Red-tailed hawk

MfD

I have replied to your query. I hope you will understand the context now. Nickps refuses to show me any "unsourced" negative information in the draft article. No one does. Why is that so hard to do? Maybe because I have sourced everything very carefully, so they wikilawyer instead?

Maybe for the same reason Trump lost a lawsuit that was ONLY about the pee tape rumor, the subject of my draft article? Another lawsuit[1][2] ONLY about that rumor was also lost by the litigant. In that last case, Judge Cooper even showed that the litigant had changed his story to Mueller and likely lied to Mueller. First he described to Mueller how he told Cohen he had "stopped" the salacious tapes of Trump with prostitutes. Then he changed his story later and told Mueller the tapes were "fake". Judge Cooper showed that the claim they were "fake" was not a true statement. That was a new story, with no evidence. The litigant had always treated them as real, just as Cohen and Trump had done.

BTW, this rumor is not about the 2016 Steele dossier allegation per se. It's about the same story, but from when it started in 2013, and Cohen's 2019 testimony that he, Trump, and David Pecker knew about it in late 2013 or early 2014 and tried to suppress the rumor and find the tapes. That effort continued, with the help of others close to Trump and Cohen for several years before the Steele dossier was a twinkle in Hillary Clinton's eye. Neither Steele nor his sources invented that rumor. They only retold it. That really pissed off Trump, because until the dossier was published on January 10, 2017, the public did not know of what was described as an "open secret" in Moscow. That is very well "sourced" negative information, IOW not a BLP violation when properly attributed.

There are several things to keep in mind: (1) We do not know for sure if the pee tape exists; (2) We know that the pee tape rumor is old, very real, was known by "many" in a closed group around Trump, and did not start with Steele and his dossier; (3) James Comey and a number of others believe it's quite possible the pee tape does exist, and (4) that some RS allege it may be part of the reason Trump has never criticized Putin. That is all sourced in the draft article.

As for me, I don't know. I just know that very GNG notable part of the "sum of all human knowledge" is not covered here, it easily passes GNG, and there are myriad very RS about it. My draft article is not yet ready for mainspace. It needs more work, especially to make it more NPOV compliant with more attribution from the sources. It's all properly sourced. I also do not want it publicized, and the MfD is very counterproductive in that regard. And last but not least, there are many enemies of the subject who do not want it told at Wikipedia. That's unwikipedian behavior. We are supposed to document what RS say and not oppose content because we "don't like it".

If there are BLP violations in the draft article, I want to fix them, but no one will provide an example. We do not MfD or AfD drafts or articles because a BLP violation exists somewhere in it. We follow WP:PRESERVE (a policy) and fix the violation. These people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

See my request at Please provide evidence of BLP violations. Someone needs to get Nickps to provide evidence or withdraw his accusation, close the ANI thread, as it has devolved into a kangaroo court with piling on (some likely from WPO, where they were discussing it today), and apologize. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The MfD has been closed as "no consensus". That's a good solution. Now that kangaroo court at ANI needs to be closed and Nickps trouted and warned not to abuse ANI and to provide evidence for his accusations. That is very uncivil behavior. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

ANI closure

The ANI has been closed, but that doesn't stop the personal attacks immediately afterwards. I have mentioned the possibility for civil discussion here: User talk:Valjean/Rumor#Closures at two drama boards. There I would be allowed to explain, unlike in an ANI or MfD kangaroo court where I am not allowed to defend myself against personal attacks or present evidence, as that's considered bludgeoning.

We need to discuss this where there can be an open exchange of ideas in a civil manner. Editors obviously disagree about the interpretation of certain PAG. If discussions there don't resolve anything, then discussions on policy and guideline pages may need to occur, but all of this is disruptive to my work, with the promised help from Tryptofish, to make the draft more compliant for mainspace. It's not ready yet, and we should be allowed to work in peace without attacks, harassment, and disruption.

After repeated attempts in the MfD to get someone to provide evidence of any BLP violations in the draft article, I finally got this honest answer:

"Since Valjean wanted to know what the BLP violations were, I will try to answer, knowing that my answer will not resolve the controversy, and will not answer Valjean's question of how to resolve the BLP violations. There are no specific BLP violations in the draft or sandbox or whatever it is, so that the problem cannot be dealt with by editing. The problem is that the page in question is an entirely negative page about a living person..."[3]

"There are no specific BLP violations in the draft..." That's a stunning admission, after all the accusations and abuses of MfD and ANI. No wonder no one would respond to my requests for evidence. They just labeled my requests "bludgeoning" because they just DONTLIKEIT, so they wikilawyer instead, and now they are continuing the attacks. This borders on harassment to prevent me from doing what is officially allowed in "personal user namespace". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Is there a specific request you have regarding this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if they escalate this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Revisit

I've just caught up on the Uyghur genocide move, which I was surprised by, and which I also now think was quite poorly reasoned. I'm quite interested to hear your take on what happened there and where the disconnect lies here between the sources and the community. My thoughts can be seen here. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Email

Hey, could I send an email to you regarding the WP: AE? Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This is in reference to a report regarding my behavior seen here. As mentioned there: I'm also requesting that the closing admin go through every edit cited before coming to a AE decision.

I'm also willing to explain through public/private any of the cited edits that were seen as a violation of Wikipedia guidelines if need be. (Or any others.)

I also believe that this was a retaliatory action. But I'm uncertain what I can state in either private or public respondence to defend myself. KlayCax (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I will take a read through all of the diffs. However, please do not email me about this; if there is anything I have a question about, I will ask it in public, and I think it's best to have everything fully in the public view. If there are circumstances that require private information to process fully, you should email the arbitration committee to explain them; individual admins really can't take action on the basis of private evidence unless they are also functionaries. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Protection of Spanish Navy

It doesn't matter, but the account asking for protection was a sock. You had no way of knowing. I hate socks! Doug Weller talk 13:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

• In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse

• Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems

• In focus: Twitter marks the spot

• News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded

• Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?

• Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing

• Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird

• Humour: I'm proud to be a template

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ARCA case

Hi RTH, My only contribution to that AE case was to ask a participant for clarification. I didn't even state an opinion on it. So I don't know why you include me in "users involved or directly affected" at ARCA and ask you to please remove me. Incidentally, I'm an admin but didn't put my question in the admin section because I edit in ARBPIA and take "involved" seriously. Thanks. Zero^talk 09:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Because there wasn't really any guidance regarding how to actually send an AE thread over to ArbCom, I've included everyone who has contributed to the prior AE discussion, and also tried to include everyone whose behavior was directly mentioned. I anticipate that the ArbCom will probably narrow the list down before proceeding.

If you'd like to join the discussion about a new template for referring over AE cases to ArbCom, which would have guidance on what to include/not include going forward, there's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Template for referrals from AE that may be of interest to you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

Hi RTH. Do you not consider yourself WP:INVOLVED in the I-P topic area (to the point where you shouldn't comment as an uninvolved admin at AE), and if not why not? Levivich (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I don’t consider myself WP:INVOLVED broadly within WP:PIA, as I am not broadly a participant in the various disputes within the area in my capacity as an editor.

There are some particular disputes in the area for which I would not act an admin, such as in any RM in which I have !voted, or any AfD/merge discussion in which have !voted, or user conduct disputes arising from comments made in other content discussions in which I’ve participated as an editor, but these are fairly rare for me within the broad Arab-Israeli conflict area. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 20:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Granted, Arab-Israeli conflict is a broad topic. What about the more specific topic area of Israel-Hamas war (current)? Is it your view that it doesn't matter how significant an admin's participation is in a topic area, they can't be wp:involved in an entire topic area, or is it your view that your participation in this topic area hasn't been significant enough to become wp:involved? Levivich (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not believe I am WP:INVOLVED broadly with respect to the ongoing hostilities. I do think that administrators who were part of a specific dispute can be WP:INVOLVED with respect to that dispute and, with respect to it doesn't matter how significant an admin's participation is in a topic area, they can't be wp:involved in an entire topic area, I disagree provided that one can narrowly/properly construe a topic area.

The basis for the guidance is that people can be incapable of making objective decisions in disputes [1] to which they have been a party or [2] about which they have strong feelings (numbers mine). I do think that admins who have been a party to a large number of contentious content disputes with a particular editor, or who has strong feelings about particular ongoing or past disputes, probably should not be the ones issuing sanctions against that editor or with respect to those disputes. If those disputes cluster around one particular topic area, then it would be wise for that administrator to avoid taking action themselves in that area.

For an example applicable to me: Roughly 10% of my edits to article talk pages are to Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China (far from the only talk page in the Uyghur Genocide topic area I have been active on), I have been active in the topic more or less since I started editing actively, and the topic has at times brought up strong emotions both with respect to content (such as when I was new and noticed content being removed) and with respect to harassment I have received on- and off-wiki. As such, I would never personally take a WP:GS/UYGHUR action that relates to civil POV pushing in the context of the persecution of Uyghurs in China, because I feel myself to be involved too much in the substance of disputes there to be an uninvolved administrator.

I just don't think that the extent and kind of my participation in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, or those of my participation in the narrower but still broad topic area of the ongoing war, renders me wp:involved broadly in either context. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Yesterday, Nishidani posted a list of 100 articles created since the war began. I went through the xtools for a few of them, and I was surprised to see your name come up over and over. I then looked at your xtools, and your edits to AE, and I was surprised by what I saw there. Maybe these tools and statistics are inaccurate, or maybe I'm misreading them, but here's what I saw:

• Talk:Israel–Hamas war is your all-time #3 most-edited article talk page, with 58 edits. These weren't "admin" edits (like reverting ECR or using OCA; 14 out of 58 were OCA), they were votes in RMs, commenting in content disputes, the usual stuff editors use talk pages for.
• You created Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip
• You are the #1 author of Kfar Aza massacre; #3 by edits; #2 by added text; that article is #14 on your list of all-time most-edited pages
• You are #6 by edits at Re'im music festival massacre
• All four of those pages are among your top 30 most-edited-pages all time.
• Your RFA passed on January 5, 2024. Your first AE post as an admin was in an ARBPIA-related AE thread on January 15, ten days later. Literally the first ARBPIA AE since you got the bit. I'm sorry to see this, but you're another of those RFA candidates who said they wanted to do things like speedy deletions, CCI--nothing at all about arbitration enforcement--and then you went straight to arbitration enforcement in a topic area where you were objectively one of the major contributors, and which objectively is among your major contributions
• Since then, you've consistently commented as an uninvolved admin at ARBPIA AE threads
• You were the most vocal to push for an arbcom case against the regulars
• You closed the last thread
• You listed yourself as uninvolved at your ARCA filing
• You did not disclose your involvement in the topic area at any of the AE threads or at ARCA

I think you should to disclose the above at ARCA, and move yourself from "uninvolved" to "involved" at ARCA and AE. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)