Talk:Cecily McMillan

Comment
So I can have some record of it, if it is deleted again! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The talk page will be deleted also: read WP:G8. G S Palmer (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion
First it was deleted because it "did not state why subject was notable", now it is being proposed because it does not do so credibly.

The cited criterion states the following: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion."

Emphasis added. Could a noble wikiwarrior please explain the deletion rationale more fulsomely? Because the stated criteria don't seem to apply so far. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Socialist/Communist/Anarchist
To be clear (in the interest of full disclosure), I support deletion of this article. IF the wikicommunity determines that the article should be kept, Ms McMillan's political views should be included--she does after all describe herself as a political activist. To that end, the wiki article should not that she advocates that the US should be transformed to a communist country: ''She has grand visions about how to fix society. First, she says, we need to start with democratic socialism "to get America on par with the rest of the Western world. Then socialism, then communism, then anarcho-syndicalism."'' Read the rest of the article here for context: www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/cecily-mcmillan-occupy-protestor-sentenced --173.79.76.211 (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So?TheLongTone (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll go one better than so. She doesn't advocate for the US to be changed into a communist country - your quote says quite clearly that she advocates for an anarcho-syndicalist country, which would take several steps to accomplish, including passing through communism. Anyone who takes what she says, as equivalent to a red-scare scenario, doesn't know remotely enough about communism, socialism, capitalism or anarchism, to be weighing on the relevance of her personal political idealism. She advocates for a governmental system which focuses on supporting workers over corporations and treating human needs as equally important to profit and innovation. If you intend to paint that as something negative, that people reviewing this article should be warned about, you need to learn A LOT more about it before speaking again - and you should learn a little about McCarthyism and HUAC, and what happens when we turn benign terms like communist into bad words. 04:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CleverTitania (talk • contribs)

New source

 * Crabapple, Molly (June 11, 2014). Dissident fetish. Vanity Fair.

For your consideration... Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

American criminal category
I've removed the "American criminal" category. That is totally unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dramatic & fully unsubstantiated retelling
Currently the entire description of the assault for which the article subject was jailed is given via unsubstantiated hyperbole, completely in her own words. This is entirely inappropriate per WP:REDFLAG and needs to be removed. If you disagree, please state a rationale that is clearly rooted in WP policy. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 03:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your statement is completely false. Her own words are entirely appropriate for this particular section and her own words are entirely supported by the preponderance of reliable sources.  You will need to show otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP is not a soapbox; there is a threshold for bullshit tolerance and article subjects are not permitted to just make unsubstantiated claims about other people willy nilly. See, e.g., WP:REDFLAG. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 00:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have restored the recent unprovoked removal and modification of content based on no known reaason. If the editor in question would like to explain the rationale for their edits, this thread is open for discussion. Relevant points for discussion are as follows:


 * Cecily McMillan is an American Occupy Wall Street activist and advocate for prisoner rights in the United States
 * There is no explanation as to why this material was changed and the link to the topic deleted. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * after elbowing New York City Police Department officer Grantley Bovel in the eye
 * This statement is clearly disputed in the article, hence it should not appear in the lead. The very idea that police routinely arrest peaceful protesters based on trumped up charges of alleged "assault" is incredibly well-documented and quite frankly, mundane.  This particular point has been discussed ad nauseum in the news for the past six months alone.  This article should not be making a disputed claim appear as fact. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure
 * This quote was removed for absolutely no reason, and forms the primary basis of McMillan's complaint. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Anything else? Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you done lying? Can you read English? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 04:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you avoid the personal attacks and address the edits you wish to implement please? I addressed the stable version that you changed above. I'm certainly open to saying more about the assault in the lead, but please don't remove other information. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You can read English? Freaking fabulous.  Then respond to edit summaries and talk page comments which is where article content gets talked about. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 04:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but we most certainly do not discuss nor respond to edit summaries. I have brought your primary complaint to this talk page for discussion.  You are welcome to begin addressing the content at any time as I have done above.  Unless  of course you are not here to improve this subject. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You ignore the edit summary clearly stating the policy supporting removal, ignore an obviously related comment on the talk page itself, ignore a clear explanation for another edit posted to your talk page, then start a new talk page section to complain that the edit was made "for absolutely no reason", revert it all, and call it a day? Do tell, how is that not outright dishonesty and why should you not be banned for it?  Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 04:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging Viriditas; at some point we'll need to discuss the policy implications of the improper material I removed, and also the proper material I restored that you keep removing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you are pinging me when you have failed to respond to every point in this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mmmmmhmmmmm. Indeed. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 00:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove the statement "I learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure". Please respond directly to that question here using policies and guidelines. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Per redflag, as repeatedly cited, now please stop with your campaign of selectively not hearing things. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 01:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not how talk pages work. Do I need to point you to the talk page guidelines, or will you explain how "REDFLAG" applies and why it supports your removal? Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

POV-pushing edits
A recent edit improperly removed textual attribution of a heavily biased source, and also improperly converted a source-attributed claim into a claim in Wikipedia's voice that conditions are "deplorable" at Riker's Island, together with a vague implication that an inmate's death was due to mistreatment (if you actually look at the source she's essentially claiming that a prison doctor committed fatal medical malpractice, despite her not having any medical expertise and likely not knowing any real details of the case).

I don't see how any defense can be made for this edit, though I encourage anyone to speak up if they disagree, but failing that it will be reverted shortly. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but nothing you have written makes any sense at all. It is difficult to take you seriously when you aren't able to compose a coherent message.  You have continued to revert information in this article based on absolutely no good reasons.  I think the root cause of your problem is that you failed to do the slightest bit of research on this topic, therefore, you aren't the least familiar with the preponderance of sources on this topic.  For example, you recently removed the uncontroversial quote from McMillan that she "learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure."  Can you explain your reasoning?  Your above comments and (multiple edit summaries) can't be parsed by rational people.  Further, you  have removed the statement "that deplorable conditions existed in the prison, and that an inmate had died while she was there".  This is an uncontroversial fact supported by dozens of unreliable sources.  I think you actually need to review the literature on the subject or stop editing.  Modifying this article based on sheer ignorance is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have trouble understanding English. I don't see how responding further (in English) is going to help. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 00:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've directly challenged your reverts and removal of content over the last week. You have not once responded to that challenge. You have removed material based on no rational reason.  It will be added back. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Look brah, I removed once sentence comprised of just a few words, and I clearly stated that the removal was required by REDFLAG. It's not the only portion of that quote that needed to be removed per REDFLAG, but it's the most egregious.  You're not even paying attention.  Just stop. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You really don't understand how to use a talk page, do you? Saying "REDFLAG" over and over gain isn't a rationale justification for removing anything. Now, explain how and why REDFLAG applies and why that supports your removal.  Of course, you don't have to explain if you can't, in which case you can simply self-revert and take this article off your watchlist.  Your choice. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you freaking read the policy? FOR EXAMPLE:"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[11] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include [] surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources"  Also note that her "interview", or rather her self-written piece in Cosmo, doesn't appear to have been subjected to any editing, fact-checking, or other tasks that secondary sources normally perform, thus it's actually more like a primary source—just another reason to treat with caution. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense, but your communication skills are quite poor. It sounds like you are challenging the statement and implicitly requesting additional sources for support.  While that may certainly be a valid request, this is her biography, and that kind of claim in her biography is perfectly acceptable and reasonable.  REDFLAG does not apply, nor is this claim considered "exceptional".  However, I will certainly indulge your fantasies and attempt to find additional sources.  But the fact remains: you should not have removed the statement and your rationale for removing isn't valid. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My communication skills are excellent. You have trouble reading clear English.  REDFLAG is not inapplicable to biographical articles.  The claim is clearly exceptional per the very first example that appears under REDFLAG.  Yes, by all means, please go find better (and more) sources if they exist.  The removal was clearly proper per the repeatedly cited policy.  Stop whining and start editing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but your communication skills are horrible. I asked you four days ago (up above) to explain your edits, and you have only just started to respond, predictably while engaging in yet another edit war. There is nothing "exceptional" about her clam in the context of her biography. It is you opinion that her claim is exceptional, an unsubstantiated opinion, I might add. And here we see the root of the problem. You have great difficulty (again and again and again and again this comes up) understanding the difference between an exceptional claim supported by sources indicating that the claim is exceptional (REDFLAG), and your own personal opinion. Got it, yet? Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG lays out criteria for determining what is an exceptional claim. I'm citing the first one on the list.  You're incompetent, full stop. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Far from it, I've actually read the sources. You came here and removed what you personally believe is a REDFLAG.  That's textbook incompetence, normally attributed to newbies. What's amazing is that you've been here how many years now?  And still you act like a newbie.  At least you aren't trolling Slashdot while you are here, so in a way, Wikipedia is doing the world a favor.  In any case, I will repeat this again, there is no indcation whatsoever that her claim, "I learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure", meets any of the REDFLAG criteria. None.  So what's happening here, is yet again, you are misreading, misinterpreting, and misunderstanding what you read.  Because you can't support your position that this quote fits REDFLAG (you've been asked over and over to do so but have failed to meet the criteria) the quote will be added back. At this point, you're just a disruptive troll.  You have made the bullshit claim that this quote is a "surprising claim  not covered by multiple mainstream sources", but this is nonsense, as any source search soon discovers.  You aren't here to improve articles, you're here to waste the time of other editors.  I'm going to get back to improving articles and wait unitl you've crawled back under your bridge.  At that point, I'll restore the material you removed.  Please stop trolling this page with your nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read extensive sourcing on this article. I recall no source nor any court document saying that police (or anyone) beat her in the head.  I recall many sources saying she hit her head and that she had a seizure.  I remember a source saying she repeatedly hit her head on the ground while having a seizure. Currently the #1 google result for the claim that Cecily McMillan was beaten in the head is this Wikipedia article.  I do not see this sourcing that you speak of.  It's downright silly to suggest that is not a claim requiring solid sourcing.  It's an accusation of criminal police brutality.  Why would this not have been addressed at her criminal trial?  Why would the only source for it be an article written by the article subject in a magazine? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Judging by your above comment, it sounds to me like you know less than nothing about this article. And based on what you've written, I don't believe for one minute that you have "read extensive sourcing" on this subject, because every question in your above comment is immediately answered by looking at the sources.  Furthermore, you are engaging in goal-post moving with every comment here.  We have solid sourcing, it's just that you've never looked at it.  The New York Observer covered her alleged beating back in 2012 and pointed to two separate videos of the incident.  The Nation covered her trial.  Furthermore, she has been attacked and beaten by cops before, so this is nothing new or out of the ordinary.  Finally, I would like to put the final nail in the coffin of your absurd argument.  Many, many people were being beaten by cops during the OWS protests, and McMillan's arrest and subsequent seizure and hospitalization was covered by many mainstream journalists and sources.  Your crazy claim that this alleged "beating" is somehow "surprising" or "exceptional" is the height of lunacy. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read countless sources about this article, I've seen multiple videos of the incident and they didn't show her getting beaten in the freaking head, nor have I seen sources saying that, including the multiple Observer articles I just read. Holy crap, after hundreds of words of invective I'm surprised you had the energy leftover to say "New York Observer". Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 02:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Another straw man, another goal-post move, and yet another personal opinion divorced from what the sources say. It doesn't matter what the videos show or don't show.  What matters here is that your rationale for removing this material is entirely debunked.  "Redflag" does not apply here. And if you actually read the articles on McMillan's trial and the evidence regarding the arresting officer, you would know this.  McMillan isn't the first victim of this officer, a man who according to The Nation has a violent record involving an attack on a teenage boy in 2010 and kicking a suspect in the face in 2009.  And, according to The Nation, the same officer who arrested McMillan "assaulted Occupy protester Austin Guest on the same day as McMillan’s arrest".  So how in the world does "redflag" apply here?  Of course, it doesn't.  That's just a wild, irrational claim you invented.  Need I remind you, there is nothing "surprising" nor "exceptional" about McMillan claiming to be attacked by a man who was involved in three separate incidents, one of which occurred on the same day as her arrest.  And, we have dozens of news stories by reliable journalists documenting the brutality and aggressive force used by the police against OWS protesters and even bystanders.  So we see then, your "redflag" claim destroyed, with not a shred of support left for you to ever bring it up again.  Finis. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please produce a source that say cops beat McMillan on the head or stop talking. There is no point in ranting. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 03:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:V and WP:NPOV for the first time. There is nothing preventing us from quoting McMillan here, and your continuing attempt to find some kind of rationale to prevent it from being including is POV pushing.  "Redflag" doesn't apply.  Perhaps if you read the policies for the first time, you can find something that does apply.  Good luck with that.  However, you should know that your continuing edit pattern of "I don't agree with the opinion of X therefore I'll remove it" is highly disruptive.  Now, please provide a valid policy rationale that allows you to exclude McMillan's claim where she says, "I learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure."  Given that the officer who arrested her had been previously involved in three separate incidents involving alleged excessive force, and that OWS protesters were beaten and attacked by police, her claim is neither "surprising" nor "exceptional". Since this is her biography, her quote is allowed to remain as a record of her experience during this ordeal.  You have no policy-based rationale to prevent or remove it. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy crap. Redflag applies.  It is a sub-set of WP:V which applies everywhere.  We are talking about a "surprising or apparently important" claim.  Therefore "multiple high quality-sources" are required.  So far we don't really even have one.  We have you conducting some iterated ranting about how sources which you refuse to point out supposedly exist that would support the claim, followed by me going and doing internet searches based on your comments and finding no support, rinse freaking repeat.  And you're the one calling me a troll; it's silly.
 * Also, there is no WP policy that says a person may say whatever the hell they want in an article about them. You're offering a confused reading of WP:SPS, which I'll now point out specifically excludes claims about third parties, and claims that are "unduly self-serving", and claims that would otherwise fall under... TADAAAA... WP:REDFLAG.   Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 03:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your claim that "redflag applies" has been completely and totally refuted and debunked. There isn't a single aspect of "redflag" that applies to the quote you removed, not one.  It's her recollection of the notable incident involving her seizure, and that's been covered in dozens of reliable sources.  As editors, we are not in business of evaluating the recollection of a notable individual as true or false, we simply report it.  Her claim, "I learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure".  There isn't a single thing surprising about this claim given its 1) coverage in mainstream sources 2) the fact that she had a seizure, was admitted to the hospital, and had severe bruising on her right breast consistent with being grabbed by the officer 3) the officer in question had a previous history of alleged excessive violence including another one on the day McMillan was arrested, and 4) OWS protesters were being beaten and attacked by police.  So, how does "redflag" apply here? Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "surprising or apparently important claim", dude. Let it sink in. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 03:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You've been repeatedly informed that there is not one single thing "surprising" about OWS protesters being beaten and attacked, and there is nothing "surprising" about the arresting officer being accused of excessive force when he has three previous claims lodged against him. Sorry, we go with the sources, not with your personal opinion. More to the point, "redflag" does not apply to biographical quotes by the subject about their historical recollections of an incident. You don't get to censor what the subject recalls about an incident in their life. That's just absurd. "Redflag" is for unusual claims about things and concepts; it has no bearing on the recollections of a biographical subject in their own article, even less when it turns out that subject has been part of a movement that has been repeatedly attacked by police, and an officer in particular with a past record of excessive force. The sources fully support this quote. The New York Observer notes that McMillan had a seizure and trouble breathing after she was "tackled and handcuffed by law enforcement" with a video showing evidence that the "police clearly perform a violent take-down".

This is corroborated by the preponderance of reliable sources. For example, James C. McKinley, Jr. in the New York Times writes: "She ran a few steps before being tackled by Officer Bovell. A few minutes later, she appeared to have what looked like a seizure as she was being loaded onto a bus with other protesters. Another officer took her to a hospital." So, nothing "surprising". The sources report that the officer tackled her, and the sources report that this was a violent "take-down". Now, how in the world is that inconsistent with her claim that she was " beaten on the head, triggering a seizure"? Newsflash: it is entirely consistent. If an officer takes down a suspect in a violent manner, it is likely that you will get beaten on the head. Nothing "surprising" here or out of the ordinary. In fact, it is all too common. According to the NYO, in a separate incident, McMillan had been "blasted with pepper spray" by cops who "knocked her down" and "stepped on her head and snarled at her 'Shut up. You get what you deserve, cunt bitch.'" "Redflag" has no bearing on this quote, so please stop citing it. You've been completely and totally debunked. The quote is going back in. You don't get to censor a part of a quote you dislike and there's no policy that supports your action. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy reads "surprising OR APPARENTLY IMPORTANT" [ALL CAPS ADDED IN CASE THAT HELPS YOU READ THREE SIMPLE WORDS OF ENGLISH WHICH HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU REPEATEDLY]
 * LEARN TO READ AND STOP TROLLING
 * GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR
 * Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 11:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I refuted your "red flag" argument quite some time ago and I've moved on by adding additional sources representing a larger range of opinions. It's time for you to put the stick down and stop edit warring.  Your most recent edit summary made the ridiculous claim that these were low quality sources representing one person.  They are anything but, and this absurd claim tells me you have not read them but are reverting for no reason.  Please explain your problem with these sources instead of continuing to edit war.  Do not bring up "red flag" again, as I have totally refuted that argument. The subject claims she was beaten and the sources report that claim.  Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This potpourri of total bullshit and personal attacks merits no response. Reverted. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jesus, you're a liar. Your latest bit of prose sourced to the guardian is outright bullshit.  This is against so many policies there's no point in mentioning them anymore. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding sources that are increasingly marginal and increasingly irrelevant to the claim in question doesn't help the case... Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 00:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Another thing that doesn't help: adding claims that are not supported by the reference they're attributed to. But again, why would I need to explain basic policy to a good-faith user? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 00:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the claims I added are directly supported by the sources. Can you point to one that isn't?  Of course you can't, because if you could, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  What you are doing is called "nothing but objections", a disruption tactic used by trolls.  It's pretty transparent. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have yet to point out a goddamn source that claims McMillan was beaten in the head, other than the words out of her own mouth. You know — the one freaking claim that we've been arguing about for days? That one. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 00:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the claims I added are directly supported by the sources. Can you point to one that isn't?  Of course you can't, because if you could, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  What you are doing is called "nothing but objections", a disruption tactic used by trolls.  It's pretty transparent. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have yet to point out a goddamn source that claims McMillan was beaten in the head, other than the words out of her own mouth. You know — the one freaking claim that we've been arguing about for days? That one. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 00:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I posted at least half a dozen reliable sources that reported she was beaten yesterday. You know this, but here you are again with "nothing but objections" in an attempt to distract, deny, doubt, and disrupt. I'll give you a sample of these sources again right here:
 * Lucy Steigerwald in Vice: "McMillan says she was beaten and arrested along with 70 fellow protesters". That's called a secondary source, which is what we use to write Wikipedia articles.  Are you familiar with how that works? Then we have Ryan Devereaux of The Guardian: "Occupy protesters have accused New York police officers of beating a woman and then neglecting her when she suffered a seizure after being handcuffed...Numerous witnesses told the Guardian that McMillan's head was unsupported throughout the incident and claimed her skull repeatedly struck the pavement...Witnesses to Saturday's police crackdown at Zuccotti Park said McMillan suffered heavy-handed treatment as she was taken into custody...A woman who chose to identify herself as "Anne", said she was no more than 25ft away from McMillan when she was taken down by police. "She was walking away from where the arrests were happening," she claimed. Anne said she did not witness the incident that precipitated McMillan's arrest, but said McMillan was quickly thrown to the ground. Anne claims that "without a doubt, there was kicking and clubs being used" as police moved in on McMillan for what Anne estimated was at least 30 seconds to a minute."
 * James C. McKinley Jr. in The New York Times: "Mr. Stolar told the judge that the bruises and mental trauma that Ms. McMillan had suffered during her arrest were punishment enough. “You touch a police officer and get the hell beat out of you,” he said outside court. “That’s what happened to her. That’s enough of a deterrent.”
 * Jim Hanas in The New York Observer: "Many on-scene reported Ms. McMillan had trouble breathing after she was tackled and handcuffed by law enforcement. A video uploaded to Youtube late Saturday night purports to show the attack. Two women can be heard commenting, “There’s Cecily,” then there is confusion as the police clearly perform a violent take-down on someone in the crowd."
 * Amity Paye in The Nation: "But while McMillan has been found guilty of assaulting NYPD officer Grantley Bovell, she maintains that she reacted instinctively, elbowing Bovell in the face after her breast was grabbed during her arrest. During the incident she was beaten and suffered a seizure before being hospitalized for cuts and bruises on her back, shoulders, head and breast."
 * Anna Merlan in The Village Voice: "McMillan's lawyer and her supporters say Officer Bovell was the one who assaulted her, grabbing her by the breast from behind and dragging her backwards. When she threw up her arms in an instinctive defensive gesture, they say, she hit the officer's temple. In response, Bovell and other officers beat her severely, causing her to suffer a series of seizures. (A few days later, a shaken-looking McMillan appeared on Democracy Now to describe the incident.) But the NYPD argues in their court filings that McMillan deliberately elbowed Bovell in the face while he was arresting someone else. McMillan was charged with assault on an officer, a felony that carries a maximum of seven years in prison."

That's just a small sample, all of which directly support McMillan's statements by herself and her attorney, as well as the reports and the witnesses who covered the incident. Of course, you know all of this, but you are trying very hard to prevent statements about McMillan's alleged beating from appearing in her own biography because you erroneously believe that this article must be written from the POV of the police. Not only is that a direct violation of NPOV, it's a violation of our BLP policy. Stranger still, you claim this is a "suprising" claim that should be removed because it violates "redflag", but nothing could be farther from the truth. Almost a hundred people were arrested along with McMillan, in what has been called the worst day of "egregious behavior" and police aggression against OWS protesters ever. This is the reason that sources about the movement portray McMillan as the symbol of the end of the movement. Lastly, the National Lawyers Guild and other organizations have investigated the human rights abuses during this time. That you still maintain it is "surprising" and a "redflag" for McMillan and her attorney to claim she was beaten by police when so many other people were being beaten at the same exact time, is an exercise in futility. I think it is beyond clear by now that you are neither being reasonable nor compliant with policy. NPOV and BLP take precedence over your misguided belief about how this biography should be written. Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you notice that NONE OF THOSE SOURCES SAY POLICE BEAT OR CLUBBED MCMILLAN ON THE HEAD????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 01:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Arguing with straw men again? Why would it support such a statenet when those sources supported the claim that she was beaten?  Here is the content from the previous version that the sources supported:
 * McMillan was in the proximity of an Occupy Wall Street protest in Zuccotti Park when she claims that a New York City Police Department officer grabbed her breast, at which point she swung her elbow into the officer's face. According to McMillan, she was then beaten by police and arrested.
 * According to McMillan, in the middle of this turmoil, a man wearing plainclothes, not identified as a police officer, allegedly grabbed her breast from behind. In reaction, McMillan apparently elbowed him in the face, but she does not remember the incident.[9] Ryan Devereaux of The Guardian reported that multiple witnesses to the arrest saw the police throw her to the ground, and then kick and club her for approximately one minute, after which she began convulsing in the street. Witnesses said McMillan's head lacked support and that "her skull repeatedly struck the pavement".[14] Witnesses called for help but it took approximately 17 minutes for an ambulance to arrive.[note 1][14] McMillan was taken to the hospital where she was chained to the hospital bed.[9][12]
 * Stolar explained to the jury that her beating by police was enough of a punishment. "You touch a police officer and get the hell beat out of you. That's what happened to her. That's enough of a deterrent."[15]
 * Now, Factchecker, where does that sourced content say anything clubbing her in the head? Please stop posting absurd straw men.  The content was sourced appropriately but deleted for no reason other than you don't like it.  I've debunked and refuted your reasons for removing it and it will be added back.  Nowhere does it say police clubbed her on the head. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Show me an edit where I removed that content and I'll tell you why I made that edit. Suggestion: don't make multiple disputed changes in a single edit and you won't get multiple changes reverted at once.
 * Can I take this as a statement that you no longer wish to include a claim that McMillan was beaten or clubbed in the head by police? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 02:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Factchecker, I explicitly showed you, word for word, the material you removed above. There are three bullet points up above your comment that you deleted dozens of times from this article, and we both know you did so based on no reasonable justification. McMillan herself said "I learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure."  There is nothing preventing us from including this or any other statement in the article considering that 1) the night McMillan was arrested is considered the apex of aggression and police brutality against the OWS by reliable sources; 2) the sources report that McMillan and her attorney both claim she was beaten; 3) sources report witnesses who say they saw her being beaten; 4) independent organizations have investigated or called for investigations based on the police brutality of that night.  To conclude, the sources support saying she was beaten, and McMillan's own quote is acceptable for this article as it forms the basis of her complaint and is consistent with the actions of the police on that night. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said to you about a billion times, McMillan is the only person who ever claimed she was beaten on the head, and what's more she said it in a first-person account that she wrote herself, and that's not appropriate sourcing per WP:REDFLAG, which definitely applies because it's an important claim (among other things). Show me multiple major newspapers, wire services, or television news networks making that claim — or stop talking.  Again: show me an edit where I removed any of the above and I'll explain that edit.  And again: if you don't put 5-10 or more disputed changes in one edit, you'll find that fewer of your changes get reverted. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 02:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you either misunderstand how "redflag" works or you are deliberately misusing it. McMillan's contention that she was beaten by police has been reproduced by dozens of sources, and in the context of the most brutal and aggressive crackdown on OWS in its history, there is nothing in either our policies or guidelines that prevents us from saying that in this article. Furthermore, McMillan has said in an interview that she was beaten "on the head".  Whether she was or not, this is consistent with the witness testimony reported in the Guardian saying she was a victim of a violent takedown.  Your fixation on the plausibility or verisimilitude is what we refer to as a red herring.  You are trying to waste my time with an argument that is a dead end.  What we know is that that many sources report that McMillan says she was beaten, and that's good enough.  Looking deeper, we see that the police sweep and crackdown is considered the most brutal of its kind against OWS, and we see that McMillan's claims (and the witnesses that support her) are consistent, plausible, and entirely unsurprising.  Finis.  There is nothing more to discuss. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. You're simply lying.  There is only one source that says McMillan was beaten in the head, and that's her little self-written diary entry in Cosmo.  The claim beaten in the head is the one that cannot appear per REDFLAG because of poor sourcing.  Please STFU about other claims that I'm not arguing about.  Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 02:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the sources report she claimed she was beaten. The sources report that her attorney claimed she was beaten. The sources report that witnesses to the event claimed she was beaten.  McMillan specified that she was beaten on the head, which is entirely consistent with the "violent takedown" she received and what has been called the most brutal, aggressive police sweep ever of OWS.  So there's no problem here at all.  You're pretending there's a problem, however, because YOUDONTLIKEIT.   This is a biography about McMillan, not about what the police department or the courts want this article say.  A quote from McMillan about her ordeal is entirely appropriate for this article and consistent with the narrative in our best sources.  I'm sorry you disagree. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "on the head" is the part in dispute. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 03:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

" Remove original research not contained in any source and obviously designed by an editor to distort the original source. They sent it, not signed it) "
It's in the fucking source that was cited. Again, you are incompetent and clearly cannot comprehend English. Shall I assume that your other thirty reverts were similarly dishonest? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 12:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no such claim about the jurors in the source, and I suggest you familiar yourself with talk page and BLP guidelines. The claim simply does not exist.  Perhaps you are referring to a different source?  In any case you need to stop the personal attacks or I will archive this page once again. When you are asked to support a claim, you are supposed to bring the source here and cite it, showing how it is supported.  You may also want to read WP:V to see how this works. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Then what the fuck do you make of the fact that the source explicitly says that it was signed by one juror?  Also I point out that not only have you not made any effort to support the claims about McMillan being "clubbed in the head", but you've been actually inserting the claim, as nauseam, and citing references that don't actually make that claim, then lying when this is pointed out, not to mention insulting me endlessly for pointing it out.  You should be insta-perma-banned for extreme dishonesty in the service of violating NPOV and other core policies. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * More personal attacks? Why am I not the least surprised? The references do not make the claim that "the letter only contained the name of one juror and was not signed by any others". That was a deliberate misrepresentation of the source which clearly said that one juror had signed it on behalf of 9 of the members, as is standard procedure.  In other words, "Nine of the 12 jurors who found Cecily McMillan guilty of deliberately elbowing a police officer have written to the judge in the case".  The only reason you keep adding "the letter was signed by one juror' is to create some kind of doubt as to the authenticity of the letter, when the sources do not do this.  This is classic SYNTH and POV pushing, and is indicative of dishonesty on your part. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * THE SOURCE MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT SAY THAT THE JUROR SIGNED ON ANYONE ELSE'S BEHALF Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 01:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bingo. And you can't infer or synthesize that based on what it doesn't say, because to do so, is a form of POV pushing.  Are you getting it yet? What part of "Nine of the 12 jurors who found Cecily McMillan guilty of deliberately elbowing a police officer have written to the judge in the case" are you having trouble understanding?  Sorry, you don't get to question that fact by trying to assume otherwise with sneaky wording.  Really, your behavior here is atrocious. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source says the letter was signed by one juror. Also notice the poor sourcing.  Funny that high-quality sources haven't picked up any of the stuff you want to include, eh? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 02:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. The source does not claim "the letter only contained the name of one juror and was not signed by any others".  You know that.  You're just playing games and trying to cast doubt on the authenticity of the letter by engaging in SYNTH.  The sources do say that nine of the twelve jurors wrote to the judge.  It doesn't matter that one juror signed it. You're cherry picking to push a POV, and given this kind of track record and bad judgment, you shouln't  be writing any articles, let alone coming near a BLP.  Every word I've included has been sourced to high-quality sources, and I've written dozens of biographies.  Tell me about the biographies you've written and put through the article improvement process.  That's right, you aren't here to write articles, you are here to push a POV.  And furthermore, you're just trying to waste my time on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, we don't have to use that wording. We can just say that the letter was signed by one juror and sent to all the others. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 02:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Importance tag
could you please explain why you added an "importance" tag to the Occupy Wall Street section? Drive-by tagging is discouraged. I can't read your mind, so unless you explain, I'll remove the tag. I think to most reasonable people, it's self-evident that this is a biography about Cecily McMillan, and the history of her involvement with OWS is central to the topic. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I added it because it was unclear how important or significant that information was, especially given that her political views related to OWS have little to do with much of the rest of the article's content. How is this information actually significant enough to include in this article? It's clear that we should report her early life, or her arrest, but are we really supposed to report her political views, based primarily on one source (Wages of Rebellion) and with no real significance here? I'm not super strongly opposed to the section, but I do feel like it deserves some thought. Garzfoth (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please be very specific. What about it exactly is "unclear" and what about it exactly makes you question its importance or significance?  I really don't understand your reasoning for adding the tag, but I'm trying to, so please be more specific and point to examples.  Hedges' account is based on multiple sources, but that's neither here nor there.  Is there any particular part of this section that is questioned or challenged?  I added the Wall Street Journal as a substantiating citation.  As someone who is very familiar with biographies, I think this section is  de rigeur; to understand Cecily McMillan as a biographical subject, we must understand how she came to be associated with OWS.  You have questioned this importance based on your reading of her political views, but they have everything to do with the rest of article.  She's a pacifist interested in nonviolence.   She was alienated by OWS because she asked them to disavow violence.  This is entirely relevant, and has much to do with the rest of the article's content, particularly the continuity from her graduate school studies of nonviolence and her discussion with her thesis adviser in the previous section. So it both flows and follows naturally.  There's actually a great deal more that should be added here.  More to the point, it contrasts with the picture of her created by the police and the subsequent assault case which portrays her as a violent and aggressive person.  Clearly, that's not the case given her past history.


 * I should also note that your questioning of the importance of this section appears to tie into you latest edits, pushing the prosecutor's case unquestioned and without proper due weight for the defense and deliberately removing all of the material that criticized the police action on that day, such as the almost 20 minute delay of the ambulance for McMillan, which the Protest and Assembly Rights Project covered in their widely publicized report detailing human rights violations and excessive police force towards OWS, and in your removal of key observations about the police action on March 17, which Hedges notes was one of the worst incidents of police aggression experienced by OWS, a statement supported by the Mass Defense Coordination Committee of the National Lawyers Guild, which called for an investigation of the "arbirtray and brutal behavior" of the police in this case. In its place, you added commentary from police officers congratulating themselves on how great a job they did helping everyone and quotes from the prosecution accusing McMillan of being a violent criminal and a liar.  So the section you want to suppress casts doubt on the picture created by the police and the prosecution, as does the material you removed about the aggressive, brutal, and violent treatment of OWS on the day McMillan was arrested.


 * Further, this is not an isolated case. The officer who arrested McMillan and who McMillan accused of assault, was also accused of assault on that very same day by Austin Guest, who said the same officer "pushed him up the stairs into the bus, threw him 'head first' inside, then dragged him down the aisle, handcuffed, while 'intentionally banging his head on each seat'. This was witnessed by Shawn Carrie.  Given the past violent history of this officer, versus the nonviolent history of McMillan, we see two completely different pictures emerge that differ from the tidy narrative delivered to us by the police, the prosecutor, and the judge.  That McMillan's attorney was not allowed to make this case speaks to another matter altogether.  So it becomes very clear that not only is this section important, it completely diverges from the artificial, and some would say "invented" narrative created by the court, calling into question their very legitimacy as a a functional institution.  But enough of my speculation.  Let's recap on the material you are trying to keep out of this article: 1) content showing McMillan has a history of pacifism and nonviolence, including having the Occupy Wall Street movement alienate her for her "nonviolent" views; 2) content showing that on the day McMillan was arrested, the officer who she claims assaulted her was also accused of assault by other protesters who filed a separate case against him; and 3) content showing that on the day McMillan was arrested, the police engaged in what independent experts have called the most aggressive and brutal crackdown on OWS protesters of all time.  This paints a very, very different picture than the one painted by the police and the courts.  Per our policy on NPOV, you should not have removed this content. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is pretty simple though, as she has emphasized time and time again that she had nothing to do with the OWS protest. Her relation to OWS doesn't seem to have been brought up much in the case, with prosecutors strongly focusing on the simple matter of the assault. The prosecutors even noted their intent to avoid any political involvement in the trial. So we're really just left with your claim that it's relevant because it could support her side of the story. It's painting her in a certain light, creating a bias in the reader's mind that does not need to be there. We're supposed to be neutral, gushing about her anti-violence beliefs isn't doing that, especially given the evidence presented and that she was found guilty. I just can't think of a legitimate reason to include it in the article unless you want to start digging into the nastier arguments around the trial, and we can go down that road, but at the end of it we're just going to be in worse shape. Her political views are just not a factor here. It's whitewashing. She's on trial for assault, assault caught on video, not her political views, and this, as I said, was made clear many times. I eliminated many little negative things that I could have included because they weren't relevant, they didn't add anything of value, they just biased the reader, and you feel that it's okay to add this?

I wrote a neutral account of what happened. The previous version was horrific, it was biased to hell and back, it pushed a single POV and pushed it amazingly hard, it glossed over detail after detail, it was misleading to an insane degree, I could go on... This version presents the events properly, giving both sides their due weight, removing wild accusations, rephrasing misleading quotations, adding reams of missing context. I left in the material related to the case, I did not leave the sensationalist and misplaced remarks. I disagree in general about what you are claiming.

I feel like you do not have a very solid understanding of this case, and are pushing a certain pov that is not supported by the evidence. Please revisit it first. Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting McMillan's supporters version of events. It is important to provide details. It is important to verify claims. I was very careful to write a NPOV throughout the article, unlike the original editors who left us with this mess.Garzfoth (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, do you have another account or something that you use to edit? I ask because you talk a lot about what Wikipedia is for, but you've made very, very few edits, and none to any biographies.  So, I must conclude one of two things.  Either you do not know how biographies are written (and judging by the current version, you aren't clear on NPOV or BLP), or you write biographies using a different account.  In biographies about a subject, we certainly do write about the version of the events from the POV of the subject.  For example, we generally stick to facts which can be verified in good secondary sources.  Let me give you an example.  It is a fact that McMillan claimed she was beaten by police, and it is fact that other witnesses corroborated her story.  More importantly, it is a fact that reliable secondary sources wrote about it.  Now, please tell me why you deleted these facts from the article? Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The accusations were dismissed, the lawsuit thrown out, your evidence does not tell the story you believe it tells. It is intentionally misleading evidence. This is a matter of jumping to conclusions based on bits and pieces of out-of-context quotes. I do not believe that 1-3 is justified, as I have explained, and the picture I have painted is quite literally what the police and courts have produced. The picture you are painting is a fragile facade that failed to hold up to scrutiny. McMillan's history is nice to hear about, but it means little when she deliberately elbows a police officer in the face. Let's accuse the officer, but oops, our lawsuit completely failed. Police brutality, right? Come on, you've got to be reasonable about this stuff. And the most aggressive and brutal crackdown? It's not relevant. We're not reporting about the crackdown. We're reporting about her assault of a police officer.Garzfoth (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The evidence of aggressive and brutal police action that day exist independent of any dismissed accusations or thrown out lawsuits. We have reporters on the scene who documented the events, we have reporters who collected witness reports, we have videos, and we have published reports and investigations by legitimate organizations who monitor human rights violations.  The picture you have "painted" presents the police narrative as the only POV, which is not only a violation of our NPOV policy, but an attempt to unbalance this BLP, a violation of our policy on BLPs.  You claim that she "deliberately elbowed a police officer in the face", but there is simply zero evidence for that claim, only the usual he said, she said, with the usual judge siding with the police.  There have been dozens of books and articles about how this works and how the judicial system is biased in favor of the police regardless of any claim against them.  As for the "video" you claim was presented, that never actually occurred.  The judge refused to allow the entire video to be played, or any of the other videos shot from different angles and from different people.  The judge only allowed a one-minute snippet of a fuzzy video to be played that only supported the argument made by the prosecution.  Your dismissal of the much publicized and reported police brutality and the fact that the most brutal crackdown occurred on the day McMillan was arrested, along with other assaults made by the same arresting officer against other people also speaks volumes.  It's relevant.  What you don't get is that we are writing a biography.  Within that biography, we do report on the crackdown, as it led directly to her arrest.  Within that crackdown, we report on the assault, but in preponderance to the reliable sources, the majority of which report that McMillan was beaten by police.  I see that you have deleted that as well. Finally, it seems you are engaging in a tag team edit war, playing a little game of "good cop, bad cop", with Factchecker in the role of the bad cop.  Yawn.  Need I remind you, you are edit warring as well, and have now reverted three editors?  This would be interesting if you guys were a little bit more creative, but with such overt POV pushing on display, it becomes difficult to assume good faith.  Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your feelings about an article subject or related topic cannot be the basis for WP article material. Please see COATRACK, SOAPBOX, etc.  You need sources clearly supporting claims you want to make, and if the claim is a serious one, then high-quality sourcing is required. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've used high-quality sourcing to support every claim I've made, unlike you, Ms. Cosmopolitan. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EXCEPT FOR THE CLAIM THAT POLICE BEAT CECILY MCMILLAN IN THE HEAD. You know, the claim we've been arguing about for days.  0/10 crappy trolling. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim appears in solid secondary sources attributed to long-term journalists in sources that have a record for fact-checking. I've also sourced it:  You seem to be very confused about how secondary sources work, how we attribute claims, and how BLP's are written about the subject and represent their views, no matter how much you disagree with them. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead — quote a source that says police beat or clubbed McMillan in the head. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 02:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As you already know, Mr. Straw Man, McMillan claimed she was beaten in the head. What reason do you have to exclude that quote from this article?  And as you already know, the sources repeatedly claim that McMillan and her attorney claim she was beaten.  Now, please explain your reasons for excluding these simple statements.  Please do not reply by citing "redflag" since there is nothing surprising about someone getting beaten at Zucotti Park during what most sources call the most brutal crackdown in the history of OWS. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Prohibited per REDFLAG because it's a surprising and important claim that is not supported by multiple high-quality sources. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.  QED repeatedly.  Granted, you've expounded at length, I'd guess 2500-5000 words, at how it's not surprising if you hate cops and perhaps live in a tent city, but that doesn't get you anywhere because the claim is important and thus the policy applies.  Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 02:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that her history of involvement with OWS isn't really central to the topic at all, she has strongly maintained that she was not involved with the protest at all, and her assault of a police officer has nothing to do with OWS either. The fact that OWS supporters threw their support behind her doesn't really say much either. Garzfoth (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Her history of involvement with OWS is central to this topic, as it shows that she has a history of nonviolence, explains how she came to the OWS movement, which began after her first week of school, and ties directly into her life experience and leads us with the narrative, into the next section detailing the arrest.  This is exactly the kind of information that should appear in a biography of Cecily McMillan.  I think you are questioning it because it differs from the police narrative you are trying to promote.  Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And now we have the usual accusations of being a sockpuppet or shill, seemingly far too common from you. Whatever happened to rationality? Whatever happened to the quest for the truth? Why must anyone attempting to inject a little neutrality and balance into the conversation be considered a shill? Why were my edits reverted in their whole by suspicious accounts who decided to suddenly swoop in and destroy constructive and extensive work? I went and read numerous Wikipedia policies, and discovered that the first reversion went against multiple important policies. There was absolutely no justification to the reversion, so I restored it. Then another user swoops in to revert it, this time not even bothering to leave an inaccurate reason. No edits on the talk page.


 * WP:BRD says "BRD is never a reason for reverting". AND "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." AND "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones." I am told "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted". So I go to the talk page, and neither editor has posted there! Revert_only_when_necessary has more guidelines that are being ignored here. And Reverting.


 * Well, it looks like I've been screwed over by editors who don't care about following the rules. I consider these edits vandalism in their current state, they fit the definition of blanking. So I'll revert again, but if this continues, I think I'll have to take this to ANI, because this is completely ridiculous. Funny, eh? It looks like the "police narrative" is being suppressed? Never mind that this is FAR from that.Garzfoth (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't do that, they will block you for edit warring. Listen, can you point me to all the names of the biographies you've worked on and brought to DYK, GA, or FA status?  I'm just looking for evidence that you are familiar with how biographies work.  Please name one biography you've worked on, just one.  And show me an article you've brought through the improvement process, any article for that matter.  The reason I'm asking is because I want to see how familiar you are with how we write articles.  Based on your edit history, you aren't familiar at all.  Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the prime candidate for an edit-warring block here, bro. Don't try to scare off the newbies just yet. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no "newbies" on this page. Are you getting confused again?  As for edit warring, the both of you have been doing that in spades. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL, what are you, at 40RR for the day? Also, dude looks like a newbie to me. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * One more quick thing -- I'd love for you to go edit the article after I revert the latest vandalism. Change what you believe deserves change, be bold like I was, then we can discuss how it works out back here. Why don't you look at moving those nonviolence claims into the trial section? Give some different background. It'd work better, make more sense. Hell, cite your police brutality stuff. Then, again, we can discuss how it worked out. Preferably civilly. Without edit warring.Garzfoth (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't had any luck getting this editor to be civil, cite sources responsibly, or acknowledge WP policies. Instead, I've gotten a non-stop torrent of frankly wacky abuse.  Hope you own an asbestos jacket. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 00:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Garzfoth, I don't believe you. You've been edit warring all day, as the article history shows. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for butchering everything yet again. Wikipedia's discussion format seriously sucks. I'll just throw my replies below, plus an extra one for your new comment.


 * Police action has no relation to article, sorry. Narrative is based on eyewitness accounts, additional dubious eyewitness accounts included outside of that police stuff. I did NOT base the account solely upon police account, if I did it would be a LOT larger and nastier as their accounts are DAMMING. Like, oh, hey, she's screaming at a female cop, refusing to leave, walks with him before twisting, asking if she's being recorded, drops to the ground, jumps up, punches him, runs away, convulsing on the ground in fake seizure, swearing and cursing at cops, it goes on and on and on. Do you seriously think this is the police narrative?
 * Now for the video. It never happened? Here's a link for you, just skip ahead to the footage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeNwrj7JYH4 -- 1:18 or so if you want the slow-motion replay, faster ones before that of course. Crystal clear and all, everything matches up perfectly, this is what was shown during her trial. Now THAT is what I call some nice quality evidence. You claim to be best suited to edit this article, yet haven't even seen this footage? What the heck?
 * I dismissed the other "assault" because evidence does NOT support claims AT ALL, the lawsuit was THROWN OUT, they were likely fishing for money. Either way, it's hearsay, NOT evidence!! Beaten by police wasn't clear, but I did EXPLICITLY include the (PROPERLY PRESENTED) quote from the witness about that seemingly-violent 30-60 second arrest, which FULFILLS what you're looking for.
 * Tag team edit war? I'm not sure what edit page you saw, but it sure as hell wasn't this one. This certainly smells like another one of those famous shill accusations. I'm tempted to start making some of my own, but I don't really want to stoop down to that level right now. And on the topic of those edits, the first was my rewrite of the article which did not eliminate significant parts of your content as I covered EVERYTHING with proper sources and VASTLY improved the article in the process, which is NOT considered reversion AT ALL, it's called MAKING A LARGE EDIT TO A TERRIBLE ARTICLE. I did NOT selectively choose ANYONE's content to edit there, I took the article and edited it AS A WHOLE. My removal of the "Further reading" section was strongly justified by the biographies of living people's policies on that section, as well as the fact that its inclusion was unjustified in the first place, and I actually ended up reusing most of those sources for some claim. The second edit was to revert a reversion that violated a large number of policies and would rightfully be considered vandalism. The third edit was to revert a revision that was outright vandalism. So I made two reversions, neither of which should even count towards 3RR given that they were VANDALISM. POV pushing? Nope. I've got reams of good faith here. I wasn't even involved in your petty little edit wars!
 * I'm remembering something about McMillan's arrest, there were some tidbits about afterwards that I forgot to include. I think I need to hunt them down, but I distinctly remember some really really really ridiculous stuff, whining and resisting, screwing with the guards, I don't know what happened to the source though... Might have tossed it for not seeming neutral enough. But hey, it sounds like anything goes here! Ridiculous... Garzfoth (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, block ME for edit warring? Mmmm, I don't think so, not when my edits were vandalized. And Viriditas, your edit warring on this page was pretty nasty, I'd be more worried about 3RR for that.
 * Now as to your second part.... Ownership_of_content
 * "Are you qualified to edit this article?"
 * "You obviously have no hands-on experience with this topic."
 * "Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."
 * "You hadn't edited the article or talk page previously as a history search shows."
 * This is really sounding pretty bad right now... Crazy how much you overreact when a user DARES to edit YOUR article. They've got that perfect description for you! "At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary to edit the article"
 * But seriously, this is ridiculous. The quality of my work should stand on its own as proof. Even if you feel like rejecting that, look at my contribs, you claim they fail to show familiarity, yet I have made massive uncontested and highly detailed revisions to major articles with no issues, which is apparently terrible because reasons. I guess any attempts at producing high quality well-cited work is unwelcome in biographies? Bah! Garzfoth (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The quality of your work? You biased this biography to favor one POV over another, ignored contrary sources and reports, favored one side over another while reporting on her trial, and ignored the entire controversy over her beating, arrest, trial, and imprisonment. Your quality is about the lowest I've ever seen.  Oh, sure, you threw a few old bones my way, thank you very much.  Sorry, this is a classic "good cop, bad cop" routine, with Factchecker playing the loose cannon and you coming out of nowhere to play the calm, reasonable guy.  Nice theatre, but poor quality. F-. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahahahahaha. No. Garzfoth (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sad that you find NPOV issues "amusing", but then, there we are. As a result of your failure to abide by the policy after having the problem explained, I've tagged the article to warn other readers and editors that there's a problem and not to trust the content. When you are ready to stop edit warring and POV pushing and get serious about fixing problems you introduced and caused, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As stated and shown above, it does not at all, and I have no clue where you're drawing this conclusion from. Garzfoth (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Now this is in response to the newest comment I think. I feel that this is massively stepping over the line, and as going with above, I feel that you have reached the point where you are violating wikipedia policies left and right.
 * But let's talk about facts. McMillan claimed to have been beaten by police. She claimed to have suffered a seizure. She claimed to have suffered broken ribs. She claimed to have been sexually assaulted. She claimed to have no memory of the incident. Huh. Lots of claims there.
 * We can establish that there is no evidence to support claims of seizures, broken ribs, sexual assault, or even memory loss. But beating! Ah! Well, we know she was arrested, and that when she assaulted the officer, she attempted to flee before being taken down. So I'm sure she sustained some injuries there. The issue of being beaten is an entirely different one. When was she beaten? How exactly? We have vague claims, and an eyewitness focused on the horror of a brief arrest with sparse details. All those claims of police brutality, but so little evidence. Her medical records don't even seem to support this very well. Go ahead, add her claim, but in her voice, with all appropriate OTHER sources related to that included, so that the reader has the most ACCURATE account of the situation, not whatever she CLAIMED, because that is only a tiny little part of the story and including that alone is flat-out MISLEADING. I refute the reliability argument, that rests solely upon the source's quality. It is rather telling that we didn't hear much about police beatings during the case, likely because all of your news sites are TERRIBLE sources, the same ones that happily reported that she suffered a seizure after being beaten, it's all that lovely "allegedly". Read the police records, the testimonies from court, and heyyyyy, that's a whole different story! One with facts and people being forced to defend their claims! Garzfoth (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but NPOV is incumbent on all editors. The reason you deleted and fail to add this material is what exactly?  And I take exception with your false claims.  Please point to one single "terrible source" that I have added to this article.  Just one, mind you.  Should be easy if you are telling the truth.  Or, are you? Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I reported what reliable sources reported. And as for that source, here you go, this is beyond terrible! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecily_McMillan&diff=668419518&oldid=668414157 Garzfoth (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Garzfoth, perhaps you didn't understand the question, as that link doesn't show me what you consider one single "terrible source". Now, please name this source or admit that you can't point to one because you made a mistake.  To repeat, you made the extraordinary claim above that "all of your news sites are TERRIBLE sources".  In response, I asked you to name one as an example.  So far, you have failed to do this.  I'm thinking that you mispoke, and what you really mean is that "news sources", regardless of where they originate, have methodological issues.  Is that what you meant?  Or will you once again accuse me of adding a terrible source without being able to name one? Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "It is a fact that McMillan claimed she was beaten by police, and it is fact that other witnesses corroborated her story. More importantly, it is a fact that reliable secondary sources wrote about it."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecily_McMillan&diff=668419518&oldid=668414157 ==> Steigerwald, Lucy (May 5, 2014). "Occupy Wall Street Activist Cecily McMillan Found Guilty of Assault After Being Beaten by the Police." Vice. Retrieved June 23, 2015.
 * TERRIBLE. SOURCE. Garzfoth (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Vice is no Maxim.Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 03:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're showing your age. Vice is a young, but simply great source and has won the top awards in the industry. Lucy Steigerwald is a young, but seasoned journalist who has been published by the top news outlets.  She studied communication and print journalism at Chatham University and she's been working as a writer and journalist for more than a decade.  Seriously, if that's the best you can do, then I suggest you try much harder.  Every word in Steigerwald's article is supported by additional sources, many of which she cites.  Really, you both need to learn how to evaluate sources for reliability, the sooner the better.  I mean, it's clear what's going on here.  You can't challenge a single word in Steigerwald's article, so you try to attack the source itself. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Content of the source sucks. Vice is a crappy source, does a poor job fact checking stories, not the kind of source to use in Wikipedia, especially in this case. Either way, these sources do not support the claim, they relay claims, leaving the burden of proof on...oh yeah, McMillan again! Huh. Funny how that works. Garzfoth (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's not a single thing wrong with the content, nor can you point to anything wrong with the content. You claim it is "crappy" source and does a poor job "fact checking", but you provide no proof.  But let's cut the bullshit.  The real reason you dislike Vice is because they have a dedicated team of writers and editors who cover police killings in the United States.  Be honest. Once again, we see the POV pushing coming into play, even when it comes to evaluating sources.  Because Vice follows excessive force by police in the United States very carefully and records the facts, this truly upsets you.  However, it does not detract from their record for fact checking, their editorial staff, and the awards that they've won.  Finally, the journalist in question is seasoned and knows exactly what's she's doing.  In summary, you have no way of supporting or backing your claim that this is a "terrible source", other than the overwhelming fact that Vice covers stories you don't want them to cover.  That's not a valid rationale for discarding them as a source.  In fact, based on this record of coverage, they become even more relevant and useful for this article. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh, the old "Vice magazine is a top-quality source and only fascists and pig supporters think otherwise" gambit. Well-played! Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your argument is absurd. The material you are objecting to in Vice appears in every other reliable secondary source, such as Newsweek.  Instead of blindly attacking the source, you should be attacking the source material.  You can't do that because your entire argument is a red herring.  Since there is not a single thing wrong with the content, you are forced to attack the publisher of the content.  Again, it's reported in source after source, and I can easily exchange Newsweek for Vice, etc.  You know that, but you're here to waste my time, not improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion
If your Wikipedia policy argument requires use of the word "verisimilitude", it is garbage. The end. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 03:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please add "anti-intellectual" to your list of redeeming qualities. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol, you think embarrassing misuse of not-really-fancy words is a sign of intellect? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 03:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I forced you to look the word up. You would have known it was used correctly if you knew what it meant.  I'll try to limit my interaction with you to one and two syllable words if it will help. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, I give up. Restore the damned quote.  Even though it's markedly different from reporting in the best sources. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 03:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it, do you? I haven't restored the quote in days, and I have no immediate plans on doing so, nor am I fond of or attached to the quote in any way. The argument I had with you was not over the quote per se, but over your editorial action of removing it and censoring the original quote in its full context.  We have a huge problem if you think that's an acceptable way of editing.  And, more to the point, I never added the quote to begin with. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, are you saying if I had added an ellipsis (...) you wouldn't have had a problem with removing that part? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 03:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are just deliberately wasting my time here. I write and review  articles, I don't spend my time endlessly discussing nonsense.  You clearly violated quote integrity and you did so based on your own misreading of policy.  I've already discussed this and I will not discuss this anymore. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh Lord, I just noticed that the New York Times reported this:
 * Officer Bovell said he told Ms. McMillan to leave the park, and when she refused, put her hand on her shoulder to steer her out. “I remember her saying to someone: ‘Are you filming this? Are you filming this?’ ” the officer said. “Then I remember the defendant crouching down and lunging with her elbow and hitting me in the face.”  A video corroborated Officer Bovell’s account. Ms. McMillan is seen bending her knees, then throwing her right elbow into the officer’s eye. She lurches forward, runs a few steps, then is tackled by several officers.
 * You do know that NYT is based like 20 minutes away from where this happened, and is a serious contender for finest newspaper in the world? Surely? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 03:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * More distortions and half-truths? The claim made by the officer has been hotly disputed and is quite controversial.  As the sources indicate, it could mean several different things such as "is anyone recording this police assault against me", etc. This is all covered by the sources.  The notion that the "video corroborated Officer Bovell’s account" is also hotly contested, as neither the full video nor video shot from different angles were allowed by the judge.  Only a one minute clip, which was poorly shot and not at all clear, was allowed, and it happened to be the one that conveniently supported the prosecution.  This is not at all surprising because studies have been done on such cases, showing that the defendants always lose and the judge always sides with the police. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is just beautiful. There truly is no limit to your denialism of evidence. I am amazed, but also severely disturbed. It's all just a pretty little fiction, feed the people the lies they want to hear, dispute the truth, spread your propaganda, hide the facts, argue over idiotic points, ignore gaping flaws... Doubleplusgood! Keep that bellyfeel! Hahahaha. Garzfoth (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ironically, in a rare moment of honesty, you've just perfectly described your own behavior. As Kathryn Funkhouser (and many other sources make perfectly clear)  Cecily McMillan was subjected to a Kangaroo Court whose very proceedings made a mockery of justice and made New York look exactly like the police state that it is.  In the same way that that the jury was deliberately misguided by the court and given only one side to deliberate, you too have deliberately unbalanced this article, promoting only one POV in contravention to our policies. Your error will be corrected and you will be taken to task for introducing bias. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL, New York Times truly IS the mouthpiece of fascist oppression, amirite? You're nothing more than a delusional Wiki-thug.  It's silly. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 13:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems pretty clear to me that Viriditas has a twisted view of the situation, and is here to push what really seems to be a toss-up between WP:FRINGE and Tendentious_editing, although the latter is probably a better description here.
 * "Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. Just as some articles are likely to receive more counter-NPOV edits than others, some writers are more likely to make them. Tendentious editing is what these writers do. Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions."
 * Viriditas seems to have a pattern of certain behavior that we've been seeing here exhibited time and time again. It is very frustrating to see that despite all these cases, your approach has not changed. You have very strong views on certain subjects, but don't seem to recognize that your views have distorted what you view as neutral, leading to the endless conflicts... And that your behavior is being disruptive. I don't even need to bother to pull up the direct examples of this, your block log alone tells me that you've been repeatedly violating 3RR, persistently making unsubstantiated accusations, feuding with editors, disruptive editing, edit warring specifically (3RR?), and ironically, also once blocked for "Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy". Your activity here seems to be the norm for you. Your involvement with the User:Drmies ANI highlights some of this trend. You are continuously involved in Disruptive_editing, the "Examples of disruptive editing" section is spot-on here. Civil_POV_pushing is another one that seems to apply, rather nasty set of behaviors in there.
 * I like POV_railroad, that's a really good description in there. "Unsubstantiated accusations of canvassing or conflict of interest, labeling an editor as a point-of-view pusher, or accusing them of being a sock puppet or meat puppet of a banned user are common false narratives". "POV railroading also occurs on a one-to-one basis and may involve a condescending, patronizing, sarcastic and insulting tone". "POV railroading is an attempt to destroy the reputation of targeted editors. To brand and discredit them in a progressively more prejudiced manner until the targeted editor is either blocked/banned, or quits out of frustration. Once blocked or banned the editor is used as a scapegoat for problems in the article(s). If additional opponents show up the POV railroader accuses new editors of being sock-puppets or meat-puppets of the sanctioned editor."
 * Don%27t_be_a_fanatic
 * "Respect common standards: If the Wikipedia view of how articles should be presented differs from one's own perception of the subject, then it's important to recognize that Wikipedia has standards applicable to the community and all its members."
 * "Don't over-guard articles: Even if a subject is close to an editor's heart, or an article has been fostered lovingly, remember that no one owns an article and articles are built by communal shared collaboration. Even if an edit takes the article in a direction that the original editor doesn't agree with, so long as policies are being followed, allow communal ownership to supersede personal emotional involvement."
 * "Don't be too certain: Too much certainty can lead to assumptions of bad faith, or to inability to listen to others properly, both sources of conflict."
 * "Don't be zealous to the point other goals are lost: Intense caring for Wikipedia's policies and ways can at times lead to such excess of zeal as to be a problem in its own right. Such editors often do not understand why others criticize them, because in their own eyes they are "just doing what's right for Wikipedia"."
 * "Don't slip into bad behavior: Fanaticism often leads towards personal attacks and breaches of civility, if "the truth" becomes "what one wants to hear", rather than "what's best for the project and those one is working with.""
 * "Don't marginalize others: If you dismiss other points of view, or attempt to marginalize the people who hold them, your position may actually be the marginal one. Instead, ask sincere questions to see where the differences are and which editors are on solid ground."
 * I know what response you're about to make -- hold on and read Don%27t_call_the_kettle_black. Before you pull up Don%27t_remind_others_of_past_misdeeds, keep in mind the relevance of these misdeeds here, the overarching pattern they present, and that specifics were not covered intentionally.
 * I looked over WP:NPOV, and I don't think it is being handled right, because you're trying to give undue amounts of weight to certain claims, etc etc -- a lot of it boils down to WP:REDFLAG, and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't apply here. WP:V seems to be pretty clear about this. It seems pretty clear that you are here for disruptive Advocacy.
 * I'm not sure where to go from here, but I think that this situation is far from reasonable at the moment. No matter how extreme your beliefs or views may be, they do not give you leave to ignore wikipedia's guidelines. Garzfoth (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you "looked over" NPOV? Please read and understand the policies and how we write biographies. Don't "look" them over.  Learn what writing for the enemy means.  Hint: it most certainly is not "advocacy" of any kind. Viriditas (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Before saying another fucking word about how this other user is supposedly ignorant of policy, could you trouble yourself to identify specific policies he's violating, the offending materials, make a clear and not irrational explanation of how it's a violation, etc. ? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"In response to this assault, McMillan elbowed the man in the face, after which she was beaten by police and had a seizure"
Contrary to virtually all sources, not just the highest-quality ones, and presented in the lead, and in WP's voice, no less. You, Viriditas, are the lowest form of vandal, and not an editor at all. You are a bad-faith pile of shame. And you've accomplished all this in the first 50 words of the article. Congrats. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)  (talk)  (contribs) 23:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still pretty impressed at just how incredibly screwed up the article is now, how little of an effort was made to use any of the sources that had been added or even just the text I wrote outside of little bits that happened to be over-the-top enough to include, how statements from McMillan herself were removed... I don't understand how you can turn the article into this and argue with a straight face that it is significantly more accurate, neutral, and balanced than the previous version. It's like this is their little playground of fantasy where they can keep the facts they like and tell what stories they want. Remove crucial details where they are inconvenient to your side of the story, add in unrelated ones when you want some extra controversy to spice things up with. They took all those details on the trial that I spent hours and hours carefully researching and shoved them into another article, and it's pretty clear what the intent there was. I can't even understand how they could justify excluding so much detail from so many places in this article. This is from the people telling us that the narrative that her lawyers kept on pushing deserved its own section right there above the arrest section.
 * The current summary is particularly disturbing. That's not even pretending to be neutral. It's so misleadingly written, none of the clear distinctions that are supposed to be required when you're reporting claims like this. The citations being used are terrible beyond belief, and it is disturbing to see the article mislead the reader with claims of a seizure in Wikipedia's own voice, when it has been very firmly established that there is no legitimate evidence to support this claim. The number of policies broken is stunning. Massive chunks of edits were thrown away. I'm still wondering how my boringly neutral summary deserved to be butchered for the reason of "adding McMillan's position supported by dozens of sources", subsequently trampling several sources from the New York Times underfoot in favor of the apparently clearly-superior Vanity Fair article, which is drastically inferior to the very detailed and well written accounts in the New York Times. The dozens of sources have yet to materialize, although it is clear that these dozens are vastly inferior to the preexisting sources, raising the question of why this even deserved action in the first place.
 * Now we all know that "McMillan was arrested and subsequently convicted of felony second-degree assault after assaulting a NY police officer as he led her out of the Occupy Wall Street protest in Zuccotti Park on March 17, 2012" is horribly biased, so let's replace that with some hilariously biased claims that sows a nice amount of confusion over McMillan's involvement in the matter, write a bit about police brutalizing that poor women, then we can present those facts as "She was arrested and subsequently convicted of assaulting a New York City Police officer, a felony". Apparently that's much better! Can't you see the bias melting away with these constructive and totally-neutral edits?
 * Now let's examine the current version!
 * According to McMillan, she was attacked by a plainclothes officer who grabbed her breast on St. Patrick’s Day in the vicinity of an Occupy Wall Street protest in Zuccotti Park on March 17, 2012. In response to this assault, McMillan elbowed the man in the face, after which she was beaten by police and had a seizure.
 * Wow! That seems like a very neutral way to put things! I must have massively misunderstood WP:NPOV, I thought the N stood for neutral, but apparently it stands for negligent, my bad!
 * I apparently committed a much worse sin... Reporting information about McMillan's press conference and post-prison interviews? Oh dear, I guess politics are only relevant when we need to make sure her lawyer's narrative has been heard... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecily_McMillan&diff=668753886&oldid=668752549
 * My attempt to accurately report the events that took place during McMillan's arrest, using only the most well accepted and high quality sources (new york times yet again!), was apparently too close to the truth for the fragile readers of this article, who cannot bear hearing even a hilariously edited down summary of events. It's so terrible to read about this:
 * After refusing a police officer's order to leave the park, the officer placed a hand on her shoulder to lead her out. McMillan subsequently elbowed the police officer in the eye, and briefly attempted to flee before being tackled by several officers and detained
 * ...so let's replace it with something spicier instead!
 * According to Chris Hedges, the police "heavily shielded, stormed into the gathering in fast-moving lines. Activists were shoved, hit, knocked to the ground. Some ran for safety. More than 100 people were arrested.
 * This butchery of a description then replaced everything:
 * As the police rounded up protesters, McMillan was caught up in the arrests.[3] According to the police, McMillan refused to leave the park after which the officer placed a hand on her shoulder to lead her out. The events diverge here with McMillan claiming the officer grabbed her breast and in return, she elbowed the police officer in the eye. She was then tackled by several officers and detained.[3] An account from a witness claimed that "without a doubt, there was kicking and clubs being used" for the 30-60 seconds the witness estimated police took to detain McMillan.[18]
 * Top quality editing right there. TOP. QUALITY.
 * Oh and then we get COSMO. Her account, in an article about herself... Heyyyy wait a minute, aren't there multiple policies against this kind of stuff when used for controversial or poorly supported claims? Or do you guys just get to ignore the rules when it suits you?
 * I just love having important testimony during the trial being labeled a "public relations campaign by the NYPD" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecily_McMillan&diff=next&oldid=668755087. This was right after the claims from activists about her head lacking support... What a terrible place to use it, right? Thankfully, Viriditas was there to save the day, removing the relevant source and replacing it with some more poorly sourced claims about ambulance response times and hospital chains, which is quite the sensationalist thing to add!
 * Witnesses called for help but it took approximately 17 minutes for an ambulance to arrive.  McMillan was taken to the hospital where she was chained to the hospital bed.
 * Amazing, isn't it! That replaced this:
 * During the subsequent trial, an officer testified that McMillan was "writhing back and forth and complaining she couldn't breathe", so she "gave McMillan a coat and pulled down her lime-green miniskirt to prevent her from exposing herself, and held her head to prevent her from hitting it on the pavement while she writhed on the ground".
 * Apparently I must assume all police officers are dirty little lying PR shills for the NYPD. It must be fun to be able to make up bullshit to shut down discussions before they even began! Nice to hear that this is a biography, so why did you revert all those quotes from the subject of the biography? Here's the second example of that, which omitted other specific remarks that were much more absurd than the ones cited, just like the first example... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecily_McMillan&diff=668756139&oldid=668756064
 * I'm getting tired of this, there are just so many examples, and I'm outraged at how blatantly biased these editors are. What a joke. Garzfoth (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of your comments above show an incredible disregard for the facts, for our guiding policies of NPOV and BLP, and display an ignorance of how we write biographies. Neither of you have pointed to anything wrong with this article.  Instead, you've both argued how you should be allowed to bypass our policies and attempt to malign, smear, discredit and attack this subject by pushing a singular POV, when our best reliable secondary sources provide multiple points of view.  The first 50 words of this article are neutral and reflect our best secondary sources on the subject.  For example, Zoe Schlanger in Newsweek writes, "McMillan maintains that the incident happened when Bovell, the officer, grabbed her breast from behind, which caused her to involuntarily elbow him in the face. She claims she did not know he was an officer, and that she reacted instinctively. The verdict stirred significant outrage, especially in light of photos that purport to show a large bruise on McMillan’s breast."  And that's exactly what every other solid source on the subject says, and it's exactly what this article says.  Looking at your contributions, I see that neither of you have ever written a biography or brought it through the article improvement process, and I'm seeing absolutely no familiarity with how to write biographical articles.  We do not cherry pick quotes to make the subject look bad, and we certainly don't report the police and prosecution viewpoint as the singular POV when this particular incident is not only controversial, but has multiple POV that differ greatly with the story promoted by the police and the decision reached by the courts.  This is a biography first and foremost.  And if you can't write a biography, how can you even expect to write about a trial?  Talk about taking on more than you can chew!  The above comments are denialist arguments that avoid the facts in this case.  As editors, we collect the available facts, sift and weigh them based on their merit, and write encyclopedic articles based on these sources.  The objections to this process are laughable.  Hedges' description of McMillan getting caught up in the arrest is 100% accurate and supported by multiple independent sources, and gives the POV that the police viewpoint and the court case failed to present.  Contrary to your claim, your "attempt to accurately report the events that took place during McMillan's arrest" was a highly focused and deliberate whitewash of the incident, leaving out sources that supported McMillan's case while leaving in sources that pushed the POV of the police.  There are more than two POV here.  We have McMillan's account, widely reported in the best sources available (see Newsweek up above), yet you would have us believe that her own account of the incident cannot appear in the lead of her own biography?  This is absurd.  Please stop violating NPOV and BLP immediately. You need to learn to walk before you can run.  How can you write a biography if you don't have the slightest understanding of the process? Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, by all means, WP:NPOV requires us to ignore what the best sources say about the incident, and to take at face value the subject's own widely debunked and self-serving claims about other people—those claims being completely unsubstantiated and strongly refuted by actual documentary evidence. And, as should be clear to all, the policy regarding the neutral point of view requires us to present those claims in Wikipedia's voice as if they were factual, in order to clarify that the article subject's account is definitely the correct one, and that everything else, including all reporting from the very best news sources that exist on planet Earth, is just a whitewash attempt.
 * Because at the end of the day, the true purpose of Wikipedia is to be a soapbox for people who are unsatisfied with what mainstream society thinks and who want to re-write reality online. People like you, bro.  This is your website.  Shine on, you crazy diamond!  Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not Wikpedia Worthy
This is a clear case of an over inflated WP:BLP1E. We cannot let agenda based entries stand and abuse Wikipedia for their biased causes.--WatchingContent (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Still Think This Quote Belongs
Notwithstanding the Internet tradition of silencing women, I still think readers should hear what the subject of this article said in her own words about what happened at Zuccotti Park: "As I remember it, the officer surprised me from behind, grabbing my right breast so forcefully, he lifted me off the ground. In that moment, my elbow met his face... I remember someone pushing me to the ground, my face hitting a grate. Next thing I knew, I was strapped to a gurney, my skirt up above my hips. I had bruises across my body and a handprint on my chest. Officers were joking about my "Ocupussy". I learned later that I had been beaten on the head, triggering a seizure. Videos posted online showed people shouting "Help her!" amid the seizure while the cops stood by. The first time I saw those videos, I watched in horror — I couldn't believe that I was the person going through that ordeal. I do appreciate and acknowledge the widespread belief on the Internet that men are better at explaining what happened in all instances, but still? Chisme (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Notwithstanding the Internet tradition of silencing women" - Really, you're going to pull that card? Knock it off, it's not constructive. You already violated WP:PA once, let's not stoop to that point again.
 * "I still think readers should hear what the subject of this article said in her own words about what happened at Zuccotti Park" - We've already met the requirements for NPOV. McMillan's views have been presented appropriately already. What you are attempting to insert is not an appropriate presentation of the subject's views - it's a blatant violation of numerous wikipedia policies, a spectacularly biased, misleading, ridiculously sensationalist, and flat-out factually inaccurate quotation from a source that is of incredibly poor reliability to begin with. It fails WP:NN-QUOTE, which should be a big enough hint that it doesn't belong in here. I have already pointed out that it's a severe violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB (#4, possibly #1 or #5, potentially #2), WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:QS, WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB, possibly WP:NPOV, and WP:REDFLAG (at least #1 and #2, as well as primary)...
 * So let's cut the bullshit and get to the core of the issue, which is that you aren't willing to acknowledge any of this, as evidenced by your personal attacks and repeated attempts to reinsert the quote without addressing the issues I brought up. All you want is for this quote to be in the article, and you don't give a shit how it gets in there, you just feel like it has to be in there. However that's just not how Wikipedia works, and I shouldn't have to explain this to an editor that's been here for six years, nor should an editor that's been here so long have any excuse for this behavior in general (personal attacks? accusations of misogynistic bias? seriously?). Garzfoth (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not attacking you personally. I stand by what I said but let's not argue about it. I'll leave the quote out. Chisme (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I stopped reading after "silencing women". Fact checker _ at your service 17:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)