Supported by [1] Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Routine notifications[edit]

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.

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I followed the link to "discretionary sanctions" - are there any more explicit restrictions than those outlined in "Guidance for editors?" I'm wondering for example how the restrictions for biographical discretionary sanctions differ from those for post-1932 politics, beyond applicable standard policies. D.Creish (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no clear answer to your question, and no set of easily followed rules that applies. See WP:AE which has examples of the procedure used to consider claims that an editor should be subject to sanctions regarding either of the topics in the two notifications. The rather unclear cases currently on that page should not be taken as an indication that not much happens. Uninvolved administrators can choose to apply the discretionary sanctions as they see fit. It can be a bit of a lucky dip as to what the outcome is, but my guess is that there might be an unfavorable result for a new account that shows remarkable familiarity with the jargon required to push their case to insert WP:UNDUE material on a WP:BLP article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know[edit]

I was unaware of the fact that she was related to this article and will refrain from editing it in the future. I'd only suggest that you make sure to keep the editor currently adding information from far-right tabloids to the page in check, as he seems to have a clear motive that doesn't appear to be in good faith at all. Reece Leonard (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note an attempt to bar me from ALL U.S. political articles is underway[edit]

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is at it again; this time there is a much more aggressive posture aimed at entirely shutting down my edits. Please note the "Result" suggestion at the bottom of the discussion.Your comment regarding this banning attempt would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nocturnalnow Ban Attempt Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

ARCA notification[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 20:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request archived[edit]

The amendment request for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Amendment request: American politics 2 (January 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Apology for one thing[edit]

Reading through your AE comment I noticed this part:

"And let's look at your BLPN posting, which ends with:

One of them, D.Creish, has made BLP violations on related articles as well.

There is no basis for this claim whatsoever. I notice I wasn't pinged either so I couldn't refute the false claim. Very disappointing. "

Even though I think the rest of your comment is erroneous, on this one you're right. I confused you with another user, CFredkin. Not sure why - same topic area, two capital letters, same time period, whatever. But yes, I was wrong. So I want to apologize for that comment. Please believe that it was an honest mistake and not made purposefully.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I appreciate you starting a dialogue and want to accept your apology. Can you tell me why you didn't explain this two weeks ago when I made the same complaint on Activist's talk page? D.Creish (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Because I actually didn't realize I was making the mistake until I looked at the issue again recently. Your "correct the record" comment probably made me just roll my eyes and not take your words seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanation. D.Creish (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hello D.Creish. You seem pretty savvy for an editor with so short a history. Have you had other Userids or editing history on WP prior to your current history? SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No, savvy in what way? D.Creish (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That does not seem credible. End of thread. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Note on DS[edit]

About your question here. You have already been given personal notice of DS for BLP matters less than a year ago - it is on your talk page above. I provided notice at the article Talk page, to remind folks at the article of them.

About your question, you should have explored that when you first received the notice above.

To answer - BLP applies everywhere in WP, including article talk pages. The sanctions are applicable for actions made by editors everywhere that BLP is applicable.

Generally arbcom and the admins who work at AE require that an editor has been given notice of DS before DS can apply to things that editor does. You have been given plenty of notice. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The administrator who gave that notice was found by arbcom to have acted improperly in that topic area. Thus that DS should be viewed through the lense of an involved editor who had personal disagreements with certain viewpoints. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As the DS alert says, there is no "threat" in giving a DS notice. The thing that matters, is that a person received the notice. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ec Thanks for clarification. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the confusion, let me explain: I was recently editing an article (I believe it was Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) and the question arose as to whether DS applied to all BLP (in which case any editor can post a DS notice on a BLP talk page) or DS was only authorized for all BLP and by placing a DS notice an admin authorized DS for that particular BLP (in which case the notice can only be placed by admins.) No definitive conclusion was reached and it seemed like you might have the answer. That is why I asked the question. D.Creish (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Great. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

But I still don't have an answer. Looks like I remembered the wrong article - it was actually this one 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, specifically this diff and the subsequent conversation. To add to my confusion I notice Mastcell's section on the Seth Rich talk page doesn't mention discretionary sanctions. D.Creish (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read the comment of @MastCell: and undo your un-hatting the litany of BLP violating statements}} SPECIFICO talk 03:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Better to have this conversation on the article's talk page. If you have thoughts regarding the collapse/uncollapse please post them there so others may comment. D.Creish (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Again. BLP applies everywhere that there is content or discussion about living/recently deceased people. DS related to BLP are applicable everywhere that BLP applies. To use your language, DS are authorized for any discussion of living or recently diseased people anywhere in WP - everywhere that BLP applies. Generally before DS are actually applied to a person, admins and arbcom want to see that the person has been given specific notice that DS are authorized for whatever the specific subject matter is - there are DS on about 20 subjects now, in WP. You have been given notice of the DS for BLP subject matter, above on your talk page. Therefore DS for BLP violations can be applied to you at anytime, for edits you make that are covered by BLP, anywhere in WP that BLP applies (not just the Seth Rich murder article - everywhere that BLP applies) In case you are not aware, DS allows any admin to apply things like TBANs, blocks, editing restrictions of various kinds, to people who are disruptive. Actual application of DS is generally a last step after a person has created significant disruption and has been warned about that disruption; they are just not applied out of the blue. WP is not set up to "punish" people - the whole idea is that we give people lots of chances to stop being disruptive. DS are a kind of last resort for very contested subjects, and a shortcut at that last resort, since contested subjects seem to never stop breeding bad behavior. And again, the key thing is that person was notified that DS exist, so they know to be careful. People should be mindful of policy anyway, of course.... Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I understand BLP always applies. My question is specifically about DS, whether BLP or otherwise. For example:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Does this mean every article related to post-1932 politics is subject to DS so long as the editor has received the above DS notice previously, on any article? If so, an experienced editor (Mr. X, above) says otherwise. Rather than take more of your time can you point me to a noticeboard that could answer my question definitively? D.Creish (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I don't see any statement from Mr X above. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The statement's in this diff which removed a post-1932 DS notice from an article talk page with the edit summary: Removing DS notice. Non-admins are not permitted to place articles under discretionary sanctions D.Creish (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I see. Yeah Mr X is wrong about that; that article is obviously within the scope of the DS defined by arbcom above. The statement from arbcom is what authorizes the DS and defines the scope - you quoted an example of that above. DS alerts are notices of what Arbcom already said. People can disagree about whether some bit of content, or a whole article, falls within the scope that arbcom defined but the scope is defined by Arbcom - discussions to get clarification happen here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. But in our case there is no doubt that everything about Seth Rich falls under BLP and thus is within the scope of the relevant DS. Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Now your notice on the Murder of Seth Rich talk page (and hopefully my comment in response) makes sense, thanks for clarifying. D.Creish (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Great. I just want to be painfully clear. DS kind of hover over the subject matter for which they are authorized by arbcom. Whether any specific sanctions are put in place (for instance the gamergate "30/500 protection") depends on some admin taking action under the DS; the DS allows admins to take those kinds of general actions, or to take actions against specific disruptive editors, wherever DS are authorized by arbcom. Do you see? This is what Mr X seems to have been confused about when he wrote "Non-admins are not permitted to place articles under discretionary sanctions". Arbcom authorizes DS on defined subjects (as above "all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people,"). Only admins are allowed to take action under the DS; non-admin editors are welcome to notify each other that DS are authorized by arbcom for a given subject or that a given article is within the scope of DS authorized by arbcom. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I'm less clear since having considered it. Taking the example of post-1932 politics, let's say as you suggest DS applies to all such articles and any editor can leave a DS notice on a relevant article's talk page. That puts what would seem to be an admin decision (which articles post-1932 politics DS apply to) in the hands of regular editors. I could tag for example borderline cases like Racism and Media Bias thereby immediately imposing a duty upon other editors in those articles to observe policy on penalty of DS. It seems like a non-admin editor should not have that ability. D.Creish (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I am done here. You are not even reading what I am writing. What you write about "I could tag for example borderline cases like Racism and Media Bias thereby immediately imposing a duty upon other editors in those articles to observe policy on penalty of DS" is complete nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't intend to oblige you to answer my questions, only point to me to a noticeboard that might answer them. But thank you anyway for your time. D.Creish (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You cannot impose anything on anyone - nothing I wrote led you to that. So in my view you are not even reading or trying to understand what I took the time to write. Bottom line here is that you need to make sure you understand BLP and you need to follow it. DS have always been authorized for BLP matters and you were notified of that months ago, so any admin can apply DS to you if you are continually disruptive on a BLP matter, including content about Seth Rich. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I have edited political articles where DS also apply without issue. I try to observe policy strictly, which may be why my questions seem pedantic, but I don't expect to have issues on Seth Rich or elsewhere. D.Creish (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog In re-reading your comments I noticed the link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. I had not seen that. My responses here were somewhat frustrated by consistent edit-conflicts; I assume this text was added after I composed my reply but before I successfully submitted it. It addresses one part of my question, so belated thanks. D.Creish (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP on Jared Taylor[edit]

You are edit warring on Jared Taylor. You are removing text that has been stable for over one year ([2]). The material is not a BLP violation as it is sourced and the contentious label is attributed to those sources (and the material conforms with WP:LEAD). Your edits are becoming disruptive. Please review WP:BLP and see WP:CRYBLP. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect and your restoration without consensus is against policy. The "longstanding" text had three sources listed:

• A wordpress blog: http://mediamousearchive.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/student-group-h/
• A NY Times article (which, although usable, did not support the claims): http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/18/us/conservatives-voices-enter-clinton-s-dialogue-on-race.html
• A listing by the SPLC with no secondary sourcing.

New sources have been added but none support the claim that Mr. Taylor "promotes racist ideologies." I will be removing this text and if you restore it again, without supporting sources and consensus I will file a complaint at the appropriate venue. D.Creish (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wordpress is not used anywhere in that article. If you cannot refer to the correct references, I'm not sure what to tell you. Salon, ABC News, Fox News, SPLC, and Star News are all RS/notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Examine the version prior to my removal and you'll see the statement was partially sourced to a wordpress blog. I will continue to revert until you demonstrate sufficient sourcing on the talk page. D.Creish (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

AE filing[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#D.Creish. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

While I was working to examine the sources provided, searching for others that might support the claim and discussing on the talk page - you were working to file an enforcement request. That is an unfortunate waste of time. D.Creish (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Your edit warring is why. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Necessitated by your and Volunteer Marek's failure to follow BLP policy. Unfortunate and avoidable situation. D.Creish (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

THE SOURCE is an exaggeration of the source ???[edit]

Not unencyclopedic, it's a direct quote from the source.

"The family of a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer continues to speak out in an attempt to find his killer and refute unfounded conspiracy theories about his death in July."

You might want to undo that part of your recent revert. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"

Your AE question[edit]

Hi, replying here so as not to fill up AE with trivia. According to ArbCom procedures, taking AE actions (such as blocking) does not require consensus and can be done by individual admins. Undoing AE actions, however, is normally forbidden and requires a clear and active consensus by uninvolved admins or editors depending on the forum. That's the difference.  Sandstein  19:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• It's usually helpful to link to the offending comment. Thanks. D.Creish (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on the Conf. monuments list[edit]

Re [3]. Edit warring and then trying to start an RfC just to "protect" one's reverts is bad faithed and it constitutes textbook disruptive gaming of Wikipedia policies and rules. If you were acting in good faith, and if you had faith in the outcome of the RfC you would have NOT edit warred, you would have left the graph in place and then started the RfC. Otherwise it looks like you're just starting the RfC as an excuse to keep the graph out of the article for as long as possible.

Please self revert. Volunteer Marek  20:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Several editors reverted the addition of your graph or objected on talk. You've restored it 6 times I can see in the last few weeks. You should have tried for consensus in discussion and if not, started an RFC. I started one for you. So much for that favor. D.Creish (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If you were "doing a favor", you would not have edit warred first then tried to use the RfC process to "protect" your reverts. You would have *just* started the RfC. Volunteer Marek  03:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We both edit warred over your hacked-together graph. I stopped before 3, you didn't. I started an RFC, you didn't. You ignored the consensus requirement for new content, I didn't. Glass houses. D.Creish (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You are edit warring and I suspect, based on the series of reverts, you are also using an IP to appear to avoid breaching 3RR. This is your warning. Legacypac (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would I use an IP to edit war in an article I hadn't edited? I even avoided 3RR with only two reverts until you removed the POV template while there was an active discussion and pending RFC (instructions for when it's appropriate to remove the template are here: Template:POV#When_to_remove.)

You're also edit warring, and based on the current overwhelming Opposes it looks like you and a few others have obstructed attempts to remove content added against consensus for weeks. D.Creish (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's nice you have counter accusations. Don't edit war and don't sock and you will be fine. If you do these things, you have been well warned. Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not "nice." I don't go to editors' talk pages and accuse them of things they didn't do. I don't warn people for edit wars I participated in. I don't want to waste time on any of that. If you want to discuss content, use the article page. If you want to make accusations, make a complaint. But I'm tired of replying to accusations on my talk page; it's not "nice" at all. D.Creish (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I've noticed that you're quite adept at Wikipedia markup and very familiar with Wikipedia policies. Actually, not just familiar with Wikipedia policies but also how to use them to WP:GAME the rules and utilize them in your WP:BATTLEGROUND activity. Your first edit by this account [4] was to a contentious article, related to another contentious article, the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, and in it you quoted WP:COAT. Now, that's a pretty obscure Wikipedia essay for a new editor to bring up, so I was wondering, did you already declare your previous accounts somewhere and I just missed it?  Volunteer Marek  16:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, you just broke 3RR. Volunteer Marek  16:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Oh, wait, no, still at "only" 3 reverts. Volunteer Marek  16:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I call for a sockpuppet investigation of this guy. There's something just not right here. Fluous (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

What's "not right" to me is what looks like a group of aggressive editors focusing their attention on particular articles and editors. Call for whatever you want but please do it on your own page. D.Creish (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Warn the editor who made to 3 reverts well before I did and maybe yourself for removing an NPOV tag inappropriately (Template:POV#When_to_remove) and this warning would be more credible. You all posted on my talk page within an hour and I don't think I've interacted with any of you before other than Marek. I hope this isn't being coordinated. I think the article would benefit from a lot less edit warring and templating and a lot more discussion before editing. If you're willing to commit to that so will I. What I don't like is new content being added and when it's challenged, instead of discussing it like we should, it's edit warred back in and stays or goes based on numbers. That's not "consensus." D.Creish (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I hate to desert you but I am outta there. My first edit in that article was maybe 5 years ago, I'm a sculpture, monument kind of guy, but enough is enough. I appreciate what you are trying to do and feel like coward bailing out but I will just learn to live with it. We were 3 to 2 or so about removing the graph and still can't pry the thing out. To paraphrase and old cigarette add from years ago, 'I'd rather quit than fight." Carptrash (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Carptrash: Understandable. Sadly I think the volume of text, aggressiveness and vulgarity are intended to do just that. Hopefully my post to the History project brings editors more concerned with history. D.Creish (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I just can't do it (leave). I won't be bullied and insulted and shouted off something I feel is important. Carptrash (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether staying is good or bad. I do know that an influx of editors brought to an article by controversy chasing away an editor who's maintained it for year(s) is bad. D.Creish (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Kindly don't accuse others of coordinating. The posts here are all obviously in response to your edit warring and tagging. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Two editors accused me of being a sock puppet and you didn't object. You accused me of using an IP to edit war. Now you appear offended I'd suggest the accusations, the timing, the warnings only-in-one-direction suggest other inappropriate behavior. It's a reasonable assumption. D.Creish (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Above, I commented that there was something fishy over a year ago, so this assumption is unwarranted. A number of editors have found your behavior unusual in a number of respects. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Well look at that, over a year ago. I don't remember our interacting at all and now you're back. It's one thing to deal with unpleasantness on article talk pages, I don't have to deal with it here, so I'd appreciate if you avoided my talk page. D.Creish (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This is your annual reminder about the discretionary sanctions related to BLPs and American politics. The formal templates can be found at the top of your user talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it standard practice to leave "annual reminders"? D.Creish (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts "expire" after a year. After one year, it's assumed the person may have forgotten and thus is entitled to a reminder (and so cannot be taken to WP:AE regarding a warning slapped on their talk page years ago). See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#aware.alert.

On a side note, you and VM need to stop edit warring over that graph. I'm tempted to go to AN3 now, but figured I should be polite and give you both a talk page message. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Got it. I asked two different editors what the rule about content was during RFCs. Both said effectively: leave the status quo. In List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America‎ the status quo is debatable but erring on the side of caution, I let Marek's restoration stand. In Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials‎ the status quo (without it) is crystal clear. I'm trying to follow the rules in both articles and apparently there are few good options to deal with editors who don't. D.Creish (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand. And you are right about keeping the status quo from what I understand the norms to be. I'm taking a bit of a backseat myself on the topic, but trying to keep abreast of the issues. But 13 back-and-forths is too many no matter the dispute. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to disagree with that. D.Creish (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

a thought[edit]

In trying to figure out a way to break the impasse at the Confederate Monuments page - because let's face it, even if the "vote" ends as it is now these folks will not back off, already making known their distain for the democratic process known. So how about if I propose changing the tag on the graph from Jim Crow to Lost Cause? Pretty much everything about the graph bothers me, like over 1/3 of the SLPC's data does not have dates, so is ignored, but still I think the Lost Cause explanation does more accurately explain the spike and racism can still be viewed as being a central component of that Cause. I'm not asking any one else until I hear from you. Carptrash (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate the gesture but based on your library if anything I'd defer to you on content, and I'm not experienced enough with process to offer advice there. I've had positive interactions with Guy Macon, who's an experienced editor. Do you want to see if he's interested? I also have multiple concerns about the graph. I'm planning to visit the library this weekend to do some research. D.Creish (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You saw my library. I removed that link because, when I added it, it seemed to fit into the discussion - someone was saying "buy a book" and "go to the library" and I just got annoyed because I've done all that. But then I thought, "I don't want to let a lot of these people into my home" so cut it out. My kids (one of whom has a Ph.D. in history) are getting a big kick out of me being the racist, defending the CSA, a Lost Causer and that sort of thing. Now I see that the "Graph in Dispute" tag has been removed and I am thinking that we have about as much chance to win this argument as the South has to rise again. Carptrash (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The more editors involved, the less the influence of a few activists. I'm worried some have internalized our citation rules. Not reasonably, reading diverse views and drawing informed conclusions, but picking and choosing to create whatever reality most pleases them. Disagreements then become impassioned fights to defend their "truth"; neither helpful for the purposes of an encyclopedia nor healthy. D.Creish (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Legacypac. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, the first few times I let it go. Now you have about as many, maybe more posts on my talk page than I do, which is out of hand. I'm going to ask you to refrain from posting here unless you're required to. D.Creish (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions editing restriction violation[edit]

You have violated the discretionary sanctions restriction on Unite the Right rally which prohibits a challenged edit from being restored. Please self-revert or I will report the violation to WP:AE.- MrX 01:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry chief, looks like that provision isn't enforced.[5] Leftover default text, apparently. D.Creish (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong D.Creish, but nice try at WP:GAMING the system. Rest assured that I will not be leaving a polite warning on your talk page the next time you violate editing restrictions.- MrX 18:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so it applies when it's convenient, my mistake then. As for the threat, I'm reminded of a cartoon with the caption "Stephen forgets that he isn't on the internet" =) D.Creish (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

1RR violation[edit]

@NeilN: Re [7] sure, the second edit wasn't a revert. That was Feb content, and it's possible a version matching mine exists but I don't think so, and Marek didn't link one. Bogus report. D.Creish (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Since you appear not to be clear on the matter[edit]

• I* am (and have) challenging the entire sentence that starts off with " After the release of the...". You restored it once already in violation of DS. I let it slide because you were also challenging my addition of the fact that Strzok has already testified (another matter entirely is that this is a completely ridiculous challenge). You have not restored the challenged text once again.

I have explained my reasons on the talk page several times. You have not bothered to respond. You just made blind reverts which not only restored an outdated information (for some unknown reason) but also blatantly abused and misrepresented sources, none of which say what the text claims to say.

Please self revert. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Considering all the time you spend at noticeboards I figured you'd be more familiar with the rules than me, but let me help. The text was added to the article in June. It wasn't removed, so that's default consensus, not an edit you can challenge. Your removal is the edit and it was challenged. Now stop with the threats and try consensus. D.Creish (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Just because bad text got added a little bit earlier does not give it "default consensus". It can still be challenged (esp. when we're talking about summer when people go on vacations and shit). I don't see any "note of expiration" or "timeline for default consensus" in the DS notice. And you really have some chutzpah demanding 'consensus' when you haven't even bothered to participate in talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

And this is putting aside the fact that you are blatantly misrepresenting sources, using false edit summaries (you didn't "find" a source which actually supports the text), and restoring outdated info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Now there's a "summer" exception? Get real. Ping @NeilN: can you chime in here? As if the 1RR complaint wasn't bad enough now Marek's making up his own DS rules:

• Content added 19 June [8]
• Marek removes it 31 July [9]
• Now he restores it claiming he's "challenging" the original 19 June edit [10]

D.Creish (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

And why is it always the same maybe 5 editors undoing my edits and supporting each other by reverting to each others' versions. That's just weird. D.Creish (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You broke 1RR. Hence the 1RR complaint.

You broke DS by restoring challenged material WITHOUT participating in any talk page discussion.

There's no "default consensus if I can sneak it into the article for long enough" clause in the DS notice.

Them's the facts and all the wiki lawyering in the world ain't gonna change'em.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because your versions violate Wikipedia policy?? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"Sneak" into the lede, the least conspicuous part of the article, right, right. Yeah if there were 6 people on wikipedia your answer would make sense, but there aren't so it don't. D.Creish (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer[edit]

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached.

To help move things along, I have started a discussion on the article talk page about the disputed edit, which you will find here. Please take the opportunity to make your views known there. It is best not to restore the material you added until there is a consensus among the editors there to do so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you have your wires crossed. I made one edit [11] to the article, no edit warring, no failure to follow BRD. Are you sure you got the right editor? D.Creish (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know that your edit has been changed back again to 'far-right' by Volunteer Marek claiming 'off-topic red herring', and despite the recent discussion on sources. On the talk page I have asked Marek to self-revert and begin a formal discussion on consensus. The advice from Beyond My Ken regarding edit warring and consensus above was apparently not followed by Beyond My Ken himself or communicated to Marek, as BMK followed up Marek's bold edit with a supporting change of references. Thanks. 172.78.51.173 (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@172.78.51.173: I have the article watchlisted so I saw it (I don't think IPs get watchlists) but for future reference notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion (or edits) in a particular way is considered inappropriate. [12]. This place is a maze of rules but that's an important one. D.Creish (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for the unintentional transgression! Thank you for your help with the rules. 172.78.51.173 (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That's okay, it's easy to make mistakes. And you're welcome. D.Creish (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Joey Gibson (political activist), you may be blocked from editing. You are engaged in an edit war and have broken the 3 revert rule. Continue being disruptive and you will be reported for edit warring. Jorm (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Jirm, BLP is a really important policy that applies everywhere on wikipedia. D.Creish (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and for living or recently deceased people[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries[edit]

First, I'd appreciate it if you didn't "mimic" my edit summaries as you did here. Second, your edit summary was indeed misleading - you claimed you were restoring material, but the main gist of your edit was to remove information regarding Richard Spencer and David Duke [14]. Volunteer Marek 04:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Restore is the opposite of revert so my summary was fine. A good tip is don't make accusations against editors in edit summaries but I'm sorry if similarities between my summary and yours hurt your feelings. D.Creish (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"hurt your feelings" - yeah, how about you stop it with the trolling while we're at it? Volunteer Marek 05:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive tag[edit]

This edit is extremely disruptive and borders on vandalism.[15] This sentence is extensively sourced (BBC, WAPO, NYT, PolitiFact) despite your claims to the contrary: "There are no reliable figures that suggest that white farmers are being targeted in particular or that they are at a disproportionate risk of being killed." Remove the tag immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, D.Creish. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, D.Creish. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI, 3RR[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Note[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have recently shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

wumbolo ^^^ 15:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I have?! In what article? D.Creish (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux. wumbolo ^^^ 06:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This? It didn't register because I didn't change text related to race and intelligence. It looks like you notified everyone who edited there so it seems reasonable. Thanks for clearing it up. D.Creish (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA[edit]

Please don't make personal remarks on talkpages[16] or elsewhere. I've told Beyond My Ken the same. Bishonen | talk 11:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC).

That's not my edit but I definitely appreciate the sentiment. Can you take a look at Talk:Gab_(social_network)? I see comments worse than that like

You have contributed nothing of value to the article or anywhere else on Wikipedia and please stop further wasting everyone's time.

You reek of being a single-purpose, agenda driven account ... You can go back to gab now.

I haven't linked them because I'm not asking for sanctions but if you could end it I'd be grateful. D.Creish (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bishonen: In case you didn't see this. The article's protection has expired and I'd like discussion there to remain civil. D.Creish (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I apparently pasted the wrong diff into my warning, namely the same diff I warned BMK about. I meant to warn you about this: "We're approaching WP:CIR territory so please be careful". The context shows that, despite the "we", you're aiming the WP:CIR specifically at BMK. That's no way to talk. In my opinion it's worse — being more personal — than any of the things you quote above. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC).

No I'm sorry. I assumed we were going to have a real conversation. If CIR is a serious personal attack on BMK then what are we going to do about all the times BMK attacked editors' competence in edit summaries [17][18][19][20]? How about this one [21] where he specifically says "competence is required" - will it be individual warnings for each or one big one? D.Creish (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please[edit]

I edit wherever it strikes my fancy to edit, at any given time. Your attack on my talk page was not appreciated. I've been here long enough, and read enough of the policy pages, to know that you were entirely out of line. If you have a problem with my edits, address them on the appropriate talk page of the article. And I do mean address the edits. Looks like you've got enough on your plate justifying what you're doing there, at any rate. Have a good day. Ewen Douglas (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: Attack? Whoa, whoa. I'm just making you aware of policy being your new. Why would you think that's an attack? We have another important policy here - WP:AGF. You should read it! D.Creish (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You were clearly and unambiguously accusing me of having multiple accounts, which is an attack, and ironically, the exact opposite of WP:AGF, so it appears that while you may have read that article, you may have had some difficulty understanding it. Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)