Please start a new section for new topics. If you leave me a note and a reply is necessary, I will normally reply on your Talk page.
Yes, I will remove things from this Talk page from time to time. It's not my intent to remove active discussions. If you want to see old content, check the history.
ambigram
SVG's allow resizing and can be better quality. What creative Commons license? There are several. Tell me and I will change it. ~DarthStarbo17:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Please comment on talk page instead of editing more here while this is under active discussion." [1] I don't believe that such dictates are in the best interest of the encyclopedia, nor are they founded in any policies or guidelines. Let me know what your rationale might be. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I'm going to focus on WP:OFFICE til we have better agreement on if and how it applies. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel bad about how the discussion has progressed. There is so far no consensus that the SOPA blackout is even relevant to WP:POINT. If you want to continue with the discussion, I suggest focusing first on getting some agreement that it's somehow relevant. --Ronz (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
As I am sure you are aware, I did not know about the RfC's when I made the edit, or when I first commented on the talk page. Saying "if you don't like the RFC decision" is therefore disingenuous. It's not about the RfC's, it's about inaccurate, unsourced information, which is contradicted by the article itself, being the very first thing people read in the article. It is wrong. I think you know that or you would not be arguing the way you are.
Will you please restrict your discussion of this topic to the Talk page? And, there, please don't repeat the same things over and over again. Thanks.
You literally repeated yourself over and over again, but I will repeat myself here: Will you please restrict your discussion of this topic to the article's Talk page? RoyLeban (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter Biden Controversy
Hi Roy,
As others have stated, there have been RfCs regarding this issue with the lead, none of which seemed to have resolved these disagreements. I am bound to respect admin's most recent decision and basically leave it as it currently sits. I try not to give admins any grief as they have better things to do than analyze content issues and complaints about editor behaviors. Do your best to remain respectful even if the other editors push the lines on you. Only say what you have to and don't get into the back and forth if you can help it. Sometimes editors will push others as a means to get them to overreact. Even though they are the instigators, they will use any indiscretion to pre-frame your intentions, not that anyone here is or will do that, just something to watch out for, so stay respectful even when others aren't and it will be much clearer what the intentions are on either side.
As I was part of the most recent RfC, this makes it difficult for me to add much to that particular conversation/disagreement as it may be seen as WP:STICK or WP:BLUD. While I have nothing against any of the opposing editors, and while I try to assume good faith, it is possible they could now spin my arguments on this matter into giving the perception that I am making it personal AKA sour grapes. The truth is, it was originally my intention to take the individual citations to WP:RSN, because from their more neutral standpoint, they will most likely be able to identify if there are any possible issues.
The reason I did not do this is because editors on the other side of the aisle immediately jumped us into another RfC on the subject. This tactic worked quite well in their favor as it had less to do with analyzing possible RS issues and more about keeping the peace. Not that there is anything wrong with trying to keep the peace, but the talk page could use a rest and some peace right now, which is why I will make the following suggestion...
I would simply and politely inform everyone on the talk page that you are interested in testing out what is being said in Wikivoice on "HBLC" versus what the citations literally say, and then do so on your own accord. You don't really need consensus to get guidance from other editors on other noticeboards. Just let them know and let the topic at HBLC sit while you check with RSN. It may take some time for RSN to respond, but that is my best advice to you, to be patient. Speak with editors at RSN about it, show them what is being said in Wikivoice Versus what the citations say, and see if they find any issues on their own. It may take some time, but the HBLC talk page does deserve a bit of a break on this topic.
FYI I have not seen much in the way of recent/current RS backing up the "Russian Dis-info" angle, but maybe you've seen some citations that I have not. For now, I would suggest checking with RSN and not bother with another RfC, at least for a while. RfC's tend to be less concerned with actual details and policies and sometimes become more of a popularity contest which I can understand as a way to keep an Admin neutral and from spending too much time refereeing spats between editors. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DN: First, I would prefer that discussions be in public, not on my talk page (yes, I know this is also public, but it's not quite the same).
With respect to your comment, my not having been present for the RfC's and my coming along and assuming, as others have, that it was the work of a malicious editor, makes STICK and BLUD irrelevant. I am very much not trying to be an "opposing" editor. The reporting on this subject, and this article have many, many problems. There is evidence of a misinformation campaign and zero proof that it's not. The idea that Hunter Biden would walk into a repair shop for a laptop, nowhere near where he lives, that conveniently has a blind owner who can't say who brought it in, and he would then call Rudolph Giuliani, and give him a copy of the data from the drive, that that data dump would have clearly forged files on it, and then a later copy, three years later, wouldn't have those files, etc., etc. The whole thing smacks of disinformation. People like Hunter Biden don't take laptops to small, random repair shops. And the supposed "verification" that completely ignores the fact that emails can only be verified as to who sent them and a delivery path (if that, it's not true of all emails), and not whether they were actually delivered, who received them, and whether they were read. The result is that articles claim, falsely, that the data dump was "verified." It wasn't. Some content (actually, most of the content) has been shown to be very likely to be authentic, and that is precisely what somebody creating a fake data dump would do. The whole thing is pretty unbelievable.
But, one of Wikipedia's huge flaws is that truth is irrelevant. It's about who said what. So, if it were up to me personally, I would make much bigger changes. But I do believe in NPOV (though I can tell some on the right do not). This mirrors the way politics works in the US. The left wants what's good for everybody, while the right wants what's good for them. It's sad that we've gotten here.
I'd like to at least not have the article state as fact (in the lede) something which is not proven, not sourced, and contradicted by the article itself.
I am tempted to add a citation needed to the lede, but I know that people will respond by either removing it or adding links to articles which don't say what they claim.
I truly empathize, and only wish to help you make the best of your time. I can only make suggestions as an editor that has already made certain mistakes there (namely not just going to RSN in the first place). Since you are a newcomer to the current issues that myself and other editors (some that have been trying to untangle this mess even longer than I have), I humbly ask that you try to avoid trying to take the same old routes and making the same mistakes everyone that has already put in a sizeable amount of time on this has. You will do what you think is best, no doubt, and maybe you will succeed where others failed, but I can offer you certain cautions in effort to help you succeed in finding a consensus that seems currently out of reach. I would also caution you against using gut instincts and possible SYNTH and OR as a substitute for arguments. Analyzing RS is not really our forte as editors, as our own POV tends to poison the well, no matter how accurate it may seem. I agree there are probably some POV issues here, but consensus from uninvolved and unbiased editors may be the only thing that can most efficiently solve this concern. Best of luck. DN (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of what I wrote above is not part of the discussion. I wrote it to point out the difference between my personal feelings and what I think is right for the article. NPOV and other Wikipedia rules require that we not put something in article without a cited source; it certainly requires that the lede not have something in that doesn't have a source, and which is also contradicted by the article itself. That's the gist of my argument.
Roy, I think unfortunately you are not fully informed of what reliable sources currently say about the laptop. For example, you say There is evidence of a misinformation campaign and zero proof that it's not, so let me point you to this Vox piece which states And no evidence has emerged to back up suspicions from former intelligence officials, backed by Biden himself, that the laptop’s leak was a Russian plot and Some commentators did go too far in asserting that this was part of a Russian plot, when the evidence hasn’t emerged to back that up. If you have evidence of a misinformation campaign please share it. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Ernie, there are at least two versions of the data dump, and at least one version contains forged files (I believe with date problems, showing they were added or modified after the laptop was supposedly left at the repair shop). While that doesn't point to any particular bad actor, it does point to some bad actor and/or misinformation.
Let me ask you this question. Have you found even a single reputable source that provides any evidence that the data dump came from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden? If you have a source to cite, please share it. Just to be clear, such a source would not be a passing reference to the laptop, would not be merely an echo. Such a source would be an article that is about the ownership of the laptop, and which provides evidence of the purported ownership. If you can't share a single link after all this time, I have an extremely hard time believing such a source exists. Wikipedia policy requires such a citation.
Hello Roy. Regarding this comment of yours on the HB Laptop page, [2]. I'm disappointed to see you not only endorsing that editor's baseless accusations about me, but also appearing to refer to me as a disruptive editor whose purpose is to get them sanctioned.
Despite my effort to explain their error to them, the other editor doubled down with insistent and accusatory comments to me, so that I stopped responding on the talk page. An Admin has now reviewed the matter on my user talk page.
The most constructive improvement of that article section would be to substitute an image of the front page of the NY Post for that day. I believe it would be Fair use. Meanwhile, please bear in mind that the Post itself is not RS for matters relating to politics, per WP:RSNP. Cheers. SPECIFICOtalk13:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, I wasn't referring to you specifically, and I haven't looked at your entire history of edits here. I do think the argument that you were focusing on process rather than the issue to be somewhat true. I am very frustrated with the repeated assertions by editors on this page that sources say things they don't, that Wikipedia policies don't apply, etc. As I mentioned on the noticeboard, the history shows that the same editors are driving away every editor that shows up and tries to fix the article. If you add up all the people who gave up, the consensus is clear — Wikipedia policy applies to the lede, there is no source that actually says what the lede currently says, and it should change. At this point, I honestly don't recall where you fall in all this.
On the NY Post logo, as with everything else, there needs to be a reason to INCLUDE. I don't see one. Some have said that the NY Post itself is significant, that they're part of the story. I can imagine that might be true, but I have not seen a source that says that — the fact is, the Post was the first with a story, but does it matter that it was them? Did the NY Post, or editors there, have an agenda? Would anything be different if some other publisher was first? Absent a source that says that, the entire section has problems. And, on the logo itself, how is it relevant? The argument to include the front page, if fair use applies, is much stronger, but I still would probably vote against inclusion, unless the section changed significantly. The fact is the NY Post uses incendiary headlines, pictures, and graphics. It's intentional (and their headlines frequently say things that aren't actually true). To show the front page without proper context, which would have to be sourced appropriately, is echoing an intentionally incendiary action by the Post. I would vote against inclusion as the section stands now.
Well, it is bad process to jump hair-trigger into RfC's when an edit gets reverted. This particular one is egregious. There is very likely consensus for the front page that I took the time and trouble to pass through WP and Wikimendia copyright regulations and upload. And this responsive compromise also was immediately reverted and nobody's even added it to the RfC options. The RfC, in addition to ignoring WP:RFCBEFORE is foolishly worded - so narrow that it is an all-or-none that will then be cited after the fact for edits of whatever kind that are not actually related to the issue asked in the RfC. As you know, RfC's should have a brief menu of choices to engage thought and reasoned responses. In this case, it could, e.g. be Masthead, Front Page, other, or none. 4 choices. But the editor who added the RfC of course only did so after an Admin got dragged in and made it clear on my user talk page that the removal was not permitted.
Go find another page to disrupt or the next stop is WP:AE to have admins review your continuous useless posting on the talk page in an effort to harass editors that disagree with your worldview, while providing nothing actionable for improving the encyclopedia. Your latest post even adds WP:CIR concerns as you are either unable or unwilling to read the article and notice the NYpost being a central part of the article while also not being a source. Slywriter (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't think this is harassing me? It is. I've read the article (though the bias is hard to stomach). The NY Post is mentioned so many times in the citations, I missed the fact that it wasn't listed as a primary source. I'm sure I saw it as a source somewhere, but it might have been in the talk page, or a now-reverted edit, or another article. That said, the NY Post is very nearly a primary source in this article, as many of the sources listed devote an awful lot of time to quoting and echoing the NY Post articles (a practice that is sadly common these days). Do you have any source that says that it matters that it was the NY Post that was the first to publish instead of anybody else? Or that the Post was an actor instead of just a reporter? I have not seen any such source.
You're right that there are people disrupting the page, but it's not me. I'm just arguing that Wikipedia policy be followed, whereas there are other editors who have a months-long (years-long?) history of driving editors away. I don't know the motivations of other editors, but the insistence that an unsourced claim which is refuted in the Wikipedia article itself be in the lede is ridiculous. The fact that there are editors blocking this fix does not bode well for the rest of the article. If you want to improve this article, I suggest you start with fixing the lede.
Your insertion of a note objecting to the addition of an already-endorsed second option two days into a thirty-day RfC was not helpful. I suggest you remove it. We rarely have RfC's that say yes or no on a single item. That would only happen after extensive prior discussion per WP:RFCBEFORE. You can use the discussion section to express whatever concern you have about the addition of the second option. The closer will take your view into account. SPECIFICOtalk23:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One suggestion -- since a fairly small number of editors have participated until now, you could ping them and inform any who did not see the additional option that they may wish to review their comments and !votes. Just an idea to address your concern. SPECIFICOtalk23:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Harassing is your relentless badgering of editors despite limited support for your positions including your continued insistence that the laptop by policy can not be declared to be owned by Hunter Biden, a position that is false. Even here, you believe that is a point to start the conversation and it is not. Drop the stick already or walk away from the page.
Your insistence that the article which begins with a discussion of the NY Post news article, a news article that would be banned from social media, is not a part of the controversy is not grounded in the reality of the article. It is a WP:PRIMARY document by policy. It is referred to 40 to 50 times by reliable secondary sources. It is not a WP:RS for this article by the policies of Wikipedia. So, it's not a reliable source, but properly part of the article, an actor in your words, as otherwise it would be mentioned zero times.
The lede, the first section, and the second section are all focused on the NY Post. Even have three sources challenging the veracity of the NY Post reporting there. Again, your position lacks any coherence as it is unclear how that does not make them the start of the controversy and a part of it.
Add in your note, which went completely against norms and policies of RfCs. There's even an RfC on the HBL talk page with a late added item discussed extensively in the closing. Given your concern with ownership of the laptop, I assume you read the closer's comments for the RFCs and were aware this happened.
In sum, you don't have as firm a grasp of Wikipedia policy and the community's interpretation as you think you do, so stop citing policy as gospel as neither local nor community consensus support your interpretation. Slywriter (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not badgering editors. I'm repeating Wikipedia policy about sourcing and verification. If you look at the history, there are many editors who raised the same points I've raised and were driven away. If those editors hadn't been driven away, there would be clear consensus to fix the lede. It's not me who needs to drop any stick. Almost 28 months now and not a single RS that provides any evidence or actual reporting that there was actually a laptop owned by Hunter Biden that he dropped off at a repair shop. Not one. The whole story told by the owner of The Mac Shop reads like bad fiction. Maybe someday, the FBI will say something one way or another, but they haven't yet. In the meantime, it is a purportedly owned by Biden and the lede should say so.
The lede and the NY Post reference are different, though similar. No Wikipedia supports an unsourced lede. On the Post, quantity is not quality and some sources (not opinions) that say the fact that it was the NY Post itself was crucial, as opposed to their just being the first reporter, would be extremely helpful. Whatever the case, I think the logo serves no purpose and the entire front page, without proper context, is not appropriate.
As to my note on the RfC, I removed it. I shouldn't have added it like I did, though, as I said, I was responding to what I perceived was a disruption. Drop it now.
Roy you keep wrongly saying things like there's no RS reporting that the laptop was owned by Hunter Biden. The sourcing has been provided many times, and there are sections in the 2 RFC's that discuss this. In case you've overlooked it or not been able to find it, I'll drop a few here.
"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020." from the Guardian.
"Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned. from the Financial Times.
Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.
From The Guardian, which states House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter.
Or the Washington Post's fact checker Glenn Kessler who wrote about content plucked from the hard drive of his laptop left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019.
If 5 high quality sources are saying something, per WP:V we can accept it. There are no policy based provisions that say we must also verify how or why a source says something. There is no deep dive into their evidence that is needed. If a RS reports something, we can include it in Wikipedia with the proper weight. As an example, no evidence has been given by any reliable source quoted in the article that Hunter is actually Joe's son, but we accept their reporting on this too. This is how it works all over Wikipedia - if something is written in a reliable source we can include that information on Wikipedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating falsehoods, no matter how often, doesn't make them true. As I've explained before (maybe you missed it), none of those articles you point to "report" what you claim they report — they merely repeat an unproven claim. None of those articles you point to have any evidence that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, that it was left at the repair shop by Hunter Biden, etc., etc. None of those articles you point to quote any reliable person. The owner of the repair shop has contradicted himself, so quoting him is not reliable. We know Rudy Giuliani is not reliable. You don't have 5 RS's with reporting like you claim. You have zero.
It is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy to think that any of those are reliable sources for the specific issue of whether Hunter Biden owned the purported laptop. I don't know what to say to get you to understand this.
And the comparison to Hunter being Joe's son, as I also pointed out earlier, is ridiculous. There are many thousands of reliable sources for that, and this article need not cite any of them, because that's not what the article is about. Similarly, it needn't cite a source for the fact that laptops have storage in them, that laptops are things that people can own, that laptops sometimes need repairs, etc.
If you are correct, why does the rest of the article contradict the lede? Ah, it's because the lede is false and unsupported, and doesn't belong. It's been almost 28 months and there is still not a single citation to an article with evidence. Why haven't you found one yet? If you are correct, it should be easy. Point to that article and we can link to it and finish this.
You you have been warned multiple times by multiple editors that your behavior is disruptive. This is a final warning: if you continue your disruptive behavior I will topic ban you from any discussions concerning the Hunter Biden laptop controversy anywhere on Wikipedia. This has been discussed in two RFCs and across multiple noticeboards, and your WP:IDHT behavior is plainly disruptive. This warning will be logged at WP:AELOG. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: This appears to be harassment on your part. Where should I report it? As both a closer of one of the RfCs and an editor on the page, you are not a neutral party. Your "warning" is biased and inappropriate.
If you had completely understood what I have written, you would know that I, like other editors, initially assumed that the unsourced text in the article's lede was the result of malicious editing. I wasn't aware of the RfCs and was (and remain) shocked that a consensus result would be to allow an unsourced statement, which is contradicted by the article itself, to be put in wiki voice in the lede, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. The difference between me and other editors is that others have been harassed away and given up. I have persisted.
You argue that I'm being disruptive. Disagreeing is not being disruptive. Pointing out policy violations is not disruptive. Trying to get people to assist in a proper review of potential policy violations is not disruptive (but trying to block such a review, as you appear to be doing, is actually disruptive). Have you noticed that everybody who says I'm being disruptive is arguing for unsourced information to remain in the lede? I nave been extremely careful to only state facts and to assume NPOV editing, even when it seemed clear that was not the case. And, while it has been very tempting to point out that editors repeating the exact same (refuted) arguments are being disruptive, I have resisted doing so. I prefer arguments on the merits, not attacks on people. Have you noticed how many other editors have been driven away? That's what disruptive behavior looks like.
You argue that I don't get the point. You are wrong. Disagreeing doesn't mean I don't understand.
The people arguing that unsourced information stated as fact should remain are unquestionably misrepresenting their citations. It has been 28 months since the data dump was revealed and there has still been no reliable evidence produced that the laptop actually existed, belonged to Hunter Biden, or was abandoned at a repair shop. Only some of the data has been verified. If you believe I'm wrong, please point to a single reliable source that provides actual evidence, not just an echo. The stick that isn't being dropped is the one claiming an unsourced statement is acceptable.
Your attempt to silence me is unacceptable, especially when I am trying to work with others in order to get a review of possible policy violations. I've been editing Wikipedia for more than 20 years and have never received any warning or anything similar before.
I have been involved in a purely administrative capacity on the talk page, and haven't expressed an opinion one way or another on the ownership of the laptop. Your repeated WP:IDHT behavior is clearly disruptive, and a drain on other editors' time. If you would like to report me for harassment WP:ANI would be the correct location. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to believe you, then you should believe me, too. Your IDHT argument is ridiculous and insulting. Yes, I heard it. Yes, I understood it. I disagree. I would like you to explain how giving me a "final" warning when no admin has previously given me any warning (in 20+ years!) is not an abuse of privilege. I suggest that, at a minimum, you replace the word "final" with "first".
Are you planning to also go after all of the actually disruptive editors, the ones that are driving other editors away? Do you need a list?
I have not expressed my opinion on the ownership of the laptop. I do have an opinion, but it's irrelevant. This is about an unsourced statement. It should be a no brainer!
How do you explain that the article itself contradicts the lede? Should the lede change? Or should the article change to match the lede? And, if that happens, should the statements by Hunter Biden and his lawyers (including the recent ones, in the lawsuit) be banned because they contradict the supposed truth?
You have an opportunity to be helpful rather than attacking me for being insistent on following Wikipedia policy. What's the best way to review the policy violation? What's the best way to get this fixed? RoyLeban (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: One more thing. You do know this entire dispute is whether a qualifier such as "allegedly," "supposedly," or "purportedly" should be added to the lede, right? This is undisputed and supported by article after article, including most of the articles cited by the intransigent editors. I have never suggested that the statement should be removed entirely, just that Wikipedia policy requires that it be qualified, as it is in the cited sources, and as it is in the article itself. RoyLeban (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roy, I believe ScottishFinnishRadish is only trying to do their job. Asking them where to pursue it further defeats the purpose of their trying to maintain a status quo, so to speak. That said, if you want to pursue it further, I would listen to them and simply stop engaging on the HBLC talk page for a while and take it somewhere else. SPECIFICO and I both suggested NORN. I'm not taking sides or saying who is right or wrong, only that when an admin offers warnings instead of immediate sanctions or bans etc. it is a courtesy. I believe the respectful thing to do is take the high road and disengage at HBLC on this topic per SFR's request until there is a new reason to bring it up. Once you feel there is a worthy reason to bring it up again I would still run it by Scottish first as a reciprocal act of courtesy. Just my advice. DN (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. I wouldn't exactly call a "final" warning with no prior admin warnings, a true "courtesy". Intentional or not, I feel attacked. Has ScottishFinnishRadish given similar warnings to the intransigent editors, the ones making ad hominem attacks? I don't think so.
I have tried to comment less. My most recent posts were because I wanted thoughts on where to take the policy review, and because there was a new WaPo article.
Could you explain why you think NORN is the best place? Why is it better than RSN? I'm concerned that NORN would rule that the citations aren't original research and ignore the fact that they don't say what some people claim they say they do. (To be clear, these are legit questions, I really don't know.)
I cannot speak for SFR, nor should I. IMO their warning "if you continue your disruptive behavior I will topic ban you from any discussions concerning the Hunter Biden laptop controversy anywhere on Wikipedia." seems over the top, considering you have been trying to build consensus in a CIVIL manner without edit-warring, and, you are far from the only editor that has brought this issue up at the HBLC TP. I feel this may be why it was just a warning, otherwise a ban etc. likely would have been appealed and removed. The question of whether the discussion is going from distracting to disruptive can be complex.
Other editors are not required to participate or convince you or anyone that it ISN'T a policy issue. They can choose to simply ignore you and the discussion and keep editing the article as they wish while the discussion dies out. However it's more easily proven that it has gone from distracting to disruptive when the discussion doesn't die, the topic gets multiple RfCs, there's a decision, and the topic keeps getting brought up and RfC'd again over and over. It all starts to look like spam to editors and admins. Surely you can see how it may possibly be perceived disruptive, even if that is not the intention. Unless new citations explicitly state something contrary to the status quo and irrefutable as evidence to support your argument, only then would I take it to SFR and the talk page again. Babysitting content disputes on talk pages is a drain on admins, so it's best not to take the warning personally. They aren't trying to take sides, they are trying to enforce rules and the outcomes of RfCs, even if it may be a policy violation, because it's not their job to make that determination.
AFAIK the topic hadn't been brought up at NORN, but you may want to check the archive first. New topics tend to get more attention than ones that have been addressed in the past, at least that was my experience at NPOVN. I received almost zero feedback and I don't think the only editor that did respond even bothered reading my post. It seemed like they just feigned being helpful, but I did my best and no one cared. Thems the breaks...Do not concern yourself with the outcome so much. Avoid putting emphasis on the results you want as opposed the results you get. Just focus on presenting facts with accuracy and honesty, leave out the drama and the agenda, and keep it as short and as simple as possible. Let uninvolved editors kind enough to give you their time and opinions do what they will with it. DN (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, DN. I have tried very hard to be civil (and I think I've succeeded), even though it's hard when there are intransigent editors who simply refuse to even consider that they might be wrong. In contrast, I've made it clear that if somebody can point to an actual article on the subject, I would accept it. But nobody has. And I've made very, very few edits to the page itself, trying to fix the page through discussion and consensus, which is the point of the talk page.
The worst part about ScottishFinnishRadish's "final" warning is that they haven't described "disruptive behavior". Is any edit on the talk page disruptive? Or just ones suggesting there's a policy violation? Or just ones disagreeing with certain editors? (Is it proper to call editors you disagree with disruptive and hope that you trick an admin into agreeing?) Is it disruptive to point out that the lede contradicts the article? (Nobody has ever explained why this is acceptable.) Is it disruptive to point out that citations don't say what some editors claim they say? (And why isn't it disruptive to repeatedly post the same citations that have been refuted?) Is it disruptive to bring up a new WaPo article that further strengthens the argument that the lede needs a qualifier? (Yes, I'm aware I write too much, but that, by itself, isn't disruptive; I can try harder to write shorter comments.)
SFR, since you're the only one who knows the answer, please clarify. If you think I have been uncivil, if I've made personal or ad hominem attacks, etc., please point to them. I think we all deserve an explanation.
That you don't recognize your behavior as disruptive, despite it being pointed out multiple times, does not mean the behavior is not disruptive. For instance, hereAndrevan, who supports your position, is warning you that your behavior is disruptive. They then wentonatlengthexplaining why your repeated claims that there is no sourcing, still being made here in this discussion, are incorrect. It has been pointed out by others on the talk page as well that this is disruptive.
You continue to claim that there is a clear policy violation in the article, yet there has been an RFC, a 3RR thread reviewed by admins, a close review at the administrators' noticeboard, a BLPN thread, a close review review at AN, a thread at ANI claiming the lead was a policy violation, and another RFC, as well as the entire talk page, monitored by a number of admins, and various other discussions all over the place. It is abundantly clear that there is no policy violation. Yet another review or thread restating the same arguments is going to do nothing but waste even more community time. If you review those threads, you'll notice a trend. Fewer and fewer uninvolved editors participate each time. That's because the broader community doesn't see a policy violation, even if they disagree with how the consensus turned out as the administrator who has been editing for fifteen years and closed the first closure review did. To bring this to yet another noticeboard, despite the obvious consensus that there is no actual policy violation is WP:FORUMSHOPPING.
Lastly, in your most recent reply you write I have tried very hard to be civil (and I think I've succeeded), even though it's hard when there are intransigent editors who simply refuse to even consider that they might be wrong... If you think I have been uncivil, if I've made personal or ad hominem attacks, etc., please point to them. You made a ad hominem attack, didn't notice that you're behaving as an intransigent editor[s] who simply refuse[s] to even consider that they might be wrong, and then asked for an example of when you made an uncivil or ad hominem attack. Further above in this discussion you wrote text in the article's lede was the result of malicious editing... others have been harassed away... the actually disruptive editors, the ones that are driving other editors away... the intransigent editors, the ones making ad hominem attacks? I didn't even have to look for diffs, I just scrolled up a bit.
@ScottishFinnishRadish: It is hard to keep this brief, but I'll use a list to make it more readable. Feel free to respond inline.
1. Nobody has provided a source which is actually about the ownership of the laptop. Most of the articles cited (and most of the articles you can find anywhere), in fact, use words like "allegedly". Cherry picking a different sentence from such a source doesn't change that. Ignoring hundreds or thousands of sources with qualifiers doesn't make a few sources without a qualifier that might be found into truth. It's been 28 months since the data dump was made public. You'd think that surely a source for the claimed statement would have appeared by now.
3. I did not say that you (SFR) were intransigent or uncivil. I'm referring to other editors. Apologies if you thought I was referring to you. That said, giving me a "final" warning like this feels inappropriate.
4. If other editors are allowed to call me disruptive, why am I not allowed to call them disruptive and intransigent? Multiple editors have been driven away when their concerns (the same ones I'm raising) were ignored. I was not the first one who assumed that the lede was a mistake or the result of malicious editing (and I won't be the last). I had zero interaction with anybody here when I stumbled upon this. Look at the history if you don't believe me.
5. I would say that WP:IDHT, WP:DEADHORSE, WP:TE, and WP:BLUDGEON all apply to the editors who refuse to accept a qualifier in the lede. Similarly, I think those editors have failed to drop the stick every bit as much as I have, actually more since they were arguing against any qualification long before I even saw this article.
6. The primary arguments in not having a qualifier seem to be (a) that the lede currently doesn't have a qualifier, and (b) nobody can prove that the laptop didn't belong to Hunter Biden (etc.), which is, as I'm sure you know, pretty much an impossibility, especially since there isn't even definitive proof that the laptop even exists. Wikipedia requires affirmative confirmation to add content, not negative confirmation to remove it. Ignoring the RfCs and reviews so far, how does not including the qualifier, supported in many reliable sources, and putting the statement in Wiki voice meet Wikipedia policy? (serious question: if this argument flies, then how can we trust Wikipedia?)
7. Is there a compromise statement that could go in the lede? Some have been proposed, all rejected. While I prefer a single qualifying word such as "allegedly", I'm open to compromise. It appears other editors aren't. As an admin, could you help make that happen?
8. I remain shocked that a single word addition has caused such a controversy. When this started, I thought it was a no-brainer. It is very hard for me to believe that there is not a political motivation here.
9. It seems that you're saying any discussion of the lede is, by definition, disruptive. That is really, really broad. Will you make the same admonition to the editors who are arguing for the unsourced content? (see multiple points above for why you should)
It doesn't matter that the sourcing doesn't meet your threshold. It meets the community's threshold as demonstrated through the enormous pile of discussions that have already been had on this topic, and many others. The sources presented in the RFCs demonstrated that the weight of recent sources do not use the qualifier. Wikipedia follows the weight of sources, and sources do not need to explain their work to your satisfaction to be reliable. This commonly comes up in BLP discussions about labeling someone far-right or someone who spreads COVID-19 misinformation. The community does not require that reliable sources go into detail explaining why they characterize something a certain way, it is enough that they do characterize it a certain way. This was explained to you here: Meanwhile, RS have decided to describe it that way. I do not agree with this but we have to write what RS say and abide with the consensus. And so do you. and in many other places on the talk page. The reason I'm using Andrevan's responses as an example is that they agree that there should be a qualifier in the lead, but they also understand and respect how things work here.
Consensus.
You got a final warning because despite the large number of times that it has been brought up that your behavior is disruptive you persist. A final warning is to make it clear that the behavior is disruptive and if it continues sanctions are the next step. I further pointed out that you're calling other editors disruptive while also saying that you're not making ad hominem attacks. In the same paragraph.
You're calling them disruptive for following the results of multiple discussions, while you keep hammering the same points that those discussions refute. There is no policy violation, there is no sourcing issue. You just disagree with the outcome of the discussions.
Those editors not accepting a qualifier in the lead have multiple discussions demonstrating consensus for their position. They argued successfully to not have a qualifier in the lead, as shown by all of those discussions I have linked.
I'm not here to make any statements about the article content. Your question can be asked for all manner of wording in all manner of articles. Things get hashed out through discussion and RFCs, and then people should move on. In this instance, the consensus was that the weight of recent sources did not qualify the ownership of the laptop and neither should Wikipedia. If something changes in how the majority of recent sources cover it, or new information is available, then it makes sense to have another discussion about the wording.
There were already multiple discussions about this. You suggest that there be a compromise to "alleged". The question in the first RFC was Should the article use the term "alleged" in reference to the ownership of the laptop computer? to which the consensus was There is a consensus not to describe Biden's ownership of the laptop as "alleged" in our own voice. Your suggested compromise is "how about we ignore the specific result of the RFC and all subsequent discussions, and do the exact opposite instead?" That isn't a compromise.
I remain shocked that you're yet again ascribing motives to other editors.All sorts of things are controversial on Wikipedia. I just spent a couple hours reading and assessing consensus in an RFC on whether to have a navigational hatnote to Female circumcision on the Circumcision article. Then I had to block someone for edit warring on the page and full protect another circumcision related page. Everything can be controversial. That's why we have processes in place to handle the disputes that arise.Say, for instance, there's an object that may have belonged to a person. Some editors believe we should say in Wikivoice that the object belonged to that person. Other editors say we should qualify that it is only alleged that the object belonged to that person. If agreement can't be reached through regular discussion we have a formal process, WP:RFC, where editors will state their cases and if the result isn't obvious someone uninvolved in the discussion will assess the consensus and close it. If there are concerns that the closure was in obvious error a discussion can be raised at WP:AN to challenge the closure. If edit wars break out over implementing the result of an RFC, there is an edit warring noticeboard where administrators review what has happened and sanction anyone who should be sanctioned. If there are concerns about the WP:BLP implications, it can be discussed at WP:BLPN to get the view of the broader community, and make sure no one is running afoul of the BLP policies. Sometimes, there will even be a second RFC shortly after the first.All of that and more has happened in this case. There has been an enormous amount of community attention on this topic, and we're at where we're at. Disagreeing with the results is fine, but you need accept that sometimes consensus is against you and step away.
Discussion of the lead is fine, when new sources and reasoning can be shown. What you have done is repeated that the statement is unsourced (consensus disagrees), and there is a policy violation (consensus disagrees). You don't even have to accept that you're incorrect, all you have to do is accept that consensus is against you and stop making the same arguments over and over again. Realize that at this time there is no consensus to overturn the status quo and do something else. If and when coverage changes, more information comes out, or something changes you can take part in the discussion, but if you continue to create section after section after discussion after section with the same arguments, then a topic ban is the only way to keep you from being disruptive. There's a reason the NPOVN thread got fewer responses than the BLP thread, and the second RFC got fewer responses than the first RFC. The community has already resolved this and isn't interested in going over the same ground again and again. The more the same thing gets pushed, the fewer and fewer uninvolved editors will want to get involved, and the more entrenched the positions become. Please, just drop it until there something new to discuss that might shift the status quo or make it worth another RFC to discussion on reassessing that line of the lead.
As Darknipples says above Unless new citations explicitly state something contrary to the status quo and irrefutable as evidence to support your argument, only then would I take it to SFR and the talk page again. If you're wondering if something has changed enough to make it worth having another discussion, you can come and ask for my opinion. Just to reiterate, this has been through at least an RFC, a close review, a review of the close review, another RFC, a BLPN thread, an ANI thread, a 3RR thread, and a NPOVN thread to get external attention, and yet the result remains the same. Now is the time to take a deep breath, accept that consensus is currently against you, and back away. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. This smacks of "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth." The WaPo article two days ago used the qualifier. Can you, or anybody, explain why, in 28 months, not a single reliable source has appeared that talks directly about the laptop's authenticity? Zero. Given that, why is mere characterization of something accepted as a statement of authenticity? On the face of it, that makes no sense.
2. If consensus is that the article should contradict itself, then consensus is wrong. Wikipedia should at least be internally consistent. The lede of an article should not state something which is clearly refuted within the article itself. This is a no-brainer.
3 and 4. Until now (until this discussion), I did not call other editors disruptive. I only decided to do it because it's clear that doing so works. Their behavior was disruptive long before I even saw this article. Those editors have not refuted what I've said, or what others said before me. They have repeatedly sidestepped. Somebody drove other editors like me away (again, before I arrived here). How is that not disruptive? Also, if all those editors came back — if all the editors who, like me, assumed it was an error or malicious edit came back, then I think consensus would point the other way.
5. Where is the reliable source that says no qualifier is needed? 28 months and no source.
6 and 7. The vast majority of sources still use qualifiers. That hasn't changed. The article itself uses a qualifier. That hasn't changed either.
8 and 9. The situation isn't likely to change because the vast majority of sources already use qualifiers. The result is that the article might be broken forever. This article is far from the only example of problems like this, it's just particularly egregious. That said, yesterday, Lev Parnas said a whole bunch of stuff that may prove the entire thing to be the result of a Russian operation, something many people have suspected all along.
Many people think Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia. Unfortunately, the belief that consensus is more important than truth (among other problems) makes it both the best and worst, because it is effectively the only encyclopedia left, having driven all the non-free ones out of business. This is sad.
Coming in as a completely uninvolved admin. I've never edited the page or the talk, and as far as I can remember I didn't participate at any of the ridiculously multiple RfCs or noticeboard sections.
Roy, the basic issue here is that, although you clearly believe you are in the right, in fact consensus is against you, and here on Wikipedia you just have to be able to drop the stick and move on when that happens. You've made your point -- and frankly looking at that page it occurs to me that it would be more appropriately at New York Post reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy -- and I also agree that it's troubling that WP would be writing about what RS are saying about what a non-RS is saying. But the fact is, you need to stop fighting this fight, at least for now. Go work somewhere else. I'd recommend you just take that article off your watch.
In order to continue editing, you're also going to have to be willing to listen to advice from other editors who are uninvolved in the content dispute, which actually does seem to include SFR, whose edits related to the subject do seem (on my admittedly brief look; for heaven's sake write shorter, all of you) arguably admin actions. When highly experienced editors are telling you that what you are doing is disruptive, you really need to listen, even if you don't completely understand why. The answer in that case is to seek advice from other highly-experienced editors, not to argue. Valereee (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Val, in fact consensus is against you is -- oddly -- not correct. It is correct that process has established the current text, but as has I and others have noted on the article talk page, this was due to a dysfunction of WP process. This, combined with the hounding Roy has noted, has led to most editors - including myself - walking away from the page. While I agree with you that Roy's time would be more productively spent on other things for now, the claims that he's being Disruptive in the WP sense are simply false. He is not editing the article content, and nobody is obligated to engage with him on the talk page. There's a small group of editors who gratuitously show up to repeat the same flawed sources, pound "consensus" and call Roy disruptive.
I greatly appreciate the efforts of Admins such as you and SFR who volunteer to engage with difficult pages, so I do not mean to be criticizing either of you. However, SFR was the one who closed the second RfC, so they come to the current issue with prior involvement. That second close, in my view, came to the wrong conclusion, in that it started from the premise that the flawed first RfC had the standing of established consensus that could only be overturned by strong consensus on the later RfC. But none of the polls you mention has found a strong consensus to state "belonged to" in Wikivoice. (This circumstance has been explained on the article talk page, and Roy has tried to address this) So at any rate SFR is "involved" on the content/consensus issue and their warning to Roy was surprising.
I agree with Val and SFR that this will all be addressed in due time, and the content will be corrected. This is not a particularly important article and the purported "laptop controversy" -- if any -- exists only in the hearts and minds of the Republican base and their non-RS media faves. So in a nutshell, Roy has been clear and civil in his talk page engagement. He's being provoked (intentionally or not) by a small number of editors, and he's most likely understood the advice from many of us to step back for a while. But using "drop the stick" etc. frames this as if he is being disruptive and to blame. Which he is not. SPECIFICOtalk14:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't mean to come on too strong, because my overall view is that we need more Admins such as you and SFR who volunteer to get into what's going on at the article talk pages and keep an eye on things. Waiting until things get to AE seems to be a bad model for all concerned, in addition to suffering from the overriding bias toward the views of editors with either the time or motivation to gather evidence, diffs, and the like. I appreciate your efforts. SPECIFICOtalk17:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I appreciate your thoughts! @SPECIFICO: Thanks for your support!
This has been extremely frustrating for me. In more than 20 years of editing Wikipedia, I've never seen anything like this. The editors I'm calling intransigent were doing what they're doing now many months before I arrived here. Their actions are not a response to me; I am not to blame for their actions. Until I did so above, I never called them disruptive or intransigent, and I have tried very hard to be civil and AGF (though I may have noted on the Talk page that it was hard).
Those editors have used the same tactics on other editors (like @SPECIFICO) months before I visited this page. The hounding started immediately: 11 minutes after my first edit on the talk page, GoodDay told me to "drop the stick." I didn't even know there was a stick! 1 minute later, Mr Ernie piled on with a disingenuous comment saying "we just follow what the sources say" when this is clearly not true (if it was "just what the sources say," we would all agree). 10 hours later, Dronebogus tried to censor the discussion by hiding it (@Feoffer restored it). And that was just the beginning.
Throughout all this, I have held off on editing the page itself. Let's look at that history. Here's my initial edit. 17 minutes after that edit, ScottishFinnishRadish reverted it. As is appropriate on Wikipedia, I turned to the Talk page. Six days later, I edited the page again, adding a "citation needed" tag, a clarification that the verification of emails was only incoming emails (as stated elsewhere on the page), and added details about the verification, along with a long edit summary. Just five hours later, ScottishFinnishRadish reverted my entire change and accused me of being disruptive, for making what was only my second, well-considered edit to the page. The following day, I made another edit which was merely to move the location of a citation. It took only 1 minute for GoodDay to revert that change with a disingenuous comment that I get "consensus for such big changes". Ha! To their credit, they did self revert it an hour later (I don't recall if there was Talk page discussion in the intervening hour). I have made only one other page edit, the removal of a citation that didn't say what the editor claimed it did, and which violated current page editing restrictions. Four edits in two months, two of which were reverted.
In contrast, look at this recent edit. It removes a statement that has multiple sources that are just as valid as other sources (though not cited here) that casts doubts on the authenticity of the data. Why is that edit ok? I am reticent to revert it lest I be told I'm being disruptive. Note also: like much of the article, the paragraph and section have significant problems; they reference the hard drive when that is incorrect — the analysts examined a data dump, not any drive. Should I fix this or will SFR decide I'm being disruptive?
Essentially, the only difference between me and editors who were previously driven away is that I have been stubborn, I didn't leave, I have pointed out what I believe are policy violations, and I have tried to get a consensus to fix the page (and, yes, I'm aware I write too much). And now I'm being told that I'm the one who is bad? This doesn't seem right.
@Valereee: As an uninvolved admin, I am interested in your opinion on what I wrote above, particularly the fact that I was immediately attacked the first time I edited both the page and the talk page. RoyLeban (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you haven't seen stuff like this in twenty years, my assumption is that you haven't spent much time at contentious topics. Hunter Biden's laptop, as you can imagine, is an extremely contentious topic. The regular editors at such articles often do behave badly, sometimes driving away well-intentioned contributors they disagree with (creating, as specifico points out above, false consensus) and forcing their own interpretation into the article. It sounds like that may be what's happening here. It's a difficult problem to fix; there's a major case at ArbCom right now about a very similar issue, and it's something that didn't actually finally come to that head until someone wrote an academic article about it that attracted attention.
You've gotten good advice to walk away for now. As specifico and sfr are saying, this will eventually work itself out as the story develops. And really is the exact provenance of Hunter Biden's laptop the hill you want to die on? It sounds like your initial objection was that the lead doesn't include some statement that the laptop is currently only claimed to be his.
Is it still remotely possible the laptop wasn't his? I guess, although the fact Hunter filed an expectation of privacy suit against the repairman a couple weeks ago seems like pretty strong evidence it was. But if Wikipedia makes a slightly-too-confident assertion about the laptop's provenance for a while and fixing that would take hours and hours and hours of my and others' time and the extremely likely eventual outcome is going to be of course the silly thing was Hunter's...is it really worth my time? Or yours?
@Valereee: Thanks for your thoughts. You're right that I rarely edit controversial pages. I only edited this page because I saw what appeared to be a malicious edit and tried to fix it. I'm not looking to die on any hill.
I think you're right about some regular editors behaving badly, and I think there are a number of egregious actions. Here's a recent misrepresentation of an RfC result by GoodDay. On a related note, Hunter Biden's lawsuit is about the data, not the laptop — Biden's lawyers make it very clear — so that is not evidence about any laptop, yet that gets repeated a lot (and you fell for it).
What I'd really like is advice on two things:
1) Is there any way to get editors to understand that Wikipedia policy requires a source to include, not to exclude, that a descriptive mention is not the same as a source that actually states something? On a related note, what is the way to fight editors who repeated misrepresent sources? For example,
2) Can I do anything about the editors who have harassed me and others? What can I do about ScottishFinnishRadish, who did not AGF from the moment I touched the page (well, 17 minutes after), has joined in attacks, and is now trying to force me away?
Editors know that, but most policy is interpreted, and interpretations can differ. That GoodDay diff is not particularly compelling to anyone who doesn't want to go actually read the entire RfC.
To fight the kind of stuff happening at that article you can create a case with diffs. Your best best is to represent the history of the dispute. That is, go back and find every editor who has objected to this and prove that a few editors at the article have driven them away one by one by claiming there's already consensus. If you can show that 20 editors over time have objected to something and each time, three editors have insisted there's already consensus, that's strong evidence. Find as many examples as you can, but only present the best, most easily understood four or five examples and offer to provide the rest if desired. I can't stress the importance of this too much. Presenting 35 diffs is not a good strategy because if the first two someone randomly looks are aren't easily understood and very compelling, they won't bother to read the others. This is not a strategy I would recommend to an editor with fewer than 1000 edits.
Harassment also takes evidence, in the form of diffs. You need to go back and find those diffs, then again in the case of each person present the three best diffs that prove harassment by that person. Again not a strategy I would recommend to an editor with fewer than 1000 edits.
SFR. See, this is an example of exactly why someone with under 1000 edits shouldn't be attempting this kind of thing. You've made a serious accusation against SFR, but you haven't provided me a diff of what you're talking about. Which means you're basically asking me to go do the work to find that for myself.
I strongly recommend that if you do decide to start collecting diffs, you do it off-wiki. If you do it in your sandbox, it can be seen by anyone and likely will be.
But what I really recommend, and since I and others have given you this advice before, I really don't want to continue since you clearly don't want to listen: Go do something else. Take the HBLC off your watch. After the subject is no longer a current event, you can come in and see if there's still work to do. By that time you'll have more experience.
Thank you. It's sad to me that the onus is on the people being attacked and harassed. It's a lot less work to harass people away than to stop it. Wikipedia has always been biased toward people with more time on their hands, not people who are better editors. Just another indication of it.
On (4), I did provide links above, that SFR reverted my first change ever to the page 17 minutes after I made it, then called me disruptive ("(This behavior is becoming disruptive.") when reverting my second edit ever, which I made six days later. Hardly disruptive, and evidence that he is part of the problem (no, he's not the biggest part, but he is at least being swayed enough by problem editors into attacking me). It has continued through to this recent attempt to silence me. Is this not evidence enough?
On (6), I do not think this will not become a "non-current event" for many years, perhaps decades. Hillary Clinton has been demonized with false accusations for more than 30 years, with no end in sight. It doesn't matter than many, many millions have been spent in so-called investigations with no results. The radical right in this country is still going strong in attacking her. Now they have Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, among others, in their crosshairs, and they're not going to stop. Lack of evidence is not an obstacle when there is a belief that repeating unproven statements often enough turns them into facts. Wikipedia is supposed to be immune from this, but it's clearly not.
Valereee: It's been a while but I thought I would give an update. Again, thanks for your thoughts and advice.
I believe that ScottishFinnishRadish is not a neutral admin. I think the evidence above makes that clear. Neutral admins don't revert somebody's first good faith edit to an article minutes after it's made, then follow up by accusing the editor of being disruptive when they make a second good faith edit which clearly attempts to address the concerns raised in the revert of the first edit (by adding a citation needed tag), and then threaten to topic ban the editor because they're trying to reach consensus on the Talk page, all while not doing anything about editors who have repeatedly harassed other people, since long before the editor in question arrived on the scene.
Accordingly, I am going to ignore SFR's warning. However, in the interest of peace, I am not going to counter attack, I am not going to file a complaint against SFR, and I am making an effort to edit less and be less repetitious. The issues themselves have not changed. There is still no actual support for the statement in the lede. As mentioned on the Talk page, Pike doesn't own the peak, Montezuma had nothing to do with the revenge, etc. Saying "Hunter Biden's laptop", by itself, is not actual evidence — no matter how often it is repeated, it is not a reliable source, especially when there are countless current and new sources that say "alleged," "purportedly," etc. But, the harassing editors are not being threatened with being banned, and their basic argument is still that (a) the lede currently says it was his laptop, and (b) somebody must prove that it isn't his laptop in order to remove the unsourced statement. This is absolutely the opposite of what Wikipedia policy is (sources are required for inclusion, not exclusion), and I cannot understand why any admin doesn't reject it on its face.
I will give one example from the Jesus page (emphasis mine): "Most Christians believe he is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (the Christ) prophesied in the Hebrew Bible." Notice that this page does not say that Jesus was the Messiah, although there are about 2.5 billion Christians in the world, more than 25 times the number of people who might believe that Hunter Biden owned the laptop. Those editors suggesting that the page must say Jesus is the Messiah unless it can be proven otherwise (and there have been such editors) has been rejected. The same logic should hold here. If the Jesus page can say that something that billions of people believe is a fact is merely a belief, surely this page can too.
In summary, I do not think SFR is neutral w.r.t. the Hunter Biden laptop controversy page, and I think his threat to topic ban me is inappropriate. I plan to edit less, but I'm not going away as long as the lede (at least) is not fixed.
Val, I am trying to follow this thread. Did Roy ever base his concern on any personal belief about the origin of the machine? I don't know how closely you've read the past 6 months of activity at that article and talk page, but there IMO even the claim that there is any "controversy", is dubious. There are lots of Fox News fans who have been trained to believe it's a controversy, but even among Fox fans it's one of the lesser tales. I have not seen any RS that's verified the origin of the machine except via the narrative of Mac Isaac. Have you? SPECIFICOtalk15:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifico, no, that was actually what I was trying to get at, as a preliminary step. If RL actually believes this is a dubious claim (which while I am not as familiar with this whole incident as you are, I couldn't find) or whether they're just arguing principle. Valereee (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I asked because I respect your efforts and your willingness to engage in difficult topic areas. FYI, @Soibangla: sums up the narrative very well here. One needn't know anything about that page to know that -- with Fox News the highest rated American cable TV and with roughly 25% of the population believing Fox's most extreme fabrications, we have lots of Fox-believers among Wikipedia editors. That's why so much RS coverage gets dismissed as mere opinion when it contradicts Fox narratives and why unverified Republican narratives are repeatedly offered as fact on talk pages. SPECIFICOtalk16:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've read the soibangla summary, thanks. The question I was trying to get at wasn't so much "is there a there there" but literally the very basic "is this laptop Hunter's?" Which was (and forgive me if I'm still not getting it) was what I was thinking RL was objecting to: a Wikivoice statement that it was his, rather than that it was simply claimed-to-be. My understanding is that we haven't yet got absolute proof that it was, but that pretty much everyone (on whatever side) knows it is. And that RL was objecting to the statement in Wikivoice. Again, forgive if I'm still not getting it. I am trying! :D Valereee (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree with Roy that the mere use of 's' in English, as in Pike's Peak, Kaposi's Sarcoma, Fool's Gold, Dead Man's Gulch, Busman's Holiday etc. is not Wikipeida-style verification of ownership, particularly not in a BLP when as Roy says there are lots of sources that are careful not to declare ownership in contexts where ownership (rather than contents or implications) are at issue. We have only the word of Trump partisans as to how Mac Isaac got his hands on the machine. It could easily have been Giuliani in a wig who gave it to the blind repairman, and the only reason the story went public in the Post was that Mac and Rudy were disappointed that giving the device to the FBI didn't immediately create the public revelations they expected. Even before that page was published on WP we had editors insisting that the whole Joe Biden conspiracy theory was verified simply because various unrelated files produced by the blind man in Maryland were verified to have originated with Hunter Biden. As Roy says, this kind of thing does not happen outside of contentious topics articles. SPECIFICOtalk18:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roy. Just wanted to check in. As it stands, the only current viable changes I can see ATM is making it clear that this is a claim by Mac Isaac, but again, some RS seem to be leaving him out in their reporting (usually in articles not specifically about the authenticity of the laptop), even though HE is the genesis of this controversy. Not much we can do about that, except insist that that attribution to Mac Isaac is clear. If you find any new RS about the authenticity or Mac Issac please share. Cheers. DN (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WRT Valereee's question about my personal beliefs, SPECIFICO is right — I have never stated my personal belief because it is irrelevant. What I know is that no reliable source has ever provided any evidence that the laptop even exists. Only part of the data dump has been validated, it's known that there is more than one version, and Lev Parnas, a Giuliani associate, has said that he knew of the existence of the "laptop" before it was publicly known, all evidence of a possible disinformation campaign, and there is additional evidence as well. There may well be as many references to "russian disinformation" as there are to "Hunter Biden's laptop" but I would also object if that phrase were put in wiki voice in the article, or stated as a fact in the lede.
WRT this statement by Valereee, "My understanding is that we haven't yet got absolute proof that it was, but that pretty much everyone (on whatever side) knows it is", I don't agree. Hunter Biden has denied that it is his. His lawyers were extremely careful in the lawsuit against Mac Isaac for invasion of privacy to talk about the data, not any hardware. Many people believe Hunter Biden. It's also worth noting that even articles about the lawsuit incorrectly refer to the laptop and say the lawsuit is about the laptop, not the data. Those statements don't change what is actually in the lawsuit, of course, and is not evidence that Hunter Biden has admitted that the laptop exists, etc.
No hardware has been seen, let alone authenticated, by anybody reliable. Mac Isaac and Rudy Giuliani are clearly unreliable. Both of them have changed their stories, among other things. The FBI is reliable, but they're not talking. So, go back to my Jesus example. 2.5 billion Christians know Jesus was real but more than that don't. I'm Jewish and I know Jesus was not the Messiah and I have my doubts that the person actually existed. That article (which is a contentious topic!) properly states that Jesus' being the Messiah is a belief, not a fact.
Wikipedia policy requires us to only state things that have reliable sources, and we don't have RS's that provide actual confirmation that the laptop even exists or that the data dump is a Russian disinformation campaign. Therefore, they are both claims, no matter what I or any other editor might believe.
My interest is in accuracy, not the topic. To show my personal disinterest in the topic, today was the first time I ever visited the Hunter Biden page and I see the same unsupported statements are made there. It's even more egregious there because the proper thing to do in that article is to say as little as possible, not to promote unsourced claims.
Roy, while I'm here: I'd again like to commend you for your talk page comment that the importance of the Post's having made this a cover page story -- and one of its most noteworthy so that it was even used in the Congressional hearing as the signature graphic of the Chairman -- could be better conveyed in the article text.
Because the deletion of the cover page file went against the judgment of nearly all involved editors on the article page -- even the ones who have been most critical of your efforts -- it would IMO greatly enhance your standing if you would consider doing the bit of work you mentioned to enhance the article text's basis for reinstatment of that cover page image. Please consider, now or in the future. SPECIFICOtalk16:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might consider such an edit in the future, but I think, right now, it would only embolden people who want to promote the unsourced claims. And I think that those editors would continue to attack me, call me disruptive, etc. As I mentioned above, my interest here is in accuracy, not this particular topic. I never expected to get such pushback on what I thought was a no-brainer. RoyLeban (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think it would show editors who are attacking and hounding you that you are here to make constructive contributions. And since your detractors joined in the advocacy for that cover image, I think it would repair the negative impressions they have expressed about your participation. Up to you. SPECIFICOtalk14:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think about it, but, since I'm not the first (and I'm sure the last) person those editors have gone after, I don't think it's about their impressions of me. I've always tried to make my contributions constructive! RoyLeban (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IPhone 5C
Whether or not the "C" is capitalized, it doesn't affect file names or any other markup, such as the titles of references. Please refrain from "correcting" them again. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)01:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's intentional, the Hunter Biden thing.
I saw your intelligent comments and had to write you. These small group of editors have sort of taken over Wikipedia political stuff.
Palmer Report is a liberal website. These republcian editors are trying to destroy them by putting "fake news" in the header.
Check out their talk page and see for yourself.
They did the exact same on Palmer Report page. Got these obscure articles into the page and now they say they need "proof" that Palmer report is not fake to remove them. AND they did the same to Raw story, another liberal site.
I am trying to researach smart, liberal editors whom I can make aware this is happening. Another person is saying they're going to escalate all this.
I don't like IP editors or anonymity in general on Wikipedia. Perhaps you're doing it to avoid being personally attacked, but it brings out the worst in people. It has become extremely hard to assume good faith with certain editors who are insisting that the Hunter Biden laptop controversy page has to have unsourced, unsupported information in the lede paragraph, and keep insisting that citations they provide say things they obviously and clearly don't. It is the worst of Wikipedia. But, it's also hard to AGF in your comments here as well when you're an IP editor and you're comments are pretty clearly attacks.
My goal is to be neutral. While I have my opinions, that doesn't affect truth. I want the truth, even if it is uncomfortable. If Hunter Biden committed crimes, the page should say that. If Joe Biden committed crimes, that should also appear somewhere. But neither of those statements appears to be true, and there is certainly no reliable source that has presented proof. Hell, there isn't even a reliable source that states definitively that "Hunter Biden's laptop" even exists. Right now, the MAGA crowd is going nuts because the truth is that Trump has been indicted (again!) and there's pretty damning evidence. So they'll do anything they can to distract people from it. And that includes smearing Hunter Biden and implying that Joe Biden is a criminal.
I don't know the motivations of these editors (and admins), but their actions do make them look suspect. I was personally attacked minutes after I made my very first good faith edit on the page. And that's why I have decided to not go away.
I'm going to respond here rather than the IP talk page because the IP changes often enough to make it worthless. You said There is no mention that all of the edits were on talk pages (and 5 of 7 edits were on user talk pages). You should take a look at the IP range, rather than the single IP's contributions. The disruption is long running, and has been an issue for two years. That's why an IP range is blocked, rather than a single IP.
You also said I think a different, uninvolved admin should look at the situation and determine if the block is appropriate. I suggest you take a peek at their block log to see that they have been blocked for the same behavior by another admin. I stepped it up to a full block because the disruption moved to user talk pages when they were partially blocked.
You're continuing to cast aspersions on the motives of other editors. I've warned you about that before. Please stop. And lastly, you said I'm commenting here because I do not believe that ScottishFinnishRadish is an unbiased admin. If you believe my actions or editing have been out of line, please take it to WP:ANI or WP:AN rather than repeatedly saying I've engaged in misbehavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that I did not look at the IP range. I saw only the seven talk page edits. I am not an expert on blocks. I've never blocked anybody, never requested somebody be blocked, and I've never been blocked myself. The editor may well be disruptive if you look at the totality of their edits. But that doesn't change the fact that an uninvolved admin would be a better person to do the block. You are obviously not an uninvolved admin. I think you must know that.
I hate IP editors. I also very much dislike anonymous editors, which is almost everybody here. Anonymity brings out the worst in everyone in places like Wikipedia. I use my real name and I stand behind what I say and do. The seven edits I saw from the IP editor were rude and inappropriate. If it were just those seven, I would say a warning was more appropriate. But, if, as you say, it's been two years of similar edits, I understand why you thought a block was warranted. But I still think you should have found an uninvolved admin to take a look and do the block.
Yes, I am criticizing other people's edits. It's hard to AGF when somebody misrepresents the facts, repeatedly. Yes, I do not believe you are an unbiased admin. Look above and you'll see a play-by-play that shows you reverted my first good faith edit on the page 17 minutes after I made it. I made the edit because I assumed, as many others have, that malicious editing had taken place. How else could an obvious falsehood have made it into the lede? You attacked me and accused me of being disruptive because I had the audacity to want only accurate (and sourced!) information in the lede and in the article. You removed a citation needed where there is still no citation backing up an unsourced statement which is in wikivoice. This was after I made a grand total of two edits to the page. Later, you threatened to ban me because I'm insisting that Wikipedia policy be followed with regard to sourcing. All this means that you are implicitly supporting editors who are hounding and harassing others, who have driven other editors away. So, yeah, I don't think you're unbiased.
There's a huge difference between me and the editors I believe are biased. If somebody were insisting that the lede (or the article) said in wikivoice that the laptop data dump was a Russian disinformation campaign, I would also object to it. While there is evidence to support it (and it may very well be true), there is currently no reliable source that says definitively that it happened, just like there is no reliable source that says definitively that the laptop exists, was abandoned, etc. This is what NPOV is about. The other editors are only taking one side — they want the article to say something they either believe to be true or want to be true, despite the fact that the evidence simply isn't there, and they would argue completely differently if the article said it was a Russian disinformation campaign.
You said you've warned me about casting aspersions. You also threatened that you would ban me. It's not appropriate. You're involved. Multiple other editors, both publicly and privately, have said that I am being polite and reasonable. One said that they were impressed that I have kept my cool. Sure, I haven't gone away, but neither have the editors who are insisting that an unsourced statement remain.
I have not taken you to WP:ANI or WP:AN because I would rather warn you. I see you, and I see what you're doing. As an admin, you should support NPOV editing. You shouldn't support unsourced statements. You shouldn't support editors who harass others. You shouldn't close an RfC with an invalid reason. You shouldn't support people who think an RfC can override fundamental Wikipedia policy. You should want to help improve Wikipedia. And maybe you should reach out to other more experienced and less involved admins sometimes. The best admins never appear to be taking a side. Please think about it.
Forgive me butting in, but, I would like to add that there are a lot of things we do not see, that we may take for granted on Wiki. SFR does not strike me as a "problem admin". SFR has a very difficult and problematic task in monitoring this article. Something that should not be taken lightly or for granted. I implore you to empathize with the kind of position they are in. There are many instances of admin acting much less diplomatically than SFR has, and not without reason. I am not asking you to change your mind or simply submit. I only ask that you try to understand and empathize more with the process that SFR is trying to adhere to. Had those that object to the current state of the article been there during the 1st RfC, things may have been quite different for us, but they still would be dealing with the fall out from the other side of the aisle. If you can't understand that, and why that makes Wiki such an important place to participate, then I'm not sure you can appreciate why I think SFR deserves a lot more credit than you are seeing fit to give them. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DN, I always appreciate honest feedback. Your point is another reason for not going to WP:ANI or WP:AN, and why I ended what I wrote with "Please think about it." In this specific case, SFR explained that there were things I didn't see. I acknowledged that and don't believe he's lying. So maybe the block was warranted. That said, having an uninvolved admin step in would have avoided any question of bias.
Similarly, did SFR also threaten to ban the people who repeatedly attacked me and others? I turned the other cheek for a long time and when I finally responded, I got threatened with a ban. That doesn't feel good. An explanation for what's going on would go a long way to establish credibility.
Finally, there's the matter of SFR attacking me from the moment I arrived. What's the story there? Why no apology? And what about all the behaviors that look like support of POV editing and policy violations (see above). What's the story?
I haven't seen super egregious conduct by SFR, but I certainly have questions.
I'll apologize more directly for the dig about the principle/principal distinction. It was petty. I caught myself being extra grumpy-ass with someone else recent on WP, and also with one of my housemates the other day, and losing my patience with some people on Facebook over pretty trivial things. I've come to the conclusion that the flu or bad cold I've had for a couple of weeks (which for me is really, really unusual) has been at first subtly then later rather palpably affecting my mood and perhaps my judgment. Crap excuse, but the point is that it's not personal, as if I think poorly of you or something; you just happened to be in the line of sight during one of my phlegm attacks. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
