and space. I do not doubt Collect's sincerity, his technical ability or his dedication to his view of The Project. What I doubt is his ability to recognize that his view is not the only view and that others can disagree with his views in good faith. Given the choice of removing either Collect or everyone who disagrees with Collect from the equation the choice, to me, is clear. If you have some ideas for proposed remedies that might moderate Collect's problematic behavior while allowing to continue to do the things he is good at I will support it and maybe the Arbs will take note of a 'cross aisle' proposal. My key desire is that Collect needs to demonstrate a change in behavior before sanctions are lifted and there be some penalty for 'returning to his old ways'. Jbh (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Per our conversation, I have proposed some remedies at the Workshop that might help address the issues short of a site ban. Your input would be welcome. Jbh (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean, just for the sake of discussion, that's not exactly a stellar source; I certainly hope it's not the best. The author is a relatively undistinguished religion professor who writes and teaches about "social ethics". The subject seems well outside his area of expertise and the book itself seems an exercise in bombastic political speech, with chapter titles like "Trotsky's Orphans: a brief history of neoconservatism". The Amazon blurb for the book states: "This work argues that the influence of neoconservatives has been none too small and all too important in the shaping of this monumental doctrine and historic moment in American foreign policy." [emphasis added] Sounds a bit like a hit piece by a marginal author, and if 37 others of similar quality were presented it would seem like a wearying effort. I will take a look at your new proposals but so far I don't think I plan to weigh in directly supporting or objecting to any of the proposals on the workshop page. I remain skeptical that sanctions are called for, but I've spoken my mind at length, I think some consideration of the points will be taken by the Arbs and I'm satisfied with that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it was just a source I picked out that showed others were tying these people together and had the quote in the <ref> so it was easy to copy/paste. If you are interested the link I provided has all of the sources used. After a while it becomes citation overload and the weight of scholarly opinion takes over. Just a quick count shows 18 of the sources are from academic publishers do there was solid fact checking (at least our policies assume fact checking). What was of particular interest is, as far as I could find, there were no scholarly books/articles arguing for the counter view ie that the relationship was not important etc. In general when you have a bunch of academics writing about something someone will explore other viewpoints. Some might debate how important the relation was and how much influence those people had but none said the relationship/effect was trivial or non-notable.

Anyway, this has kind of veered off of the Arbcom case. If you want to join in at the PNAC article that would be great. I would not be comfortable exploring this issue at PNAC again without someone new and not predisposed to including the material. The idea of a table/list has had a stake put through it but I believe there are people interested in including the information and/or addressing if/how PNAC effected US policy. It is a tricky subject because PNAC expressed pre-existing relationships and seems to have become a shorthand for neocon policy/people while being mostly a letterhead organization. Anyway... have a good week. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

What I would find most compelling would be a single source that clearly substantiates the point and isn't open to criticisms like the ones I made above. Also, I think it's a little unrealistic to expect that there might be a source that explicitly notes a list of relationships like this but then dismisses them as trivial. What would really resolve the sourcing concern would be a source that discusses a list like this or something similar, from a notable author, writing within his field of expertise, who doesn't appear to have an axe to grind. If there isn't a source of that description, unfortunately I really don't think the material belongs on WP. As for the thought of joining the fray at PNAC... I'll give it some thought but I've gotta say I am not eager. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mumia Abu-Jamal. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I see how it works, you report me, the person who has been editing in agreement with others, but you do not report this guy, look at his edit patterns. Absolutely no regard for the work we got from hard discussion on the talk page. WEEKS of discussion between 3 editors, sometimes it got hot, but here comes this guy and deletes everything because he thinks he is right. And you report me, and not him? Who is pushing the Anti-Mumia POV outside of WP:CONSENSUS, see the talk page, --Inayity (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[Editor's note: the above complaint was mostly directed at VQuakr; I didn't report Inayity. I was the other party in the content dispute.] Please see the article talk page and calm the hell down. As Vquakr pointed out, among other things he reported you because you had already 3RR'd a few days ago on precisely the same material. Meanwhile you're not actually engaging at the talk page, just ranting angrily at DrKiernan and others. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:The Federalist (website). Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You have been previously warned about comments like this so many times before that I've lost track. The next time I see any such personal attack anywhere on enwiki, I will bring the matter to ANI or AE and request sanctions. - MrX 12:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your warning is spurious and not well-taken. As you can see, I was responding directly to a completely unnecessary personal attack out of the blue, while *I* was in the midst of civilly discussing the article. Sarcastically noting that the other editor's tears are of the disingenuous "crocodile" nature is not a personal attack. And of course you neither felt the slightest twinge of trouble at Cwobeel's remark, nor warned him for it. Congratulations on all that equanimity, dude. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. If you cannot adhere to WP:BRD and continue reverting, next time it will be WP:ANI. And you started the tone of calling an user ageist. So either cease that tone else none of use are assuming good faith in this edit.--A21sauce (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? You're talking about the WP:BITE remark? And I haven't reverted anyone really, you're not paying attention. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither edit was really a revert, the first one was pursuant to a post I made on Talk, the second one was pursuant to an agreement reached at Talk, and the subsequent revert may have been at least somewhat mistaken since the user seemed to think I had said "condemned" instead of commended. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--A21sauce (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Partially mistaken ANI complaint was abandoned. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Federalist (website), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Salon and Vox. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Clever!

Nice to see old friends from the golden Palin era at arbcom. To be honest, I think that in a technical sense other contributors made the case rather more convincingly than you did; nevertheless, as a fellow connoisseur of comic irony I appreciate the enthusiasm with which you deployed it all over the case pages. (At arbcom a sophisticated comedy touch is usually only notable by its absence.) As for “I absolutely believe [Collect is single-handedly holding back a huge tide of POV editing]” (your emphasis), I see what you did there too. It may well be the crowning glory. Clever stuff. Thank you. Best wishes, Writegeist (talk)

Meh, sounds like you're poking fun at me. I was serious. But speaking of humor, when you say "golden Palin", something completely outlandish pops into my head. I leave you with that smooth, refreshing dollop of therapeutic imagineering. ;) Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Politically Incorrect

A Critique of Pure Tolerance is the birthplace of Modern Political Correctness. It's worth a read because the footing for it so weak, there's an older term for what Marcuse is proposing: intolerance. 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Behavior on Arbitration talk pages

Posts such as this don't belong on Arbitration talk pages and can be seen as disruptive. This is even more unacceptable, both because of its content and the fact that you added it to a section hatted by a clerk. Clerks can issue formal cautions and bans—enforceable by block—from arbitration pages. Consider this a formal caution. Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Other behavior

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Stop feeding the trolls

--MONGO 13:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Per internet troll, "Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts – hence the often-seen warning: 'Please do not feed the trolls'". Trolls luuuuv it when people swear, and get mad, and lose their tempers, and scream.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Been a long time...

I very much felt that whatever Mr. X was trying to prove...was not going over well enough with others, for me to even bother looking at. I've been where you are right now. The closer of the thread stated: "...your arguments would advance faster if you adopted a less aggressive tone. And your risk of exhausting community patience would recede." That was on the nose. It wasn't a criticism. It seemed to be an observation. Many of the diffs didn't even show cussing, let alone an attitude to me. However, what stood out to me was the Doug Weller issue. He seemed quite sure you had crossed some major line there. Why do you think that was? I believe that, regardless of how aggressive others can be (and they can), they do not illustrate a pattern. In other words...whether you actually have a pattern or not (could just be reacting to other attacks upon yourself) others perceive it and it ratchets up there concern over the things you say. Trust me.....I got blocked once because I made a single revert and the admin called it edit warring, even though the editor I reverted and I, were on his talk page working out the text and sources we both agreed on, in a very friendly and casual manner...when Boom. I was blocked and the excuse was...I have a pattern of edit warring. You see what I mean here. The admin reverted the block very quickly but never admitted any fault. It was all my fault because.....I had a pattern of edit warring......to him. I now try to use Aloha. OK...so I'm Hawaiian, but you can use it to. After all.....this is WIKIpedia and that brings the mana (strength) of Hawaii to you! So, you don' have to change your real attitude, just what you type! ;-) You contribute some really good work. Why should others think ill of you just because you react badly here and there. I vented all my energy into helping other editors and writing obscure articles that no one else cares about. Hey...it worked to give me a little peace while I cooled down. It might work for you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. I think you are further along in your Wiki-development than me. From my perspective it felt like this Kafka-esque nightmare wherein if I complained that the accusations were dishonest or insulting, the response would be that many additional people showed up to insult me and misrepresent past interactions I've had. It's almost like people on WP gang up to make homework for editors whom they despise, endlessly multiplying baseless accusations which are presented as flawless gems of truth, which must nonetheless be refuted with lots of real effort. Or, as Arzel suggested, some people will just lash endlessly at a person, knowing somehow that they'll never be sanctioned for personal attacks, yet confident that eventually the target will respond in kind, and be sanctioned for it. It's a strategy that shouldn't work, but it really seems to me like it does.

Anyway, I need some time away. I really didn't have the time to edit WP over the last 6 weeks, but got involved because the Collect Arbcom case was on a deadline and I didn't want to let it close without speaking up for him. And the ensuing discussions really sucked me in and had some detrimental effects at a time where I should have been focusing on off-Wiki stuff. (FWIW that made BMK's constant accusations that I really had all the time in the world really incredibly frustrating, to say nothing of his constant barrage of vicious attacks.)

I don't know where to go from here. I will try to digest your comment properly while taking some time off. Thanks again for your support and advice. I'd offer you a cookie, but cookies have yeast...perhaps you know the rest?  ;) Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

One little bite turns a man to a beast. I had to look that up just now! Incidentally, nothing good can probably come from using that penultimate parenthesized word on wiki, but you could still keep the attitude without typing it. Have a good break, FactChecker blah blah blah. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My English parsing robots have gone robo-home for the night.. I'm sorry, but which word?  :( Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the "blah blah blah" bit in the FKA portion of my signature? I've been trying to find the right tone for it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Vicious. You probably meant specious or vivacious or something.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I don't know. I think he's the single most hostile person I've met on WP, and he doesn't even really seem to edit pages about controversial stuff that is likely to generate disputes. Rather he seems to find nasty disputes in obscure places. Take a look at some of the threads he's deleted from his own talk page (and the accompanying edit summaries) for some examples. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You may be 100% correct about it, but typing it on Wikipedia can only feed those people that MONGO illustrated. Mark Miller said something very smart above: "you don' have to change your real attitude, just what you type!". Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point, and only just now noticed you weren't Mark. Thanks :) Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Factchecker...the arbitrator that closed that thread was being fair. If you look for a fight on this website plenty will be happy to oblige you in spades. Even if you're always right, chances are someone will hate your guts for it and if you throw a literal pie at them all you're going to do is put yourself in that little "your ass is mine" portion of their subconscious!--MONGO 03:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I notice that through all of that nobody so much as breathed a word of warning to BMK, and personal attacks like "beneath contempt" are really quite a bit worse than anything I've ever seen on WP. Are you really saying that the willingness of another editor to sink to the lowest WP-misbehavior possible should actually determine my decisions whether to oppose content that I think is improper? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No. But am saying (I'm just MONGO after all and my advice is worth one fart in the wind) is that you know what to do....if you piss people off, some never forget much less forgive, so when your name shows up on some admin board and enough angry people start screeching for your hide, then you'll eventually find yourself blocked for good.--MONGO 19:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note

Please note that effective immediately, you are banned from posting on my talk page or any other page in my userspace, unless Wikipedia policy requires you to do so. I will observe a similar ban in respect to pages in your userspace. Comments posted by you will be rolled back without being read. BMK (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Please do not try editing whilst logged out in order to circumvent the above note. Such activity constitutes sockpuppetry, and this can lead to you being blocked. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't edit while logged out, nor do I make any effort to hide my edits, nor have I made any secret about my problems with Ken's editing — though he never responds, just deletes criticism from his talk page, whether it's from me or from other users.

Please get a freaking clue and do not post baseless accusations on my Talk.

Oh, also, I'm permitted to post on Ken's talk page and I haven't abused that privilege. Rather, Ken is prone to ranting angrily and sticking his head in the sand when confronted with a position he doesn't agree with, or a criticism he doesn't appreciate. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 12:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

USERS PLEASE NOTE, double-digit IQs from total shite British uni's are requested not to post on my talk page, even if you have some dumbass misconceptions that you want to drone on about. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Winner 42 Talk to me! 12:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42: What about going around making completely unfounded accusations of socking to a user you've never met, then refusing to respond and telling the accused user to "fuck off and don't come back" when he dares to take exception at the completely BS accusation out of nowhere?

Nah, that couldn't be harassment. Of course not. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I am shocked, shocked to see that you only wanted to template me and had zero interest in discussing the meritless sock accusation itself, or the reason for it, or whether it was civil to make the accusation without any evidence, etc etc. Shocked. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 13:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A. Right or wrong, don't edit war...file a complaint at AN/I. B. Winner42 is not in a position to block without warning, nor is your editing worthy of such a block, so it therefore counts as bait by Winner42, so don't take it. C. You could ask a checkuser to verify it was not your IP in which case it's an impostor and may be someone with a beef that is socking to make you look bad....a blockabke offense.--MONGO 13:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

MONGO is right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are right. Meh, so it's a choice between a lot of paperwork, and simply allowing other users to behave like that. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 13:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I accidentally posted at the wrong admin board, but so far the consensus at the board seems to be that being told to Fuck Off is no big deal, and Ken's "No Assholes Zone" sign doesn't really say "No Assholes Zone", rather it's Klingon for "Have a wonderful day!" /sarcasm Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

When everyone responding to your complaint says to drop it and you continue to rage on, you can be seen as disruptive and face a block. This has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of your complaint but has to do with your dogged persistence and refusal to disengage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Fuck off — that's the new standard for Wiki-discourse. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk pages

Factchecker, any Wikipedia user can exclude people from his talk page. You can do it to BMK too. What about pleasurefully alighting upon the welcoming shores of a brief Wikibreak?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Almost every further interaction I have convinces me further that it ought to be a permanent one. This place is a den of hypocrisy and double standard. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is, and I enjoy trying to make it less so. Anyway, talk to you later, I hope.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. You sound pretty upset over all of this. Everyone has read what you've written. Some agree. Some don't. Some don't care. But that's the way it is. But I'm not sure all these posts about it are achieving much any more. Might I suggest just dropping the whole thing and getting back to building the encyclopedia?

Very best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

One's willingness to spend hours working on the project is directly related to one's sense of whether or not its editorial processes have integrity. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

But all these posts are about your conflict with BMK. And you're still posting at his page. It is getting really disruptive. Please, it is important now to just drop all of this and get back to building the encyclopedia. This is all drama and keeping it going. Just disengage and drop the whole thing, okay? Please say whether or not you are going to do this - specifically disengaging and dropping the whole thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it's something you just drop and move on. It can and should be deeper than that; it can be a crucible that provides a growth opportunity. A healthy amount of WP:DGAF is required for one's sanity around here, and you suck at DGAF. Learn to put your emotional well-being first, even if Wikipedia content suffers as a result. I'll retire permanently long before I reach your level of utter frustration and rage; I expect that to happen eventually, but, like pinball, my goal is simply to make the game last as long as possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So if he does not drop it, what should he do? Should he continue to post at pages (including BMK's) trying to get satisfaction? Maybe he's completely right to be upset and offended, but we have to look at what all these posts are achieving. We know they're causing disruption and taking our time reading them, but where is the benefit? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's all set a good example here by stepping away from the keyboard and out into this beautiful day (unless you're having crummy weather of course). 😍Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that he shouldn't drop it; he should. What I meant was that he shouldn't just drop it, move on, and expect this not to happen again before long. Anything more specific is not for me to say; each of us has to find something that works for us; but business-as-usual is clearly not working for him. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Good points. But this is a rough place. Incivility from longtermers is tolerated. I do not like it, but that's life.

If someone is uncivil, you can complain and the community decides. If no satisfaction, of course you have to drop it.

If you detest incivility in general, well, campaign against it. The community sets the standard. If it is too much then do not be here.

Sometimes it is best to consider responding to incivility as beneath you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Actually I don't care terribly much about a bit of incivility in WP editing, per se. I care about editors who (1) practice deliberate dishonesty and disregard of various policies in service of making arguments to push extreme POV; who then (2) subsequently turn around and whine about contrived "personal attacks" and other contrived gripes in an effort to neutralize an editor who has objected to obvious policy violations; and who then finally (3) resort to a tone of discussion that is most commonly found in the moments preceding a bar-room brawl.

So, yeah. Dishonesty plus crocodile tears plus fighting words equals at least one (1) unhappy WP editor in the form of Centrify F/K/A FCAYS. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't ping me again, Factchecker_atyourservice. I've got better things to do then be summoned to read your meritless complaints. BMK (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You need not reply, but I'm not going to criticize you anywhere on WP without letting you know. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

FactChecker, I've encountered people at Wikipedia who make BMK look like Mother Theresa. But do I get obsessed with it? No, because if I did then it would make me look bad, hint, hint, hint.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Did any of those users stalk you out of pure spite/malice, following you around dishing pointless insults and attempting to disrupt your efforts at editing? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Much worse than that. Anyway, you might want to take a look at WP:IBAN. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Factchecker, I was pinged that you had left a note here, but then saw that you'd removed it. In brief, the template apparently has to be left because otherwise the discretionary sanctions don't apply. I just want to make sure everyone is aware that the BLP sanctions apply to that article and talk page. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)