User talk:D.Creish

Routine notifications

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.

Template:Z33

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

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

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

You are edit warring on Jared Taylor. You are removing text that has been stable for over one year ([1]). 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

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 ???

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

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

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

Re [2]. 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)

Question

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 [3] 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 "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

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)