Talk:Ketanji Brown Jackson

Turn on Semi-Protection?

This individual is a possible candidate for nomination to the United States Supreme Court. I know now might be early, as the definite candidate has not been announced, but I believe it may be a good idea to semi protect even now. - Samuuurai (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Former clerk rewrites SCOTUS contenders’ Wikipedia bios

A former law clerk for a potential Supreme Court nominee embarked on a Wikipedia editing spree over the past week, bolstering the page of his former boss while altering the pages of her competitors in an apparent attempt to invite liberal skepticism, according to a statement from his fellow clerks.

(Redacted)

soibangla (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have redacted the above link under the same rationale as given here -- TNT (talk • she/her) 23:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@TNT: That rationale seems to have been removed. -Dervorguilla (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: For reference, the diff content was I have redacted the above link per OSPOL#1—connecting an account to an undisclosed identity contravenes our policy on OUTING. Please do not reinstate the removed content -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime, there is also the "Press" template on this talkpage and an editsummary with the Politico articles url at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

And of course at least 3 citations in the article atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Another question. What is the WP:OUTING position on citing something like the Politico article, not including a name based on it of course, but without including a link/url in the cite? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think of the Tenebrae example where he was allegedly able to hide under the WP:OUTING policy until a press article wrote about it.[2] Was there any attempt in the Politico article to link the edits to specific accounts? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added a banner noting the COI I would provide the Politico link but it seems it has been redacted. Horsemanofdeath (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(Redacted) -Dervorguilla (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC) 07:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hm. I've added {{press}} as usual and then saw this discussion. I would the say the cat is out of the bag, it's now well-known public information so there's nothing to out. Nemo 07:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be easily searchable public information at this point, that a former clerk has been rewriting this and other SCOTUS contenders' bios on Wikipedia. Tony Tan · talk 07:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's on Daily Mail now too, but afaik, WP:OUTING makes no allowance for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

UPE tag

@Mhawk10: Why is a COI tag insufficient for cleanup purposes? I've used both COI and UPE tags multiple times (as you alluded in your edit summary), but never used both of them at the same time – they strike me as overkill together. I'm unable to link to the RS that led to the both of us making our different decisions for good reason, but we both know the nature of the relationship between the subject and the editor's alleged identity. We both know that the source did not mention paid editing. We do know that the source stated that there was a conflict of interest. So why is the UPE tag necessary? Sdrqaz (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I am unaware of convincing evidence that this editor was paid for their Wikipedia work. In the spirit of not overtagging high visibility articles about indisputably notable people, I have removed the UPE tag. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't even see the need for a COI tag here. As is usual with "current topics", the article is overblown and excessively detailed (every ruling that's verified is notable?), but that is unavoidable. There was one editor with a clear COI, and I blocked them--their edits no longer stand. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I've reviewed all of the edits this user made to both this page and those of other judges. To the extent any content he introduced on this page was more favorable or flattering than is compliant with WP:NPOV (something I am not especially convinced is true), it's already been removed. All of his other remaining edits are appropriate, and so I was about to remove the COI tag from the article (which another editor did while I was editing). I've also restored the substance of his edit here. He was correct that the WaPo article, which summarizes the confirmation hearing, does not contain any mention of questioning regarding reversed decisions. ÷seresin 23:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)