Talk:Brett Kavanaugh

Should information be added clarifying Kavanaugh’s position on pursuing litigation against a sitting president?

In his 2009 article, Kavanaugh addresses this criticism, writing, “The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and in- vestigations until the President is out of office.” Should this sentence be added in the scholarship section after the Washington Post source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Users Helping World (talk • contribs) 12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

At some point, information like you suggest was added to that section--it now says that his opinion was, the President should be impeached and then subject to litigation/indictment. — Narsil (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Should Gorsuch be mentioned in the lede?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for the inclusion of the sentence in its current form. I am unprotecting the article. This sentence should not be reinserted without discussion and a consensus being reached on this page. If it is reinserted without consensus the editor who does so will be subject to any discretionary sanction an uninvolved administrator deems appropriate. KnightLago (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

---

{{rfc|bio|pol}}

Should the edit mention that both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are originalists? This is the proposed edit:

Both Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch were co-students together at the same Jesuit school prior to law school and both are originalists.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging editors from above discussion: JohnWickTwo, Lord Monboddo, JTRH

References

• Oppose The lede already mentions that the Trump administration considered Kavanaugh an originalist. His schooling is discussed in the article. The cited sources don't say anything about Gorsuch being an originalist and even if he is it doesn't seem to be relevant for the lede of this article.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We should not make comparisons that are not sourced. The cited sources do not mention originalism. Neither should we. Lord Monboddo (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support strongly. There are multiple reliable sources stating that Kavanaugh is an originalist and multiple sources stating that Gorsuch is an originalist. Their schooling relationship to one another is also already established in the main body of the current Kavanaugh biography article as it stands. The statement in the lede section is also useful to readers of the article who study the voting patterns of the Supreme Court and the adjudication patterns of the Supreme Court. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - the existing lead "Kavanaugh as "a stalwart originalist"." is summary of the article section on his legal philosophy per WP:LEAD. A mention of other originalists Gorsuch (or Thomas) woud not follow WP:LEAD as it is not within the article. It also is not commonly covered, and is a bit WP:OFFTOPIC -- this is the bio page for him, not a comparison article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• The comparison of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch "is...within the article". It is discussed in the 'Early life and education' section of the article discussing their demographic similarities. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Invalid RFC format. If you are proposing a valid RFC for the edit then you should restore the article to the original version prior to your edit warring. Your edit warring has been reported for administrator protection to restore the article to its condition being discussed by multiple editors in the section above. If you wish to start a valid RFC, then stop edit warring and restore the article to its condition prior to your forcing your version of the edit into the article. An RFC is procedurally out of sequence and not valid until you restore the article to its original condition prior to your forcing your version of the edit into the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe your claim is supported by the Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Could you please explain from that link to our RFC procedure? Rmhermen (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Rmhermen: It appears that Seraphim has fully withdrawn from editing the Kavanaugh article in his statement at RFPP and on his Talk page. I was planning to consider archiving temporarily this pre-RFC that Seraphim started here and allowing the Talk page discussion above to continue until consensus is reached. Whatever consensus is reached by the multiple editors in the Talk section above would then go into the article. If you want this Seraphim version of the RFC to take place then it will be with his having stated his already withdrawing from further editing of the article. I will say that all of the other editors participating in Talk here have been following all the proper Talk page procedures, and that should normally result in a consensus edit being quickly determined mutually among the editors. I will await your advice if the Serfarim RFC should be temporarily archived since Seraphim has withdrawn from editing this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: It appears that Seraphim has fully withdrawn from editing the Kavanaugh article in his statement at RFPP and on his Talk page. I have left a note to Rmhermen above to request advice if this pre-RFC left by Seraphim should be temporarily archived since Seraphim has stated that he is no longer editing this article. Perhaps both of you can advise on the best path to take here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• @JohnWickTwo: As an involved party you have no authority to force-close the RfC, and "restoring to the original version" would mean restoring to the version before you made the contested edit. Per WP:BRD, you should have started a discussion to form a consensus as soon as your edit was reverted. The fact that you're attempting to prevent discussion and restore your edit to the article anyway is not good. Swarm ♠ 23:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• The Talk discussion was already underway with multiple editors participating on the version of the edit as it was placed in the lede on 3 August. After the discussion was well underway with multiple editors, then Seraphim began to try to delete it without consensus having yet been reached on the Talk page, and was put on warning for doing so by KnightLago on his Talk page. KnightLago then protected the page. No one noticed that Seraphim had tried to start this pre-RFC while the page protection was being put into place. The initiator of this pre-RFC, Seraphim, has since stated that he no longer wishes to further edit this page by his statement on the RFPP page. I have no authority of any kind to archive this RFC (it was made a regular RFC by Rmherman after the page protection was made by KnightLago) and I will do whatever @Redrose64 and Rmherman: require since the original writer of this RFC, Seraphim, has stated that he has withdrawn from further editing this page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  Please focus on content, not contributors, going forward. Page protection is specifically a measure to force discussion and is not an endorsement of either side of a dispute. If your problem was your edit being reverted "without consensus", then there is now an RfC open to settle the matter and you should have no problem with that. It's up to you whether to participate but there is nothing wrong with the RfC and it's inappropriate to try to prevent dispute resolution measures. Swarm ♠ 00:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• One editor has been adding material to the lead likening Kavanaugh to Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, or, especially, Scalia. That editor does not provide a source that supports the claim, although they do include citations to sources that do not. The editor’s logic seems to be that because those judges are all originalists, they are all alike. User:Snooganssnoogans, User:1l2l3k, User:FinalForm, and User:Seraphim System have removed the unsourced claim. JohnWickTwo has reposted it a half-dozen times.

We should not include the likening. It is unsourced. The sources we have, from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the National Review, indicate Kavanaugh is dissimilar to Scalia or Gorsuch. Professor Akhil Amar, a leading exponent of originalism very different from Scalia, praises Kavanaugh precisely because he is dissimilar to Scalia. It is far too early to make ideological comparisons between Kavanaugh and others, especially comparisons that are contradicted by the sources we do have. Lord Monboddo (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• The proposed sentence makes it sound as though the reason that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are both originalists is that they went to college together. That implies causality. One, did they know each other and influence each other's philosophy as undergraduates to the extent that it defines them both as jurists 30 years later? Two, most judicial philosophy is formed much more strongly by law school rather than by undergraduate education. Is the editor arguing that their philosophies were formed in college, not law school? Can that be documented? Three, slightly off topic, the proposed phrasing contains several redundancies. "Both," "co-students," "together" and "same" are not all necessary. "Kavanaugh and Gorsuch attended college together" makes the same point, but again, that's only relevant if the undergraduate education is being presented as the cause of the judicial originalism in both of their cases. I haven't read through this entire discussion, but I repeat the point I raised previously: Why does the editor seem to feel that it's absolutely necessary for a discussion of Kavanaugh's originalism to raise a comparison to some combination of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, particularly when it hasn't been sourced? JTRH (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  There are multiple reliable sources for Kavanaugh being an originalist and for Gorsuch being an originalist. Wikipedia articles for jurists often discuss Voting alignment among the judges which readers find to be useful and notable. Analysis of Voting alignment on the Court usually involves looking at both history and demographic background of judges in order for analysts to assess the voting patterns of judges in deciding potential cases brought to the Court. The current Kavanaugh biography covers some of the demographic similarity between Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. They are both Roman Catholic, and they are both church members of the same orientation within Catholicism following the Jesuit approach to Catholicism. They are both pro-life according to reliable sources, and they were educated at the same school prior to law school during over-lapping years. These are notable demographic similarities for readers who study Voting alignment on the Court and has been significant to readers of Wikipedia biographies for many jurists in the past. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  Kavanaugh is an originalist. Gorsuch is an originalist. They overlapped in college. All true, but none of that has apparently produced a source explicitly comparing the two of them or relating their philosophies to each other, and yet that's the connection your edits keep asserting. JTRH (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  The literature on comparing Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in reliable sources is extensive. The New York Times article here [1] compares them as both being conservatives, and compares them also to other Judges already on the Supreme Court. Another reliable source from July 9 also places the two judges as having closely related conservative orientations by name here [2]. A third source is the Washington Examiner here [3] which indicates Trump as choosing Kavanaugh because he is aligned with Gorsuch. That is 3 of the reliable sources regarding Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, and there are many more reliable sources regarding the comparison of the two of them. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  The sources, yet again, do not say what you say they say. The New York Times graphic explicitly says Kavanaugh: “may be less conservative than Mr. Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch”. It then goes on to list statistical metrics that show Kavanaugh as “more liberal” than Gorsuch. The USA Today opinion piece you cite likewise actually says: “it’s likely that he will be another sturdy conservative, somewhere between Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts.” Which is to say, with Roberts now the man in the middle, that Kavanaugh is more moderate than Gorsuch. Neither source ever mentions originalism.

  The James Dobson Family Institute opinion piece in The Washington Examiner you cite does explicitly liken Kavanaugh to Gorsuch and Judge Amy Coney Barrett, and praises him on that basis. This may, perhaps, be a usable source to support a claim that some evangelical organizers favor Kavanaugh’s nomination. Their opinion is not, however, a usable source to support underlying factual claims about Kavanaugh’s ideology, especially claims that are contradicted by our other sources. Lord Monboddo (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  Your comment here appears to be accepting that all 3 articles plainly refer to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by name as "conservatives", and that is the purpose of my presenting these 3 articles. One of them even quotes Trump as stating that he chose Kavanaugh because he resembles Gorsuch as a Judge. There are already multiple reliable sources which tell everyone that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are 'originalists', and now I have just added 3 reliable sources which tell everyone that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are both 'conservative' Judges as well. The fact that they are not identical conservative judges looks like it is secondary to the direct quotes in the 3 reliable sources that I have given here which indicate that they are both "conservative" Judges. The 3 sources I have listed above are the first 3 reliable sources given on Google search for this comparison which lists over a dozen reliable sources giving quotes for Kavanaugh and Gorsuch as both being "conservative" Judges. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal Life: He incurred a debt...

Is that really worthy information for an encyclopedia? Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Support removal I don't think this adds important encyclopedia information to the article, it seems more like gossip/human interest style reporting. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Trivial info, non encyclopedic. He also sleeps with his eyes closed, but that is non-encyclopedic as well. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Remove. Trivial financial disclosure with some spin from the White House (which released the baseball story in July) - no lasting significance for a supreme court justice - it is interesting now, but it would not pass the 10 year test.Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Thanks to Seraphim System's complaints about my reducing redundancy, providing context, and restoring a deletion made by an IP editor, I looked at the original stories about the issues in question. This article about Kavanaugh's acquisition of considerable consumer debt is particularly germane and I think the issue should be included. During one year He racked up between $15,000 and $50,000 in a total debt of up to $200,000 on three credit cards and similarly sized loan. The explanation about why he did this, in part buying season tickets to Nationals season games and playoffs for friends, and for which he was reimbursed, frankly is a bit confusing. If he was reimbursed why did he continue to carry the debt, for instance, and why didn't they buy their own tickets? It's an important issue. Here's a story on it that is not reflected in our Wikipedia article. [4] Activist (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wapo is paywalled - however the 11 July credit-card thing was spin pushed out by the WH (and carried by several outlets - e.g. Vanity Fair - [5] - they all took a bite at this planned release) and is all together meh. This Chicago Tribune piece from August 2018 is a bit more detailed on various aspects - but I'm still at meh - it's all rather mundane financial disclosures (part of any vetting process for a candidate of this caliber) for this position and income level.Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There is already an open discussion about this in another section. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think WaPo is only paywalled after one reads more than five articles per month. Lots of other media took note, without penciling out what it really meant. I don't think the debt is meh at all. For whatever reason, they accumulated high interest credit card and a similar-sized loan debt in a year which exceeded the annual family income after taxes and FICA, etc. (She wasn't working.) They bought their house in 2006 for $1.2 million. That's another $80,000 a year in interest (in July 2006, benchmark mortgage interest was 6.79%), plus property taxes, etc. The credit card interest on $200,000 in 2006 was, at the "nominal rate" of 14.73%, about another $30,000 a year. The kids' tuition at a Catholic school was over $10,000 each. That may be the tip of the iceberg. Clearly, they were way over their heads. Activist (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The WaPo source says its just a routine financial disclosure. It also says all his debt has been paid off, with the exception of a mortgage. There is nothing in the source that supports the above comments - please remember that WP:BLP applies on the talk page. This is routine news coverage that doesn't seem like it will have any lasting significance for a BLP of a Supreme Court justice. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This should probably be moved to the section you mention, I assume, "SS". Activist (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Judicial Common Space score

I changed this to reflect that the score is calculated based on the president who appointed the candidate to the federal bench and I updated the citation to Boston Globe. This wasn't made clear in the previous version of the edit, possibly because it wasn't clear in the underlying source Five Thirty Eight - this source is not preferred for law articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Rollback requested to KnightLago yesterday evening at time of page protection being removed. You are editing while ignoring Talk page discussion on your Talk page. Temporary full page protection is requested. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

My talk page is not the right place to discuss article content.Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires that your Talk page be contacted when you are violating BRD and requests to start Talk as required by BRD policy which may require intervention for you to stop violation of BRD. You were requested yesterday to stop deleting material from the article and to start Talk page discussion following BRD and you have ignored these requests. Please return the article to the last neutral point of editing when KnightLago removed page protection a day ago and start Talk page discussion to make consensus before continuing your edits. You are refusing BRD and you are using one-click archiver to ignore requests for Talk page discussion on your Talk page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reached the bounds of my patience with this article. See here. I did not like leaving the article fully protected for more than a week and do not intend to do so again. Editors should seek consensus. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a great way to establish consensus. Go read that. Seriously, go read it and come back. From now on, if you do not believe an edit will be controversial, make one edit. If it gets reverted, come to the talk page and form consensus. If you do not follow this direction you will face sanctions. The article is now on a one revert restriction. If you revert more than one time in a 24-hour period and it is not to remove clear vandalism you will be sanctioned. The easiest way to handle editing in controversial areas is to think about your edit. If you think the edit in anyway may be controversial, do not make the edit. Instead, start a talk page discussion about your proposed edit. You may be surprised when everyone on the talk page agrees with you or even helps you improve your proposed edit, thus, improving the article and avoiding conflict. Improving the article is not only a goal everyone should aspire to, but avoiding conflict when possible just makes everyone have a better editing experience.

Addressing the latest conflict, discussion about the article should take place on this page. As a courtesy, please notify anyone whose edit(s) you are discussing by leaving a notification on their talk page. It should not be an argument on the merits, but merely a courtesy notice directing them back here so everyone can be involved in the discussion. I am not going to hunt the entire wiki to determine consensus. Discussion has started here, please continue discussion here until there is a consensus. Again, all editors involved are highly encouraged to read BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If someone believes a policy violation has occurred that warrants action now in light of what was on this talk page, and Wikipedia's general policies prior to this edit please contact me directly and provide differences. If there are any questions, please contact me directly on my talk page. KnightLago (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, to be clear. I am not going to look highly on someone who reverts but then does not engage in discussion on this talk page moving forward. One revert and the immediate initiation of discussion about that revert is required. KnightLago (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@KnightLago: I'm not sure this is a good idea on a law article, moving forward, where many of the updates will be be about legal decisions, but we can give it a try. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Right now it has a lot of focus due to the politics involved. Once the current attention resolves one way or the other, the article's status can be reevaluated. I would be open to reevaluation even sooner if everyone starts to edit from a consensus based approach. I think once everyone understands how to do this properly things will calm down. I am going to be actively monitoring to make sure everyone follows the guidelines I have put in place today, but it is going to remain under increased scrutiny until we stop having these issues. KnightLago (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@KnightLago: Thank you, it's a lifetime appointment, so we'll probably see less politics and more law and we move past confirmations. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Should sexual harassment allegations against Judge Kozinski be discussed in the article?

I recently removed a large edit that shuffled content around and added a lengthy section about Judge Kozinski here [6]. However, after the removal of this section which needs consensus to be reinstated, there is now no mention of sexual harassment allegations against Kozinski. Should this be mentioned in the article? Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No. This is Kavanaughs article. The allegations against Kozinski, and Kavanaugh's response regarding them has had no meaningful impact on the life or career of Kavanaugh, and such content is WP:UNDUE for the BLP of Kavanaugh. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No. It is a WP:COATRACK issue. Marquardtika (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the diatribe against Judge Kozinski should be removed. Prior to the added material, the article read: "Kavanaugh recalled his time in Kozinski's chambers as demanding a very heavy workload but says he had no knowledge of the allegations against Kozinski of sexual harassment." The user who added the new material retained that sentence while, inexplicable, removing its source. I feel that the source, The New York Times, did a good job advising the reader of Kavanaugh’s response to the controversy without getting off topic. The original sentence and its source should be restored. Lord Monboddo (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The original version of the edit was brief and stayed on-topic. I would not object to restoring it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say no, unless there are reliably-sourced specific indications that he knew and didn't act. He might just have been too focused on the work to notice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Marathon

I reverted some recently added content as overly detailed. Which of these versions should be included in the article?

Version A Kavanaugh is an avid runner who has run the Boston Marathon twice. In 2010, when he was 45 years old, he finished the course in 3:59:45, one hour, fifty-three minutes and fifty three seconds behind the winner. In 2015 he finished the race in 4:08:36.

Version B Kavanaugh is an avid runner who has run the Boston Marathon twice. In 2010, and in 2015 he finished the race in 4:08:36.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Which version should be included is a Hobson's Choice. The question is, should his "avid" running be mentioned at all? He is an extremely mediocre runner. Runners, after their thirties, tend to slow down with age, which is why I added it, providing explanatory context. However, by contrast, Sister Marion Irvine never ran at all until she was almost 50. She ran 3:01 in her first marathon when she was over 50, and eventually ran 2:51.01 (one hour, eight minute and 44 seconds faster than Kavanaugh when he was eight years younger) when she was 53 years old, qualifying for the Olympic Trials. Elite race walkers, who are restricted to always having one foot on the ground, and who have to keep their lead knee locked until they are fully upright, cover the marathon distance in less than three hours. You are worried about "detail," yet you want to consider restoring the text, "...he finished the course in just under four hours (3:59:45)," presumably for those Wikipedia readers who are unable to calculate that his time was 15 seconds faster than four hours. The winner in 2010 finished in 2:05:52. Kavanaugh's marathon time, avid runner or not, may the equivalent of a duffer being a 75-handicap golfer, but I don't play, so don't take my word for it. You asked for feedback, but reverted my edits without getting any and are one revert short of 3RR. Activist (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please avoid BLP violations. A 4 hour marathon is not a bad result for an amateur running enthusiast. It is a relevant bio detail, as (for most people) being in shape to just finish a marathon requires significant training (or time investment).Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Version B (with further reduction in detail - so version C) - "Kavanaugh is an avid runner who has run the Boston Marathon in 2010 and 2015.". I've run a marathon - in my bio or self-description I don't mention my time, and usually don't unless I'm going into the nitty gritty details with someone who is interested in running. For amatuer runners - it's usually only the participation that really counts as a notable bio detail. Now - if Kavanaugh had done this below 2:40 hours, then maybe that would be worth a mention, but not a "normalish" result.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Version C Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Support version C. Version A contains accurate and relevant text which I supplied. Version B's second sentence is poorly punctuated and contains an inaccuracy: He did not run 4:08:36 twice. Activist (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Version C, but I could get behind a version of A that left out the comparison to the winner, and maybe used language like "completing the race in around 4 hours both times". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Version C עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Version C unless someone wants to argue that his marathon time is relevant to his qualifications for the Supreme Court. JTRH (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Changed to Version C per apparent consensus. Daask (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Persistent Disregard for WP Sanctions by Multiple Individuals

I've noticed there have been quite a few cases of flagrant disregard for the sanctions in place on this article. As per them no individual is entitled to revert more than 1 edit every 24 hours. As of now two admins and three users have violated this in the past hour. While in some of these cases it was merited, in others it wasn't. Furthermore much of this edit warring could've been avoided by simply holding dialogue and asking them to remove personal bias. There are criticisms of Kavanaughs appointment, these should be reported on, as should criticism of democrat conduct as both of these things are current events and should be brought up. While sources were inadequately cited and sometimes questionable, these edits did not constitute vandalism, and in one case a users post was outright reverted as vandalism when it appeared to be a fully legitimate attempt at a constructive edit. I would like to request that User:Kn0w-01, User:Drmies, User:Oshwah, and User:155.52.187.12 Actually attempt to discuss their gripes out rather than unconstructively violating WP sanctions, something that Kn0w-01 actually called out Drmies for, albeit in an incredibly hostile unproductive manner. I feel this would allow us to properly add information to this article without risking everyone leaving this hating each other and leaving minor errors across the article as repeated reverts tend to muck with things quite a bit. Jyggalypuff (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Well, said Oshwah has 368,169, and while I have a few less, I think we both have some experience and some knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies between the two of us. What appears to be legitimate to you might have been a BLP violation or a forum post to us. And please don't patronize two administrators by doing away with their concerns as "gripes". Drmies (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussed this off page with Drmies, I misunderstood the situation and I apologize for that. Jyggalypuff (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Attempt to Edit-war in ABA recommendation

This addition about the ABA giving the candidate the highest rating is WP:PROMO. Let Me Help 2018 has continued to try to edit-war this material in, despite warnings on his/her talk page. This needs to stop. Another editor William M. Connolley has also objected and removed this new addition. William M. Connolley's edit-note says: "The ABA "WQ" doesn't deserve such prominence. It belongs ni the nom section, if at all here. But Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination doesn't feature it prominently. also needs a cite, of course." I agree. The material does not belong in the WP:LEDE. This new editor needs to follow WP:BRD. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, now it appears as if an IP editor is trying to add this information back in the lede. If it continues, semi-protection may be a good idea. In spite of the edit war, though, I believe that Brett Kavanaugh's new ABA rating of "well qualified" should belong in the article (not in the WP:PROMO way it is written right now), especially since his previous rating of "qualified" is mentioned. I propose to have a sentence somewhere under the Tenure as U.S. Circuit Judge (2006–present) section mentioning that the ABA has given him the "well qualified" rating. Potential sources could include the ABA journal or the National Review. Thoughts? Hickland (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree -- on all points. The need for page protection appears to have been taken care of with this edit. I would support further protection if more disruption occurs. The material in question is being added for selling the candidate for the confirmation process. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)