User talk:Valjean: Difference between revisions

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people climate change pseudoscience and fringe science He should not be given alerts for those areas.

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Ashe Schow (November 25, 2015). "Wikipedia founder advocates for updating policies following 'The Hunting Ground' controversy". Washington Examiner. Retrieved February 8, 2020. Another editor, whose username is BullRangifer, suggested Wikipedia not become "a kangaroo court or lynching" by rushing to ban accounts who break COI. BullRangifer suggested following seven steps to determine whether "The Hunting Ground" crew member should be banned and whether his edits should be removed. Some of the steps included how he handled questions related to his edits and whether he stuck to discussion pages to ask for edits rather than making them himself. Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia demotes Breitbart to fake news". Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Support. If anything, it's even more unreliable than the Daily Mail, as they at least use trained journalists, whereas Breitbart is a fringe propaganda organization which lets its extreme partisan bias get in the way of how it reports things, and whether it does so, just as Fox News does. It too should be deprecated, but let's start with Breitbart (and InfoWars). — BullRangifer 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Alexander Hall (August 13, 2020). "Report: Wikipedia Editors Censoring Evidence Supporting Michael Flynn". NewsBusters. Retrieved August 15, 2020. Liberal user Valjean responded by condemning this revelation as "conspiracy theories" and "part of a cover-up," even "when it comes from the now-sitting government of the USA." Valjean specified that "Nothing coming from Trump's Justice Department, FBI, CIA, anything, can be trusted." Breitbart alleged that Valjean, formerly under the name "BullRangifer" has been "previously involved in slanting articles about the Russia investigation."

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,TB, RS stash

Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier, an ABC News documentary with George Stephanopoulos and Christopher Steele.

On October 18, 2021, this ABC News documentary aired on Hulu. It is a legitimate primary reliable source that contains content usable at the Steele dossier and Christopher Steele articles. That which is primarily about Steele would only be used at his biographical article, while some other content may be used at both articles. While most content should be sourced to secondary reliable sources which comment on the documentary, our rules for the use of primary sources allow the careful use of the documentary for some details. I suspect the right place for some of the content would be in the "Legacy" section (maybe after changing it to "Legacy and later developments"), possibly as a subsection for the documentary. We'll see out it works out, as the topic dictates the location. It may end up being nothing. The documentary revealed little real news of consequence, but it does reveal info about methods, motivations, attitudes and consequences.

• ABC News, full trailer
• On Hulu

I am starting a list of RS for possible use. -- Valjean (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I've only just gotten to the end of the section on "Sources: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and have gotten so much out of it. Thank you for putting together this piece of research. Like! Platonk (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Platonk. Thank you. I assume you're referring to this essay. A couple others that are even better are these:

• How to create and manage a good lead section
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content

Valjean (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For this section.

(after the Mueller Report) Subsequently, the Republican-led U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report finding that interactions with Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik during the 2016 election by Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort posed a "grave counterintelligence threat".^[1]

Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, reacted to the report by writing an article titled "Senate Russia report proves Trump collusion was very real. But do voters care?" He described how "the report reveals how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort."^[2]

Editors should reconsider how they evaluate sources. Any source that repeatedly sows doubt about the following proven facts is not a RS:

1. that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in a "sweeping and systematic" fashion;
2. that their goal was to put Donald Trump in power by harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton and increasing political and social discord in the United States;
3. that Trump and his campaign had myriad, illicit, secret links with Russians which they kept hidden and lied about;
4. that Trump and his campaign welcomed and cooperated with the Russian interference in myriad ways;
5. that the Steele dossier had no role in triggering the overall Russian interference investigation;
6. that Trump did not win the 2020 election;
7. that it was not stolen from him by Biden;
8. that Trump attempted to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 United States presidential election;
9. that the 2020 United States presidential election was the most secure in American history, and its results were not affected by any widespread voter fraud;
10. that Republicans have largely defended Trump's false claims of 2020 election fraud;
11. that climate change is caused by humans and is serious;
12. that vaccines are safe;
13. that Donald Trump is rarely truthful in any sense.

Those sources are the ones that should be removed and deprecated. We all know which sources do that and that those sources are often defended here at Wikipedia. The Washington Post and The New York Times are not such sources. -- Valjean (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Strategies and skills of Jeopardy! champions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

AldezD (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article survived the AfD. -- Valjean (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't agree with you. Nominating an article for deletion is not the same as tagging an article for speedy deletion. If the consensus is to delete the article, it is not deleted until at least seven days have elapsed. I don't spend a lot of time at AfD because I find the discussions to be often contentious and uncivil. However, I don't generally see articles deleted because they are not "perfect". Finally, although there is no policy requirement as to what should be done before the nomination, generally people expect some research by the nominator as to the notability of the subject (WP:BEFORE).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, WP:BEFORE may have been ignored as no mention of notability occurred, and there was no use of the talk page at all, as suggested at WP:BEFORE. The nominator also complained about lack of mention of all possible strategies used by contestants, accusing me of "picking and choosing". (Can you imagine an all-or-nothing approach to dealing with stratetgies used by Jeopardy! contestants? A new article can only do so much, and then other editors are welcome to add more if they see fit.) Fortunately, other editors are speaking out against their attempt. -- Valjean (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't provide the example of what is bothering you, so it's hard for me to judge.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I'm sure you have lots more important things to do. BEFORE is enough for me to know about. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 10 months and 26 days.

That's as a registered editor. Before that, I started editing as an IP in 2003 before we had 500,000 articles. I vividly remember when we hit the first million mark. That made me realize that this project was really going somewhere. -- Valjean (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 V. MarnetteD|Talk 02:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103 Interface administrator changes Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes Opabinia regalis Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy Oversighter changes Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes Opabinia regalis Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Hi Valjean, remember to assume good faith in other actions. Best, Whizz40 Whizz40 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? What's up? -- Valjean (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whizz40, I have discovered that you have previously tried to improve the coverage of climate change denial at the article. Why are you now opposing it? -- Valjean (talk)

I am taking into consideration the RfC and explained further on the ANI page. In short, I think we need an RS that says this in order to include it in the article as it may be controversial otherwise. Whizz40 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whizz40, I am relieved to learn that you are not another COI afflicted editor in regard to the CRA article and the subject of climate change. Your initial undoing of my edits seemed to indicate otherwise, and I suddenly saw the article as a well-guarded walled garden.

So, is there hope? We do not need a source that uses the words "climate change denial". We just need a source that describes it, and we certainly have that: "Economists at CRA have sought to weaken, delay and defeat policies designed to mitigate the effects of climate change.^[1]" Weaken, delay and defeat is a good definition of climate change denial. While it would be nice to develop that subject better, it's not an absolute necessity. We edit based on the content and sources we have, not on what might be. The lead should mention significant topics in the body of the article, and therefore the climate change denial should be mentioned in the lead. See my essay about How to create and manage a good lead section. -- Valjean (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a specific RfC about including this point in the lead of this article and the consensus was to exclude it. In order to include it, I think we need to expand the article to provide good coverage of the topic and then write a balanced lead. Examples of articles about other consulting firms with the leads at various stages of development are McKinsey & Company, Bain & Company, Boston Consulting Group, and Oliver Wyman. Only the first, which is most developed, mentions the controversies described in the article in the lead.

As for the climate change denial, I understand it fits the broad definition of this topic but if RS haven't used these words exactly then I think it's better for Wikipedia not to add this. I changed the wording of the subheading in the article which I think succinctly summarizes what the sources are saying. Whizz40 (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples from other articles is an illicit WP:OTHERTHINGS argument. Boston Consulting is one where something should be mentioned in the lead, but its lead is also lacking in many other ways. It's very incomplete. I am finding very limited mention of CRAI's climate position online, yet it's denial activities are pretty strong and show a longstanding pattern, not some isolated instance unworthy of mention in the lead. It's methods are similar to the efforts of Big Tobacco, where all negative mentions on the internet are (were) suppressed by SEO activities that push negative content down beyond the normal reach of those who only search the first two Google pages. The mention we do have is pretty strong and perfectly describes climate change denial, but if you aren't willing to back such mention in the lead, there isn't any hope because then it is indeed a walled garden with COI afflicted editors guarding it. If we don't mention it in the lead, at least the category and the "see also" hatnote should be restored. Maybe the other editors will allow that.

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be censored, but it does happen through whitewashing. Unfortunately, there are companies that successfully use Wikipedia for promotion and get away with it because they have many editors who work for them and remove anything negative sooner or later. This affects articles related to Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, and politics (a notable example is the Koch brothers' group of paid editors who got busted here but were not blocked). (Read this.) Powerful companies guard their images very aggressively. -- Valjean (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article relate to the period 1991-2009. It's up to you on the See also note in the section and the category. I have reverted once to express my view but won't revert again as there is no policy violation and other editors need to express their view. Note the syntax of the category was broken. Whizz40 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I goofed when adding the category. I'm not going to bother with that article anymore. Without active support from other editors, it's not worth the grief. -- Valjean (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect T***p and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#T***p until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 19:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just pinging to demand that you have a good day. I figure there is a better chance your day will be good if I demand it vs just hope it. Springee (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll do my best to obey. -- Valjean (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When approaching an AfD, editors should ignore all problems with the article and ask themselves only ONE question: "Does this pass our General notability guideline (GNG)?" If so, !vote Keep, as that is the ONLY relevant question at an AfD. If the article appears to fail GNG, can it be rescued by finding more RS? Then advocate for that before !voting Delete. All other concerns and problems with the article are covered by WP:PRESERVE.

Fixing and improving, not deleting, is how we roll here, and bogus AfDs violate our "purpose" here, which is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," as long as it's found in RS. Editors who create AfDs for articles that pass GNG should be trouted for undermining the very reason Wikipedia was created. If they do it repeatedly, they should be topic banned from creating AfDs.

Editors who create articles often deal with bogus AfDs from editors who are ignoring/resisting our "purpose" here. They are forgetting that "not censored" is also aimed at what they are doing.

We need a "purpose" policy that can be cited when it's violated. AfDs are often attacks against GNG: Articles that clearly pass GNG are nominated for deletion, and the reason often turns out to be a hodgepodge of dubious arguments that collectively violate our "purpose" and are basically I don't like it. While no editor can be required to create an article or to make an edit, they certainly should be sanctioned if they get in the way of the creation of an article that passes GNG. This kind of extreme (actually very common!) deletionism is wrong. We should aid the creation of articles and content. We're here to build, not destroy.

Our job (purpose here) is to document "the sum total of human knowledge,"^[1][2] and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.

Editors must not exercise censorship; they must present all significant sides of any controversy and document the opposing points of view, and they must not shield readers from such views. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. Our goal is to document "the sum total of human knowledge,"^[1] and censorship seriously undermines that goal.

Because Wikipedia is created through inclusionism, another objection to deletion of content is that deletion "goes against the entire basic premise" of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia.^[3] We try to build content, not break it down. Imperfect content is not removed, it is improved. Good faith editors should not be made to feel their work is in vain.

Wikipedia isn't just another encyclopedia. It aims to be exhaustive in an unlimited sense. It should be unlike all others in scope and size. It is the Internet Archive of knowledge. If a piece of knowledge is notable enough (mention in multiple RS), an article should be created for it, or (if only mentioned in one or two RS) it should at least be mentioned in an existing article or list. We need to be super-inclusive. I have an essay which deals with how NPOV deals with biased sources, and it touches on these subjects: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valjean/WikiPurpose

You give POTUS to much credit.Nerguy (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So do RS, and you're supposed to follow them and not use your own OR interpretation. Doocy has an infamous history of asking the stupidest baiting questions that just irritate smarter people, so "Stupid question, stupid answer" applies. That's known as "sarcasm" in English, and Biden has a long history of using it on idiots. -- Valjean (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Your statement "Doocy has an infamous history of asking the stupidest baiting questions" is clearly your opinion. For someone so careful about RS, you seem pretty biased.Nerguy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I share the opinion of others, such as Senator McCain, whose response to Doocy is immediately above Biden's response in the article. Now stop treating Wikipedia like a social media discussion and follow what RS say. ABC News said "sarcastically", and we should write that so readers don't make the same mistake you're making. -- Valjean (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you revere Senator McCain.Nerguy (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. HelixxUnderscore (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you User:50.212.96.74? See Talk:Matt DeHart. The IP is trying to make a huge edit without any discussion or consensus. -- Valjean (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that IP, please don't be quick to assume that i'm a sockpuppet. If you really need to make sure please see a checkuser. HelixxUnderscore (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then what is this warning about? On what basis do you put it here? It seems bogus. -- Valjean (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HelixxUnderscore: Please read WP:EDITWAR in full before you warn anyone about this again. Continued misuse of warning templates may result in a loss of editing privileges. ––FormalDude talk 18:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to help HelixxUnderscore (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mind elaborating about this revert? I'm interested in hearing what in the talk page post you disagree with, and also – and especially – why you apparently believe that replacing a broken link to the Google translate page for a French news item with a properly formatted bibliographic entry for the actual news item is not an improvement. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala, you're absolutely right. I was viewing it on my cellphone and that gives a very limited view, so I oversaw the good part of the edit. I have now restored it. I hadn't seen the talk page entry. -- Valjean (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nice, civil resolution. Recognizing when you have tunnel vision is one of the hardest things to do, and I really respect that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The history around here with Barrett and Quackwatch is what lay behind that tunnel vision. There is an intense hatred of both here, and too often they have been removed leaving a hagiography to a quack or some pseudoscientific BS. In this case, there were other good sources doing the job, so they weren't essential. -- Valjean (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to remove things like that if there's no other balancing text in the article, and when I trim, I make sure to leave enough to fully balance any fringe or woo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, you actually weren't too far off at all. I've tried to work with ScottishFinnishRadish on related behavior issues at BLPs on their talk page, but that obviously hasn't helped much. Generally if you see someone ignoring parts of BLP policy such as WP:BLPBALANCE or WP:BLPPRIMARY and blanket reverting, it's usually best just to follow the latter and look for sources citing the SPS. I fixed the article in this case, but there's also a point where it's on the person reverting the content out to improve the references (especially if relatively easy to do) rather than edit war. KoA (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I land firmly on the side of BLPRESTORE in situations like this. If there is a good faith BLP concern, we lose nothing in keeping something out of an article while it's discussed. In this case, a secondary sources was found, so problem solved. A bit of civil discussion would have resolved this toot sweet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest following what you suggest about civil discussion instead of edit warring and talking past people. There was no reason for your last revert (or even the first if you were doing due diligence) or the blanket edit warring mentality (i.e., shoot first, ask questions later). I don't want to take up more of Valjean's talk page, so I'll again warn you that you need to stop cherry-picking only parts of BLP and stop creating timesinks for the community with tendentious editing and avoiding the article talk page. You're barreling past how much WP:WIKILAWYERING you're doing misusing BLP, and this isn't uncommon for newish editors to have trouble recognizing their own behavior issues. That's why I'm trying to spend some time with you.

Especially in controversial topics like fringe ones, it's best to slow down in situations like yours, not charge through, especially since your behavior is under scrutiny at ArbCom. Knock off the tendentious attitude in comments and you'll see most editors are much easier to work with. KoA (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My second revert was bad, and that's on me. I was on mobile, and didn't see the addition of the book cite, and should not have reverted in haste. I apologize for that, it was definitely a bad revert. I guess I had some of that tunnel vision myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the cellphone issue. I often check my watchlist and look at edits while on my cellphone and one doesn't get the full picture. -- Valjean (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, in the spirit of this discussion, I'd like your, and KoA's take on Jonathan Fletcher. Not the article, but the BLP and BLPCRIME reverts. Article is on a non-notable person, and was almost entirely discussion of sexual abuse allegations. There is a BLPN thread, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan Fletcher with a clear consensus that the material shouldn't be there and the article shouldn't exist. The editor in question's username is a bible verse, "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." They also seem to have a severe case of IDHT.

Do you see any issues with blanket reverting their edits, or is this a situation where you wouldn't edit war? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm actually shocked at the failure to understand BLP, especially WP:Public figure. We are supposed to keep and document this type of stuff. That's our job. This is not "unsourced" negative content. Instead, a lot of whitewashing is going on. See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Fletcher. -- Valjean (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying a vicar who is in no way notable except for allegations, should have an article based on only sources dealing with the allegations? I certainly don't think a vicar reaches the threshold of being a public figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number of RS dealing with this makes him a notable public figure. Without that he's just a public figure. This isn't just about one event, but a pattern of abuse over many years. -- Valjean (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would every clergyman who works at a parish meet the threshold of being a public figure? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but not necessarily notable enough for a whole article. People also become notable for other reasons than their position. This man's long pattern of abuse made him notable. We're not dealing with someone notable only for a single event. That would be different. -- Valjean (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather keep this all at BLP/N, or the AfD, rather than having the same conversation in three places. Don't take my lack of responses here as ignoring your points, just trying to keep things reasonably centralized. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. -- Valjean (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean has given good advice, so I don't feel the need to add to most of that. What I will comment on this is the "keep this all at BLP/N" comment, which I've seen as a recurrent issue I've commented a little on already. It's the article talk page that generally rules the roost (or AfD, etc.), so you need to use that. BLPN is generally not binding unless there's a more meta-RFC or something, but instead a place to solicit advice or ask for more eyes/involvement to get consensus on the individual talk page. When there's no talk page discussion and sometime tells me to go somewhere else, that's a huge red flag.

So for instance at the Fletcher article, I'd be concerned about both Ephesians and your reverts. That burden rests more on Ephesians, but there's a point where you're expected to explain yourself on the talk page too. However, citing BLPRESTORE is getting a bit out of line. You need a very clear cut issue, ideally something that like extremely poor sourcing, to cite that. If someone cites that while removing something that is adequately sourced and policy can allow, that falls into wikilawyering territory I mentioned. Instead BLPCRIME mentions you should consider removing it, which is very much a talk page discussion to start if someone disputes removal. When I see someone taking such a hard line or more gray area or actually somewhat ok BLP subjects, that is where we get into POV issues that Valjean mentioned above. KoA (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Valjean. Thank you for helping me see the light about the things that’s going on in the world. I didn’t have a clue about 99.9% of the stuff you gave me to look through on my user talk page. I’ve even had a chance to read up about vaccines and found out that they aren’t so bad after all. I have since scheduled for my first COVID-19 vaccine on Monday. I don’t know why I didn’t know this before, but I at least do now, thanks to you. I want to completely change my ways of thinking, but I’m going to have to do it in stages. One step in the right direction at a time. Thanks, again! Cheers. -Stiabhna (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. If you need any help or advice, feel free to approach me here. I've been here since 2003, before we had our first 500,000 articles, so I know a bit about this place. -- Valjean (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
		I've never seen an editor go above and beyond to help another Wikipedian on the topic of fringe personal beliefs like you did for Stiabhna. Great stuff. ––FormalDude talk 23:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sometimes the impossible happens. It restores my faith in people. -- Valjean (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads up, but you seem to have inadvertently switched the variety of English from British English to American English of councillor in this edit. I've put that spelling back to the British English version. Just in case you have some kind of automated spelling corrector. Canterbury Tail talk 18:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Good catch. -- Valjean (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Stiabhna#Fringe beliefs.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh 28bytes Bureaucrat changes 28bytes

Interface administrator changes Evad37 • Galobtter Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Pit_Bull Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...I noticed you reverted an edit I made about the range of ticks in Canada that are capable of carrying Lyme Disease in Canada. I don't want to do back and forth edits so wanted some feedback from you. I tweaked the first sentence because Climate Change is mentioned further on in the section and the present range of ticks is what is. Having "Owing to changing climate" mentioned first makes it sound like the ticks are in their range because of a changing climate when they would have been in most of the present range regardless of the changing climate. Their range will expand because of Climate Change and that is covered. I don't see why it needs to be mentioned twice and is misleading. Why can't there be a sentence on what the range is and where it is going based on Climate Change? Dbroer (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

??? You're ignoring the "has expanded" part of "Owing to changing climate, the range of ticks ... has expanded from a limited area of Ontario to include areas of..." It isn't discussing a static status of the current range but the dynamics of how it became what it is. -- Valjean (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not and I'm glad you brought that up. That whole section is about the range of Lyme Disease in Canada, not how it came to be that way based on how every other section is worded. Also, none of the four sources cited support the language that you're suggesting. The closest is the 2009 study^[1] but that actually supports the text as I suggested. That study states where it was originally detected in Canada and where it was found in 2009. "Since 1997, detection of human cases by vigilant clinicians and passive surveillance for ticks has led to the identification of populations of I. scapularis in..." It then discusses future expansion due to Climate Change. It does not state that the original range expanded because of warming temperatures. It states that vigilant clinicians and surveillance are the reason the additional populations have been identified. To that end, the text should read "The range of ticks able to carry Lyme disease has expanded from a limited area of Ontario to include areas of southern Quebec, Manitoba, northern Ontario, southern New Brunswick, southwest Nova Scotia and limited parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta, as well as British Columbia. Cases have been reported as far east as the island of Newfoundland" because the references support that. If you have a reference which shows that the expansion of ticks able to carry Lyme Disease expanded from that single colony in Ontario because of Climate Change then I would support keeping the current text but otherwise without a reference to support that wording, it should be reverted as an unsourced claim. Dbroer (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll AGF and trust your judgment. You don't seem to be a climate change denier. We see enough of them around here. -- Valjean (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went ahead and made the edit again so that the text reflects the references. Dbroer (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of vandalism for changing RFK JR.’s Harvard degree from a BA to an AB but when it comes to Harvard, Princeton, and other institutions AB is the correct order. Crazy Jay Fox (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you. I asked, with a Question mark. Thanks for the explanation. It just shows there's an exception for every rule. Next time, reply where I commented. -- Valjean (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anything about the IP evasion as the range is too large. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. My concern was mostly with Stormfronter. There are a number of IPs that seem to be used by "Stiabhna". If any of them are obvious socks, I'll probably just delete their contributions and/or contact you. -- Valjean (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stiabhna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• HumbleConservative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (original username now redirects to Stiabhna)
  • See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User_talk:HumbleConservative

• Stormfronter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 2600:1005:B126:D014:20A6:9215:C969:8848 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 2600:1005:B113:B815:9007:44F7:A504:4FE6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 2600:1005:b113:b815:2cf8:9781:edfd:f5a1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 2600:1005:B110:8226:8047:CEAE:F231:8B23 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 2600:1005:B10E:1D69:39F5:7CA5:4B5C:4D5F (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 2601:c6:c600:5020:0:0:0:4ac2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Administrator changes Modussiccandi BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes Callanecc Oversighter changes Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

Questioning another editors reading comprehension and accusing them of trying to be deceptive, as you did here, is not appropriate. Stop it, this kind of behavior has come up so many times at this point. Also you could stand to cut back on the original research and forum behavior at that talk page in general but that one is just my 2 cents. PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised by this, as I find your comments referred to above, to be robust, and nothing more. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we have the other editor evasively parsing words in a way that was thoroughly discussed and rejected at previous talk page discussions of the matter. I found the other editor's post to be disappointing, sophomoric, and unworthy of the occasion. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]