User talk:Awilley

Awilley — User talk — Contributions — Email

Welcome to my talk page. Please click here to leave me a message.

Picture of the day

The Death of Marat is a 1793 painting by Jacques-Louis David depicting the artist's friend and murdered French revolutionary leader, Jean-Paul Marat. It was painted when David was the leading French Neoclassical painter, a Montagnard, and a member of the revolutionary Committee of General Security. Created in the months after Marat's death, the painting shows Marat lying dead in his bath after his murder by Charlotte Corday on 13 July 1793. Art historian T. J. Clark called David's painting the first modernist work for "the way it took the stuff of politics as its material, and did not transmute it".Painting credit: Jacques-Louis David

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

My talk page: CharlesShirley

Material copy-pasted from User talk:CharlesShirley

"This material is positive and we should be adding negative material about how this person said racist things" [my paraphrase] is not a good rationale for removing reliably sourced material from the biography of a living person. ~Awilley (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Thank you for your opinion. It is your opinion. It is not necessarily correct and it is not necessarily incorrect. It is just your opinion. However, there are tons of reasons that her high cheekbones comment should be in the article. The most important reason is that it was her rationale for her beliefs that she was: (1) Indian, and (2) Cherokee. The rationale was mildly racist and ignorant and readers of Wikipedia should be informed of these facts. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Well make sure that you don't mistake your own opinion for a reliable source because it isn't one, and pushing unsupported opinions into the biography of a living person will likely get you sanctioned. ~Awilley (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Well make sure you know what you are talking about. There are reliable sources that call her comment racist. Now, you might not like it, but whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant. On the talk page I quote a reliable source who makes the point, that you personally don't like, that her comment about the high cheekbones is based upon racist stereotypes. Now, this is fact and you really should have known this already. But clearly you did not. You should do more research into the topic of the article before you provide your unsolicited advise. You can to my page with personal opinions and that's all. If you had done any research you would have known that tons of people find her initial comments to be the worst in racial stereotypes. Do more research next time. You really need to learn about your subjects before you spout your unsolicited opinions. - CharlesShirley (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC) You seem to be under the impression that I came to your talkpage to opine and argue with you about high cheekbones and racism. I did not. My comments above are a warning about engaging in specific behaviors that are not in harmony with the purpose of Wikipedia. Feel free to ignore my warning as "opinion" but be aware that if you continue down the path you seem to be on now you will receive a WP:Topic ban from Elizabeth Warren. ~Awilley (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. I did read this opinion piece assuming that's the one you are talking about, and personally I'm very sympathetic to what the author is saying, but I didn't come here to discuss that. ~Awilley (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Let me help you once again. You did not need to come to my talk page and warn me about anything. I have not said anything that would warrant a warning of any type. I am have not said anything that reliable sources have not stated in the past. You comments were and are unnecessary and unwarranted. You simply do not like the opinion that have of EW's initial comments about her dubious claims of: (1) being "Indian", and (2) being "Cherokee". As an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma I can tell you that I hold those same beliefs and I will not apologize for them and I will not be punished for having those beliefs. It is not your world and you are not in charge of it. Now, please stop immediately from coming to my talk page unsolicited and giving me your incorrect opinion. There is nothing that I have said which would support a "topic ban" from the EW article. Your personal opinion is incorrect and only designed to intimidate me and frustrate me from expressing my personal opinion that EW's comments were racist, an opinion that shared by many reliable sources. Now, please stop coming here. I have not reached out to you. You reached out to my talk page unsolicited. Please stop. - CharlesShirley (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC) It’s a good article. It talks to the complexity of the specific issue and the issue of bigotry in general. Let us not try to simplify the problem or use it to make a narrow point. Just my opinion. O3000 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Objective3000: Yes, it is just your opinion and you have a right to that opinion, just as I have a right to my opinion. You clearly don't like it but that's too bad. I'm not going to change my opinion and I will not be intimidated into not expressing my opinion as Awilley is attempting to do. - CharlesShirley (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Awilley: Based upon the back and forth above from my talk page I would like to hear the opinion of another administrator. Basically you have told me that I have expressed an opinion on the EW talk page and I have provided a reliable source which has the exact same opinion and you have threatened have me ban from the EW topic. I find your comments to be attempt by an administrator to intimidate and censor a fellow editor. My opinion that EW's initial justification for her claims was based upon a racial stereotype is the same opinion of many members of my tribe and it seems you are attempting to stop me from even bringing up this fact and attempt to work it into the article. It seems to me that you are letting your own personal opinion get in the way of being a fair and objective administrator. - CharlesShirley (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

If you feel the need to get a second opinion about a warning you are free to do so. ~Awilley (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Awilley: That is a good sign that you are encouraging a second opinion. It is one good step toward backing off your attempts to intimidate and threaten me into keeping my opinion about EW's use of a racist stereotype to myself. You have expressed your opinion that I have done something wrong, but yet you have not indicated what that something exactly is. The only thing that you have focused on is that you do not like me saying that EW's use of a false belief about all "Indians" is racist. I have pointed out over and over again that it is an opinion held by other reliable sources AND that it is based upon the words that have come directly out of EW's mouth. She quoted her Aunt that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones". It is false that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones". It is as false as saying that "all Indians" are "drink too much". These are called racist stereotypes. You have flat out told me that if I continue to talk to other editors on the talk page about this comment (a comment that was in the article for literally over a year) then I will topic banned from the EW article. This is a blatant misuse of your administrative powers. You have a different opinion about what I and other reliable sources have stated about EW's use of racist stereotypes and that is your right. However, you have gone far beyond that and told me that you will, as an administrator, have me topic banned if I continue to talk on the EW talk page about EW's use of a racist stereotype. I will not be intimidated or threaten in my attempts to have a quote re-inserted into the article that was in the article for over a year. A quote that is important and substantive and has been reported in a significant number of reliable sources. You have a right to your opinion, just like I do. But you don't have a right to purse a topic ban on me just because you don't like my opinion and the opinion of hundreds of thousands of reliable sources. Don't use your administrative status to intimidate other editors into keeping their mouth shut. You were wrong to threaten me with a topic ban of EW's article, regardless of your unwillingness to admit it. - CharlesShirley (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, you would be wise to listen to other editors, and Awilley who is one of our most even-keeled administrators. The advice that he gave you is on point. If you continue along the road you're on, you will probably end up sanctioned and prevented from editing the article at all. That's not a threat—it's a pretty reliable prediction. By the way, your membership in the Cherokee tribe (assuming that's factual) has absolutely no bearing on how we write articles. If anything, it may be a WP:COI issue if you are not able find distance between your personal feelings from the content in dispute. - MrX 🖋 12:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

MrX: I agree that my membership in the Cherokee Nation does not have any bearing on how we write articles for Wikipedia. But then again I have never claimed that it did. (BTW, I can flat out prove it if I had to.) But more importantly I have not said that EW is a out and out racist and everyone should see that as Awilley outlines below. I have pointed out in a pretty even keel manner over and over again that EW did use a racist stereotype when she said that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones". That's is. It is a fairly limited statement and it does not support or justify a topic ban. There are many editors who do not agree with my comment and they are very, very aggressive in their disagreement but that does not mean that I have said or done anything to support a topic ban. They just don't like me saying what I said about EW. - CharlesShirley (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I have left a polite note on CharlesShirley's talk page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley, Actually I never expressed an opinion on whether Warren's allusion to high cheekbones was racist, and as much as you seem to want to discuss that with me (and it seems everyone else you come in contact with) I'm not interested in discussing it with you.

Let me clarify what I warned you about, since that seems to be a source of confusion.

The first warning was about using something's "positivity" or "negativity" as a criteria for inclusion in a BLP article. That's not how Wikipedia works. The argument "We should include this in the article because it's about racism" doesn't work, nor does the argument "we should exclude this from the article because it's not about racism and the article needs to talk more about racism". That's warning number 1.

The second warning is about what we call MPOV which is basically you assuming that your point of view is the correct and neutral point of view. An example of something that would violate this warning would be if you went around saying something along the lines of "Elizabeth Warren is a racist and everybody should be able to see that" without providing multiple high quality secondary sources that explicitly support your assertion. I'm not saying you have done this (if you had you'd probably already be topic banned), but I have noticed that the only source you seem to have provided is an opinion piece, which is not sufficient for the types of negative claims you're trying to make. You can learn more at WP:NEWSORG.~Awilley (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Warning #1 is unnecessary because I did not say that was a criteria that I use to include or exclude information from an article. You flat out either misquoted me intentionally or did not understand my point of view. I was making the exact same argument that you are: that using "positive" or "negative" aspects about a subject is NOT a valid standard. That's why I did not understand your warning in the first place, simply because I never said what you are claiming that I said. That's why it was unnecessary, but at least now I understand what you were attempting to get at. You yourself admitted that you thought from my response that I thought you came to my talk page to talk about EW's use of a racial stereotype. I am sorry that you did not make yourself clear or that your misunderstood my point about "positive" and "negative". Once again, I agree that it is not an accurate standard for inclusion. - CharlesShirley (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's review what you are so-called "warning" me about. I did not say what you just claimed that I said. I never said anything like it. What I have said is very limited: I have pointed out correctly that saying "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" is a racist stereotype. Also, I have provided a source for the comment outside of myself. Also, your second warning misses the point. I have not assumed that my POV is neutral. You do not have a crystal ball into my intentions or assumptions. You also created a strawman and attacked it. I have not stated that EW is racist and everyone should see that. You put words in my mouth and then you attacked that and earlier you threatened a topic ban for merely pointing that a huge number of members of my tribe find EW's claim that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" to be a racist stereotype. I never made the type of claim that you are stating above. This is a classic red herring attempt to deflect from what I have been saying all along. There is no prove that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" and therefore saying such a thing is a mildly racist stereotype. I said nothing that supports a topic ban. You just don't like the point that I have been making about EW's original defense of her claims of being "Indian" and "Cherokee". You have not given any real reasoning except for: Warning #1 twisting what I said to be the opposite of what I said (I agree that + and - is no standard to define what should be in an article) and Warning #2 attacking a statement that I never made and would never make instead of focusing on what I actually said, which is quite narrow in its focus (EW used a racist stereotype when he claimed that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones"). I have said absolutely nothing to justify a topic ban. The claim that I have is ludicrous. - CharlesShirley (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI there is nothing "so-called" about the warning you were given. Lot's of people are unhappy about suggestions their actions are inappropriate and that particularly applies when an administrator is involved. Accordingly, people are given lots of room to rant. However, sooner or later someone will assess whether continuation helps the encyclopedia—a conclusion of no would lead to sanctions. It would be best to focus on policy-compliant and actionable proposals to improve an article, and that should happen on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, you clearly have a conflict of interest. There exist a rather huge number of editors without such that can weigh in on your stated objections. Leave it to them as repetition rarely works. Friendly advice: You are now running into the Law of Holes. As several editors have informed you, this will not end well for you. Admins here can be remarkably patient. But, patience has its limits. There is only so much WP:ROPE. O3000 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification sought about your AP editing restrictions

Greetings Awilley. Could you please clarify your intent with regard to the BRD aspect of this? {{American politics AE/Edit notice}}

The way I interpret it is that, if my edit is reverted, both of the following conditions must be met before the edit can be reinstated

1. Wait 24 hours
2. Discuss on the talk page

I want to clarify that your intent is not that the editor must wait 24 hours after discussing on the talk page. I hope I'm correct, otherwise I may have to frogmarch myself AE for a proper thrashing.

Thank you. - MrX 🖋 22:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Your interpretation is correct. The 24 hours is from the time of your revert. That bit is spelled out more clearly in the talkpage version of the sanction template. The edit notice is very much abbreviated, which I think is common practice though I could be wrong. ~Awilley (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI help

See: WP:ANI#Persistent NOTBROKEN vios, no communication

Apparently no admin will do anything about that situation unless some number of ANI regulars (a) understand WP:NOTBROKEN and (b) care about it—the community consensus behind the guideline means little in the end. Apparently even three (3) experienced editors complaining independently on the user's talk page are not enough—or perhaps the issue lacks sufficient drama to get any attention.

The project sorely needs "cops" who don't need support from ANI regulars to enforce long-standing PAGs.

This IP's history starts on 5 December and includes dozens, maybe hundreds of NOTBROKEN vios. Who knows how many occurred on former IP addresses (this is just one of the many AmAzInGlY Excellent Reasons to require registration, but that's a separate issue). In the long term the failure to communicate is even more serious than the NOTBROKEN vios; Wikipedia simply cannot function without two-way editor communication.

The IP has now been quiet for 3 days, leaving us to guess what that means. Has the address changed? In any case I'm required to continue monitoring the contribs for that address. I really have better things to do.

I use ANI very rarely anymore, and this is why—it's usually a waste of my limited Wikipedia time. I guess my time expenditure has already exceeded two solid hours. Are you perchance willing to expend ~15 minutes to take action on this? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

[1] I'll try to remember to check in again in the next couple of days. ~Awilley (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

New DS

I restored two edits in this article with your new BRD rule [2]. I read "If an edit you make is challenged" as not applying because I didn't make the initial edits. Is that right? D.Creish (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

That is correct. ~Awilley (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

ONUS : CR

I removed some content based on the last sentence at WP:ONUS, which is part of WP:V. It then occurred to me that that sounds a lot like "consensus required", and it applies to all articles, not just a subset under restrictions. How do you resolve this? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It's true. The onus should be on the party trying to change the status quo, and that should apply everywhere. I'm not sure how to resolve the current dispute at the Elizabeth Warren article. Looking at things on the talk page and the way the content has evolved as it pops in and out of the article I suspect things will settle with a brief mention of the registration card as part of another sentence. Unfortunately for the next while I suspect it will be a battle against bloat about the Native American stuff in that article. I wonder if any of the folks trying to keep breaking news bloat out of the Trump article with 48 hour waiting periods and such will weigh in. ~Awilley (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

What is the difference between ONUS, which you say is good, and consensus required, which was removed apparently because it was bad? Simply the relative likelihood of a sanction, which was more theoretical than real anyway? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think CR was necessarily bad. Consensus is a core value here, and it is always required. But there are multiple ways of reaching consensus, and the rule "Consensus Required" was limiting editors to just one way: discussion on the talk page. Relaxing that rule allows people to, for example, explore compromise solutions through partial reverts/reinstatements, that often allow consensus to be reached more quickly than voting on talk pages. The ONUS is still on the people trying to add new material...they are still expected to start the talk page discussion, support their edits, and try to take into account the objections of the people opposing the change. ~Awilley (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Devin Nunes

Devin Nunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. Since you took responsibility of page restrictions at Devin Nunes and replaced "consensus required" provision with "entrenched BRD", I have a question for you.

This discussion has been stalled since July. Nobody can explain why the article says "Nonetheless, deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe resigned due in part to the Nunes memo". There is perhaps consensus for removing that specific part, but leaving only the latter fragment without mentioning Nunes memo would make zero sense.

I'm unable to come up with any compromise edit because I don't even understand what the dispute is about. Would it be okay to just reinstate my July edit or should I seek further input from a specialised noticeboard/RFC/another venue? Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything preventing you from reinstating that. ~Awilley (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Administrator changes

Evad37

There'sNoTime

Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ritchie333

CheckUser changes

There'sNoTime

Keegan • Ks0stm

Oversight changes

There'sNoTime

Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

V violation at Presidency article

I believe the Presidency of Donald Trump lead has inserted a line which has not followed V and LEAD. Where would it be best to ask for a policy clarification about “the cites and content are elsewhere” question ? RSVP

This was proposed by Starship.paint in the TALK, to dupe a lead line from another Donald Trump article re false and misleading statements, add a wikilink, and insert in the other article lead without the body or cites that other article had. Well stated by Starship with pings, opposed by me, supported by Volunteer Marek, then by Dimadick, then implicitly by MrX who put it into article. (Did not observe a 48 hour waiting period.). After implementation a 4th supporter Neutrality showed up. No further editors in the last week or so.

This direct-to-lead edit was not supported by the body or cites of the article it was placed. The question is whether V and LEAD are met when such supports are in another article.

Again, please suggest a venue to resolve the stance of V and Lead regarding support is in a different article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The best noticeboard for resolving issues of WP:V would probably be WP:RS/N. (WP:LEAD would probably be more relevant at WP:NPOV/N.) But I can't recommend that you run off and start some new noticeboard thread, as that goes against the whole WP:BLUDGEON thing I'm talking about. And I really have to question whether you understand WP:V. WP:V says that, Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. I seem to remember Starship.paint providing you with something along the lines of 15 reliable sources to support the material, including peer-reviewed academic sources. So I'm confused as to why you would think that WP:V isn't satisfied. Are you saying that those sources don't support the material, or that they are not reliable sources? Or is your concern that the sentence didn't have citations when it was copied over? (If that's the case a {{citation needed}} template is a good first step to resolving the dispute.) I don't think I understand what your concern is. ~Awilley (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Awilley The V question is whether support for a line must be in the article of the line. With just dubbing lead from a different article, the cites the line is based on will not be present in the article the text is, because they are not part of a lead, so the reader is not given the basis of the line. Similarly the LEAD question is that the inserted line is not summarising material of the article, it is copying from elsewhere. Starship offering potential cites in TALK (not for article) or adding a hyperlink (in article) to a third article seem not to answer the issue V of showing the reader the basis in the article. (Also because the line simply was not built based on those.) ‘Copying from another article lead’ seems about explicitly *skipping* V or LEAD. However, that brings up a technicality that needs a venue ... V says it must be verifiable, but does not literally say the verifiability shall be presented in the article. So I’m looking for a venue that discusses what V means. RSN ? Well lack of RS might not be the typical topic there, but it’s a candidate. Got any other thoughts for venue ? Hoping for something small focused to policy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

So the problem is a lack of inline citations? ~Awilley (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Awilley - usually cites are not in the lead because it’s summarizing content of the article per MOS:LEAD and summarizing article content that has cites. Adding in-line citations at the duped lines would be an approach to address having V for the insert in the article, though still not a match to LEAD of summarizing the article it’s at. Starship.paint offered about 10 cites I think, though it looked rather a herd of unprominent items so cites would be another debate - and usually I regard the goal being to have text reflect the body of pubs, and hunting pubs to support predetermined prose as inappropriate. I am still dubious about just editing straight in lead generally, here by copy-pasting from another lead is a twist on it and I’d like a venue to ask V and LEAD question about ‘just copy from one lead to another’. Still think RSN best ? Markbassett (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So the problem is that the new Lead sentences aren't representative of what's in the body of the article?

RS/N is the most appropriate venue I can think of for verifiability questions. WT:LEAD is another possible option for Lead questions. I can't recommend starting a new thread though unless you are able to clearly articulate the problem. It would be helpful if you would write in simple English, using complete sentences, and avoid shorthand/slang like "dubbing" and "pubs". And you definitely want to avoid wasting other editors' time with "bludgeoning" since that is what led to the sanction in the first place. ~Awilley (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Awilley OK, I put the topic out at RSN here, with pointers from WT:V here and WT:LEAD here pointing to it. Current thoughts seem to be either to backfill with some cites in the lead, and/or to have the body wikilink to a third article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother

This might be a bit odd but i have seen that you were the one who closed a recent AE appeal by Atsme, I lurk around many areas so did actually see that discussion at the time. But did not care because i never actually interacted with anyone involved. That changed the other day and so i come here to ask if could you perhaps have a word with them in regards to their edits to the fascism talk page and related dicussions(i am the IP so certainly disagree with them on content but... i feel there are serious issues)? I am not asking for saction but to perhaps give a warning that the battleground behaviour they show, the bogus and time wasting arguments(for example saying that calling fascim right wing equates to calling everyone a fascist and using it as a serious argument), twisting, misreading and misrepresenting sources and so on. In the end i don't care about them having differing views, but i do care about the way they waste time with nonsensical points to win some ideological battle or whatever the reason is someone stoops to such lows in discussion. I, quite honestly, actually expect this request to totally backfire on me but whatever, the atmosphere they create by their behaviour is toxic and time wasting so i rather speak up and try to remedy it. And if no one cares about it, i will just stop editing because there is no point dealing with that kind of nonsense. I understand it is contentious, obviously people disagree, argue, etc. ... But they are just wasting everyones time with the way they behave. They probably are a brilliant person away from anything politics... but close to politics? Sheesh... So again, sorry to bother. Feel free to do nothing, feel free to SPI or CU me, nothing to hide. I am not new in the end but just never made an account. Anyway, have a good day. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Awilley - these false allegations are retaliation over User_talk:Berean_Hunter#SPA_IPs and obvious harassment by this non-static IP user. The fact they know about my appeal and have conducted such research in a show of ill-will toward me speaks volumes to their being a "new" user. ^Atsme 📣 📧 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how many more times i have to say this but i NEVER claimed to be a new user. I just never made an account. I have been mostly lurking (and it is not like AN/I or arbitation/AE are hidden secrets, all of them are 3 clicks away from the main page at most)but also editing things rarely (random example of a talk page comment from about a year ago i could remember of off the top of my head), for years now. I said that numerous times now. I have no ill will to you personaly, i just disagree with the points you made and the way you made them. And you do realise that people can edit for years and years without ever making an account, right? And there is nothing nefarious about it. And i really do not want to claim i actually edited for years, i have very few contributions in total, i do read a lot on AN, ANI and the arb pages. I guess it is like my kind of soap opera or something, i don't know lol. But whatever, make of this what you will. If you care enough just read the couple of comments by Atsme and me in the RfC and Berean Hunters talk and make your own picture. Have a good day anyway and sorry for having brought this on you. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)