User talk:Valjean

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Talk page negotiation table

"The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view."
by Valjean. From WP:NEUTRALEDIT

"The quality of Wikipedia articles rises with the number of editors per article as well as a greater diversity among them."[1]

When all else fails, AGF and remember that

We Just Disagree
So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy.
There's only you and me, and we just disagree.
by Dave Mason (Listen)

Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier

Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier, an ABC News documentary with George Stephanopoulos and Christopher Steele.

On October 18, 2021, this ABC News documentary aired on Hulu. It is a legitimate primary reliable source that contains content usable at the Steele dossier and Christopher Steele articles. That which is primarily about Steele would only be used at his biographical article, while some other content may be used at both articles. While most content should be sourced to secondary reliable sources which comment on the documentary, our rules for the use of primary sources allow the careful use of the documentary for some details. I suspect the right place for some of the content would be in the "Legacy" section (maybe after changing it to "Legacy and later developments"), possibly as a subsection for the documentary. We'll see out it works out, as the topic dictates the location. It may end up being nothing. The documentary revealed little real news of consequence, but it does reveal info about methods, motivations, attitudes and consequences.

• ABC News, full trailer
• On Hulu

I am starting a list of RS for possible use. -- Valjean (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ABC News coverage Out of the Shadows: Christopher Steele defiant on dossier, says Trump still 'potential' threat Behind the dossier: Steele dismisses James Bond comparisons -- but dossier did leave his life shaken, stirred The four pillars In defending his work, Steele describes his intelligence reports as resting on "four pillars" of information that he believes have held up over time as accurate. "One was, there was a large-scale Russian interference campaign in the American election in 2016," he said. "The second was that this had been authorized and ordered at the highest levels, including Putin," he said. "The third had been that the objective of this was to damage Hillary Clinton and to try and get this rather unorthodox candidate, Donald Trump, elected," Steele said. "And the fourth was, there was evidence of collusion between people around Trump and the Russians." Behind the dossier: How Christopher Steele penned his reports -- and the fallout from his unmasking Behind the dossier: Christopher Steele not worried about facing charges in Durham investigation Confronting his critics, Christopher Steele defends controversial dossier in first major interview "Steele continues to defend ... a claim that Michael Cohen ... traveled to Prague in 2016.... 'I'm prepared to accept that not everything in the dossier is 100% accurate," Steele said. "I have yet to be convinced that that is one of them.'" Regarding one of his major sources for the pee tape allegation (there were others), "Steele, in response, told Stephanopoulos that his collector may have "taken fright" at having his cover blown and tried to "downplay and underestimate" his own reporting when he spoke to the FBI." This view is also mirrored by the FBI in the Inspector General's report. Here's what we already have in this article: "The Supervisory Intel Analyst believed this key sub-source "may have been attempting to minimize his/her role in the [dossier's] election reporting following its release to the public". Other coverage Christopher Steele, author of Trump dossier, defends report While the tape itself has never been revealed, Steele said he thinks it “probably does (exist), but I wouldn't put 100% certainty on it.” When asked why Russia has never released said tape, Steele said: "Well, it hasn't needed to be released. I think the Russians felt they'd got pretty good value out of Donald Trump when he was president of the U.S." ... Steele said Mueller's overall report reinforced the contents of his dossier. “There was a wholesale campaign that was organized by the leadership in Russia, that its aim was to get Donald Trump elected,” he said. “And there was a lot of evidence of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians, which they didn't report on and didn't admit, and in fact lied about.” ... When asked why Cohen would not admit to the alleged meeting despite already being convicted of other crimes, Steele replied: "I think it's so incriminating and demeaning. … And the other reason is he might be scared of the consequences." Ex-intel official who created controversial Trump Russia dossier speaks out Christopher Steele Defends Russia Dossier, Says Trump Golden Shower Tape "Probably Does" Exist Ex-spy Christopher Steele stands behind the thrust of his Trump-Russia dossier, even the salacious 'kompromat' https://www.axios.com/steele-defends-trump-russia-dossier-abc-interview-5bedc6db-254a-4979-9d82-0ac8041c2398.html "I stand by the work we did, the sources that we had," he tells ABC News Trump's "golden showers" reaction Trump's "golden showers" reaction to news of the documentary was a seemingly unprovoked rant that he "wasn't into golden showers". Several RS made the connection; his rant wasn't something "out of the blue". Sources, with attribution, for that event and connection.... https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-golden-showers-denial.html https://news.yahoo.com/trump-shares-thoughts-golden-showers-080306066.html https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/donald-trump-golden-showers-denial https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-golden-showers-republican-donor-event-1242797/ https://www.salon.com/2021/10/15/brings-up-golden-showers-unprompted-during-private-event-with-donors/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gop-fraud-claims/2021/10/14/f37887fe-2cfc-11ec-985d-3150f7e106b2_story.html "Unprompted, he brought up an unsubstantiated claim he had interactions with prostitutes in Moscow before he ran for president. “I’m not into golden showers,” he told the crowd. “You know the great thing, our great first lady — ‘That one,’ she said, ‘I don’t believe that one.’ ” Own thoughts A major objection to the golden showers allegation has been that some of the reports alluded to by Danchenko, who apparently didn't have the best sources for this info, came from "word of mouth and hearsay" "conversations with friends over beers" (IG Report). So be it, but people and RS often ignore that some of the seven sources were within Trump's own orbit (Millian and Cohen took it seriously) and workers at the hotel, not hookers and people joking in Moscow bars. It's a BS objection, because how else would any normal person talk about such a sticky, dripping, allegation? Of course, they'll make Trump the butt of jokes. When Moscow (and Saint Petersberg) hookers told of how their colleagues were involved in the incident, those rumors spread in the hooker community, and people always make such a topic into a joke and scorn. That doesn't mean the allegation isn't true. It's pretty much the only way such an incident would become known. So is it true? We don't know for sure, but it fits with Trump's character (he's known for sexual escapades and acts of hatred) and his own history with urolagnia (liking the sight of peeing). He liked it in Las Vegas, shortly before going to Moscow. Also, his own hatred of Obama is well-known, and it's entirely in character for Trump to come up with the idea of defiling that bed because of Obama. The Mueller Report contains a footnote that suggests that Trump may have heard that Russia had incriminating tapes of his behavior. On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen had received a text from Giorgi Rtskhiladze reporting that he had successfully stopped the "flow of tapes from Russia". Rtskhiladze told investigators that these were compromising tapes of Trump, and Cohen told investigators he had spoken to Trump about the issue. Rtskhiladze later told investigators "he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen". So Cohen did his job as fixer. He knew what Trump was capable of doing and took the rumor seriously, treating it as a real risk. He began to investigate, using his friend Rtskhiladze, who then started researching the matter. He also treated it as a real risk. We don't know how much back-and-forth correspondence there was between them; we only get one side, but there was obviously previous contact. After a while, Rtskhiladze reported back to Cohen with the good news that he had "stopped the flow of tapes". They believed there was a risk, enough to try to avert exposure. That was part of Cohen's job as Trump's "fixer". So whether it occurred or not, there was enough risk that Trump had done such a thing that Cohen treated it as real. Innocent people don't do this. Millian was also one of the sources for the pee tape allegation, and he was inside the Trump campaign. These actions lend much weight to the evidence that the incident may have happened as alleged. It remains one of the many unproven claims, but one that is likely true. Steele still allows that the pee tape allegation may not be true. This has always been his view, often expressed as a 50-50 likelihood. Steele's partner at Orbis, Chris Burrows, as well as Steele's wife, tried to talk him out of including it, but Steele followed standard MI6 practice, which is to include everything from all sources in your original notes. Later it gets checked for accuracy, and a final report might not include it. BuzzFeed short-circuited this process by publishing the unfinished notes without permission. The fault is BuzzFeed's, not Steele's. Steele knew that Putin's FSB often included sex tapes in their kompromat, so he couldn't ignore the reports. (I don't know if Steele also factored in Trump's personality and thus the likelihood of such actions. No one who knows Trump would be surprised if this turned out to be true.) Regarding sources, Steele shares the exact same view as the FBI, revealed in the IG Report, that when a source is exposed, they get scared and try to minimize their involvement. The "confidential source will often take fright and try and downplay and underestimate what they've said and done". (Steele) That's also what the FBI previously told Horowitz. Both Danchenko and Millian did that, and Steele agrees with the FBI. Those who accuse Steele of faulty logic should accuse the FBI, but I doubt they know better than the FBI. Steele wrote 17 memos which are now known as the "Steele dossier". He doesn't like the term "dossier" "because it wasn't a dossier. It's a series of reports on a live issue, the election campaign, running through time. These reports were not collated and presented in one offering, nor were they analyzed in detail by us. Effectively, it was a running commentary. It wasn't a dossier." Steele still believes that "the evidence suggests that" "Donald Trump was colluding with the Russians". Something different Steele included in Vanity Fair's The 2018 New Establishment List] "Golden-shower glory: The former head of M.I.6’s Russia desk compiled the infamous dossier that raised the possibility Donald Trump was vulnerable to Russian blackmail. Steele even grew a beard and went into hiding—merely adding to his mythic reputation on the left." Russia dossier author criticizes Trump, slams 'strange and troubling times' "The former spy, Christopher Steele, wrote to Vanity Fair shortly after he was named to the magazine’s “2018 New Establishment List.” ....[his comments follow]" Former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who compiled controversial dossier, breaks silence to criticize Trump Radhika Jones sets a new tone at Vanity Fair: 'My goal is to reflect the culture as I see it' "The 100-person New Establishment List featured Steele, the former intelligence officer, at No. 38. He has been in hiding, but he broke his silence by sending Jones a thank you note. He said he would have liked to attend the summit, but could not given his “present legal and political situation.” Template <ref name=" ">{{cite web | author-link1= | last1= | first1= | author-link2= | last2= | first2= | date= | title= | website= | url= | access-date= | quote= }}</ref> References

Great RS essay!

I've only just gotten to the end of the section on "Sources: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and have gotten so much out of it. Thank you for putting together this piece of research. Like! Platonk (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Platonk. Thank you. I assume you're referring to this essay. A couple others that are even better are these:

• How to create and manage a good lead section
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content

Valjean (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Trump collusion was very real

For this section.

(after the Mueller Report) Subsequently, the Republican-led U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report finding that interactions with Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik during the 2016 election by Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort posed a "grave counterintelligence threat".

Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, reacted to the report by writing an article titled "Senate Russia report proves Trump collusion was very real. But do voters care?" He described how "the report reveals how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort."

References

Evaluating sources in the AP2, Trumpian, post-truth era

Editors should reconsider how they evaluate sources. Any source that repeatedly sows doubt about the following proven facts is not a RS:

1. that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in a "sweeping and systematic" fashion;
2. that their goal was to put Donald Trump in power by harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton and increasing political and social discord in the United States;
3. that Trump and his campaign had myriad, illicit, secret links with Russians which they kept hidden and lied about;
4. that Trump and his campaign welcomed and cooperated with the Russian interference in myriad ways;
5. that the Steele dossier had no role in triggering the overall Russian interference investigation;
6. that Trump did not win the 2020 election;
7. that it was not stolen from him by Biden;
8. that Trump attempted to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 United States presidential election;
9. that the 2020 United States presidential election was the most secure in American history, and its results were not affected by any widespread voter fraud;
10. that Republicans have largely defended Trump's false claims of 2020 election fraud;
11. that climate change is caused by humans and is serious;
12. that vaccines are safe;
13. that Donald Trump is rarely truthful in any sense.

Those sources are the ones that should be removed and deprecated. We all know which sources do that and that those sources are often defended here at Wikipedia. The Washington Post and The New York Times are not such sources. -- Valjean (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A caution issued elsewhere

Caution issued
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Caution about pushing fringe theories Mr Ernie, please don't advocate for the "Trump is the victim of a hoax" idea in any way, shape, or form, whether you tie it to the dossier or other aspects of Trump/Russia relations. The dossier is not a "hoax", and Trump is not the victim of a hoax or witch hunt. The suspicions and investigations of Trump and his campaign are all inspired by his own dubious activities. You wrote: "The "collusion" stuff has always been a hoax grounded firmly in the Steele Dossier." The "hoax" aspect of that comment of yours was improper at Wikipedia and false everywhere. Here at Wikipedia, advocacy of fringe theories is forbidden activity. It's tendentious and unwikipedian. Keep that in mind. This response to soibangla, which you edit warred over, is a case in point: Readers who think Wikipedia is biased really only have 2 options. Argue with the editors on the talk page, who aren't going to go against Wikipedia policies, or just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these article subjects. While the former can be somewhat fun for people who like to argue, you'll eventually get sanctioned and lose the privilege to do it. So go with the latter. I don't choose which media I consume based on what Wikipedia says, but by what interests me personally. (18:59, 3 November 2021) Let's unpack all the meaning packed in that fateful quote, because you are indeed a reader "who thinks Wikipedia is biased". "Readers who think Wikipedia is biased" are those who do not agree with RS. You even recognize that to do what you want would be to "go against Wikipedia policies". You then advise to not "Argue with the editors on the talk page" and instead "go with the latter" ( "just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these [unreliable] article subjects") as if the latter are legitimate options. They are not. That was horribly unwikipedian thinking. Why deliberately go with unreliable sources? Why not agree with RS so there would be no need to argue with other editors? Instead, you violate your own advice all the time and argue with mainstream editors who get their views from the RS you don't like, You then admit that if you follow your own preference, you'd "eventually get sanctioned and lose the privilege to do it." So you admit that your preferences are blockable offenses. It appears that "what interests [you] personally" is what you read on unreliable sources. That's the only way I can interpret what you wrote when compared with your frequent pushing of views found in unreliable sources and conspiracy theories. (At least you're consistent and follow your own beliefs.) Instead of "ignoring" our articles, you should read them and their sources to learn what is factual. Let your mind be guided by evidence, not by "what interests [you] personally". After a long edit war with several other editors over that content, you restored it with an alteration: Readers who think Wikipedia is biased really only have 2 options. Argue with the editors on the talk page, who aren't going to go against Wikipedia policies, or just ignore these articles and get your info directly from these article subjects. Continuing to just complain about reliable sources and article bias isn't productive. (16:52, 4 November 2021) I guess you realized what part wasn't wise to utter out loud here, but you had already expressed your real disdain for our articles, for RS, and how you favor using unreliable sources. That cat is out of the bag, and we all know it. Please(!!) alter your beliefs, and, even if you don't, don't allow them to affect your discussions and editing, because it's quite evident when you are allowing that to happen. You can still do good work here if you're careful and avoid the political articles. IIRC, you have been warned several times by several admins that an WP:ARBAP2 topic ban hangs over your head if you continue to do as you are doing now. Some of your comments (like the ones above) violate our Advocacy and Fringe policies, so, if you want to avoid a topic ban or stay here at all, please follow my advice. -- Valjean (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia, AfDs and GNG

See also: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § I don't like it

When approaching an AfD, editors should ignore all problems with the article and ask themselves only ONE question: "Does this pass our General notability guideline (GNG)?" If so, !vote Keep, as that is the ONLY relevant question at an AfD. If the article appears to fail GNG, can it be rescued by finding more RS? Then advocate for that before !voting Delete. All other concerns and problems with the article are covered by WP:PRESERVE.

Fixing and improving, not deleting, is how we roll here, and bogus AfDs violate our "purpose" here, which is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," as long as it's found in RS. Editors who create AfDs for articles that pass GNG should be trouted for undermining the very reason Wikipedia was created. If they do it repeatedly, they should be topic banned from creating AfDs.

Editors who create articles often deal with bogus AfDs from editors who are ignoring/resisting our "purpose" here. They are forgetting that "not censored" is also aimed at what they are doing.

We need a "purpose" policy that can be cited when it's violated. AfDs are often attacks against GNG: Articles that clearly pass GNG are nominated for deletion, and the reason often turns out to be a hodgepodge of dubious arguments that collectively violate our "purpose" and are basically I don't like it. While no editor can be required to create an article or to make an edit, they certainly should be sanctioned if they get in the way of the creation of an article that passes GNG. This kind of extreme (actually very common!) deletionism is wrong. We should aid the creation of articles and content. We're here to build, not destroy.

Our job (purpose here) is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.

Editors must not exercise censorship; they must present all significant sides of any controversy and document the opposing points of view, and they must not shield readers from such views. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. Our goal is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and censorship seriously undermines that goal.

Because Wikipedia is created through inclusionism, another objection to deletion of content is that deletion "goes against the entire basic premise" of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. We try to build content, not break it down. Imperfect content is not removed, it is improved. Good faith editors should not be made to feel their work is in vain.

Wikipedia isn't just another encyclopedia. It aims to be exhaustive in an unlimited sense. It should be unlike all others in scope and size. It is the Internet Archive of knowledge. If a piece of knowledge is notable enough (mention in multiple RS), an article should be created for it, or (if only mentioned in one or two RS) it should at least be mentioned in an existing article or list. We need to be super-inclusive. I have an essay which deals with how NPOV deals with biased sources, and it touches on these subjects: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

User:Valjean/WikiPurpose

Fringe beliefs

Copied from User talk:Stiabhna#Fringe beliefs.

I'm trying to save you so you can end up a good editor. Read what follows with that in mind.

Like I wrote above, you are allowed to believe whatever you want, but openly advocating things that are pushed by unreliable sources and are contrary to what reliable sources say places you right in the middle of a "fringe editor" target. On your user page you have written your political beliefs:

1. Proud anti-vaxxer
2. Proud supporter of current President of the United States Donald Trump
3. The 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol was a coup perpetrated by Nancy Pelosi and the far-left Democrat Party

You should not be proud that you believe in that trifecta of misinformation. You need to catch up with the facts, so please read the following articles and their sources. :

1. Public health is not a private matter. Your actions can literally kill other people.
   Read: Vaccine hesitancy, Misinformation related to vaccination, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States, Measles resurgence in the United States
2. Trump is a former president, so never again call him the "current" president. That will likely get you blocked for forbidden advocacy of fringe beliefs. Trump uses both the "Big Lie" and "Firehose of falsehood" propaganda techniques.
   Read: Big lie# Trump's false claim of a stolen election, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, Trumpism, Firehose of falsehood
3. There is no evidence that Pelosi or the left-wing had anything to do with that coup attempt. Trump's supporters marched from his meeting at the White House to the Capitol and did what they did. Trump and his friends planned and inspired what happened that day. Even McConnell said it was all Trump's fault.
   Read: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol.

I hope you will bring your beliefs into line with the facts. Facts matter, and it's important to keep your beliefs up-to-date and always follow the evidence:

• "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford
• "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." - Bertrand Russell

Our articles are based on reliable sources, so you can generally trust them to be factual. Please believe them. -- Valjean (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Reminder of BLP

Stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

The article reflects sourced informal allegations of corrupt activities by Joe Biden, Viktor Shokin and Burisma. Nobody except you apparently pushes the notion that Hunter Biden acted corruptly, or was even in a position to do so, in this matter. There is talk in RS of potential investigations into whether he failed to register as a foreign agent and pay his taxes, but these are entirely different crimes, even in theory. I ask you retract, reword or cite all your claims suggesting there ever was alleged corruption by Hunter Biden. Stick to the three entities already named as possibly corrupt by the mainstream media or conspiracy theorists, please, if insinuations must be made at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

• From the Signpost team: How The Signpost is documenting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

• News and notes: Of safety and anonymity

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Kharkiv, Ukraine: Countering Russian aggression with a camera

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Western Ukraine: Working with Wikipedia helps

• Disinformation report: The oligarchs' socks

• In the media: Ukraine, Russia, and even some other stuff

• Recent research: Top scholarly citers, lack of open access references, predicting editor departures

• Wikimedian perspective: My heroes from Russia, Ukraine & beyond

• Discussion report: Athletes are less notable now

• Technology report: 2022 Wikimedia Hackathon

• Arbitration report: Skeptics given heavenly judgement, whirlwind of Discord drama begins to spin for tropical cyclone editors

• Traffic report: War, what is it good for?

• Deletion report: Ukraine, werewolves, Ukraine, YouTube pundits, and Ukraine

• Gallery: "All we are saying is, give peace a chance..."

• From the archives: Burn, baby burn

• Essay: Yes, the sky is blue

• Tips and tricks: Become a keyboard ninja

• On the bright side: The bright side of news

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

General consensus for determining reliability of an individual

Hi Valjean. With all your editing in areas of politics, I thought you might be able to point me to discussions that might suggest some general consensus on when a person is unreliable for information about his/herself. It seems like it should be an important note for addressing BLPSPS situations. Thanks for any thoughts on this. --Hipal (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hipal, so sorry for the delay in replying. I got caught up in other things and simply forgot this. I share your interest in this matter. There are certain people and journalists who have demonstrated so clearly their lack of honesty and/or neglect for journalistic ethics that they should be rated unreliable sources, IOW only usable in their own biographies per SPS and nowhere else. So far, people tend to reject these attempts as only sources, not people, are rated reliable or unreliable here. I'd like to see that changed for the most egregious cases. A few I can name: Trump, Kellyanne Conway (even her own husband agrees), Jones, Hannity, Carlson, Solomon, Greenwald, Hawley, etc. These are people who seem to have no regard for truth, or only their version of truth that is formed by ignoring widely recognized facts. Being earnest or well-meaning is not enough to be a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll dig further, and will be headed to BLPN at some point. The specific situation I'm dealing with are people who have given inconsistent or clearly incorrect ages for themselves. Very common in the entertainment industry, especially with people who are associated with looking a certain age. WP:DOB has had some good improvements recently, and may need some more. --Hipal (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your ongoing efforts and for extending an invitation to hear my take of the Talk:Biden-Ukraine_conspiracy_theory laptop segment. I just wanted to make sure you saw my latest entry, as it clarifies my opinion. Sorry for the confusion. ILMostro (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Serious commentary and analysis are always welcome. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Administrator changes

Firefly • Sdrqaz

Ad Orientem

Geschichte • Ryan Postlethwaite • Sabine's Sunbird • Wassupwestcoast

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my recent revert

Sorry! about my recent revert. I meant to check the diff for a different edit in recent changed but ended up reverting your edit instead. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 15:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand. When lots of content is reverted, it usually raises red flags of vandalism. In this case, I am carefully analyzing each entry and have found many entries that do not meet our notability requirements for lists. We are now down to a list of people who were already notable, or whose suicide made them notable enough for their own article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Not to be a bother

I saw your response on the Hunter Biden thing... not trying to be a pest in that regard and I can see the level of rhetoric is heightened. I don’t know if you wanted things to be bought to your talk page or posted on the talk page of the article in question so if I’ve done that in error, apologies. My question has more to do with taking a direct editorial position when things are still in a state of flux in many ways. As a result is the wording on the article even really correct at this point because so very much is still up in the air meaning that the article is making assumptions that would not necessarily be extended to people of different political views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This belongs at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Also, please sign each of your comments with four tildes. That is not optional. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Lauren Boebert a far-right politician

Collecting some information here. This is also happening at Candace Owens, another extreme right-winger.

From this addition, which was deleted:

far-right

Other refs mentioned in this version of the lead:

A conservative often described in the press as far-right and an ally of former president Donald Trump, Boebert had close ties with far-right groups such as QAnon, whose conspiracy theories she promotes, and praised the far-right extremist Proud Boys.

Note: "far-right extremist" added by me here.

but found in the body:

Multiple sources describe Boebert as far-right, but she rejects the label.

The efforts to whitewash her extremist far-right leanings and position are worrying and unwikipedian, but, considering who is doing it, unsurprising. POV protectionism of these extremist right-wingers is a pattern. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

References

May I briefly pick your brain?

Full disclosure, I recently have been speaking to SPECIFICO about something completely unrelated on their TP and I noticed some references in your recent comment there [2], and I was wondering if I could possibly get a brief opinion from you on policy/guideline stuff, no accusations or allegations - just pure technical stuff about NOTNEWS RECENT etc... Again, completely unrelated to that situation AFAIK. I do apologize to you and SPECIFICO for being nosy. If I am out of line I will apologize and leave it at that, no more questions asked. I will only ask if it is welcome. Sorry for crashing your page, have a peaceful day! DN (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

No problemo. Ask away. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! So my question is regarding mostly WP:RECENT, as I see it has been applied in a lot of different ways.

• Firstly, does it mostly apply to the lede or to the body, or does it matter?
• Second, there has been some discussion about when it is proper to apply RECENT, and when it is being misused [3] [4]. I have reached out to the project page and never received any feedback (see second diff in the previous sentence).
• Is it better to apply RECENT sooner or later, or is there a relative time frame for RECENT or NOTNEWS?

There seems to be an question in that some may believe it might lead some editors to overstep WP:DUE (from DUE)"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." It also seems to possibly encroach on WP:CRYSTAL, in that editors are not supposed to try to predict the future relevancy or WEIGHT of reliably sourced events etc...

• Is there a method or some kind of test to see if RECENT is appropriate?

Of course attribution seems like an easy solution, but then there is sometimes a pivot by those arguing RECENT to UNDUE, in that some editors state that said RS content will "not be remembered", or will fail WP:10YT which can sometimes seem like WP:OR to the other side. DN (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Before I forget, there is a possible WP:CANVAS issue, so don't ask don't tell is kinda important here. That's all, thanks! DN (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

DN, RECENT is one of the policies that is often misused, so I tend to avoid dealing with it. I see it as applying mostly to the body, since what happens in the body is what later determines what can happen in the lead. If the content added to the body is solid, well-sourced with multiple RS, and a significant topic, then it might be worth mentioning in the lead as it's no longer "recent" by that time. The policies you mention are nearly always subjective judgment calls that are thrown around in what I call "policy flag waving", as if their mere mention means something. It usually doesn't. I ask "Is the content properly sourced?" "Is it accurate, without censorship or neutering of what's in the source?" "If it's an opinion that might not be a fact, is it attributed properly?" Those are the things I care about. The DUE weight is determined by representation in RS. For fringe topics, that means that 90% of the article may be devoted to the mainstream POV, and the other 10% to documenting the existence of the fringe claim while briefly explaining it without promoting it.

I've seen RECENT and NOTNEWS used for content that is mentioned every single day by multiple very RS, with the oldest sources over a year old, simply because POV warriors still don't like what they say. That makes a mockery of those policies. That happened a lot at Steele dossier by one POV warrior, until they finally got tired of risking a topic ban for their battlefield argumentation and stayed away. Suddenly there was more peace and serious discussion, without any policy flag waving. I'm basically an inclusionist. See the top of my userpage. We are not paper, so we have the ability to document even the most minute details. We don't write summaries here. We should try to give full and detailed coverage of topics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights, it is very helpful. Cheers! DN (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

• News and notes: Double trouble

• In the media: The battlegrounds outside and inside Wikipedia

• Special report: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (Part 2)

• Technology report: 8-year-old attribution issues in Media Viewer

• Featured content: Wikipedia's best content from March

• In focus: Editing difficulties on Russian Wikipedia

• Gallery: A voyage around the world with WLM winners

• Interview: On a war and a map

• Serendipity: Wikipedia loves photographs, but hates photographers

• Traffic report: Justice Jackson, the Smiths, and an invasion

• Recent research: Student edits as "civic engagement"; how Wikipedia readers interact with images

• News from the WMF: How Smart is the SMART Copyright Act?

• Essay: The problem with elegant variation

• Humour: Really huge message boxes

• From the archives: Wales resigned WMF board chair in 2006 reorganization

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for emailing me

You make a reasonable point, however, I am involved in private conversation with a blocked user, trying to encourage them to act civilly. Perhaps unwisely, I did not expect comments from spectators. I hoped by my edit summaries I was expressing myself clearly to those not involved: Please allow me to have some space with the user without too much side talk, which can easily distract those of us on the autism spectrum.

On the merits I believe I expressed the appropriate caution that outing was a real concern. I am aware of several situations in which outing caused real pain and cost to a wikipedian and I don't wish that on anyone.

Thank you for expressing your concerns.

I have admired your important work for some time. Thank you for your stridency. BusterD (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding, and also for going to such lengths to help a struggling newbie. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If I have not misread, you called the user Carlos and referred to another language wiki (their native language); would you link to that account, I'm not seeing it clearly (I see two test edits on es.wiki)? Thanks. BusterD (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

He gives his full name on his talk page, and it's Spanish. A Google search reveals much more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice regarding subjects related to Eastern European articles

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I see you have also been warned about that subject. Your edit warring isn't good. Follow BRD and stick to discussion as you have deleted properly-sourced content with bogus edit summaries. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Vladimir Putin. Thank you. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The content is properly-sourced. Putin's claims of genocide are false and must not be allowed to stand alone, as RS have clarified the issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The above warning is about this BLP violation. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump's cooperation with Russian election interference

Soibangla, I saw your edit and added another one. This reminds me that we need an article documenting Donald Trump's cooperation with Russian election interference. Note that is not "conspiracy" or "coordination", but "cooperation", which amounts to collusion (which is not the same as conspiracy. See Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion).

The Steele dossier alleged misconduct, conspiracy, and cooperation between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the government of Russia prior to and during the 2016 election campaign. That cooperation continued into the 2020 campaign as the Russian interference has never stopped. The specific allegation was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". There are two elements there: conspiracy and cooperation (=planning to cooperate). Whether formal written or oral conspiracy happened (unproven) does not negate the fact that the cooperation did happen. (Just because the police may not be able to prove that two thieves "conspired" to steal jewels from a store, the fact they stole the jewels is the really important fact.)

Steele's sources accurately reported, long before the American media or intelligence knew, the three elements of Russian interference (to disrupt America, harm Clinton, and help Trump). They did this six months before U.S. intelligence announced the same findings using other sources. Whatever other faults the dossier may have ("unproven" isn't really a fault), its central theme was accurate, and several key Trump campaigners were convicted for lying about their roles.

Some of the elements of cooperation we know about are:

1. Trump planned with Russians in 2013, at the Miss Universe pageant, to run for president, one and a half years before he announced his candidacy. One Russian planner who claims to have helped said the planning started already in 2012.
2. Trump associates' secretive contacts with Russian agents in 2015-2016 all over Europe, reported to U.S. intelligence by the intelligence agencies of those countries.
3. Secret knowledge of Russian offers to help by sharing hacked emails at strategic times. This knowledge was not reported to the FBI, but lied about. (This created a situation where Trump was compromised (see Compromised (book)).) This was also the trigger for the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
4. Knowlege of WikiLeaks' possession and sharing of stolen documents
5. Favorable mentions of the work done by WikiLeaks
6. The invitation to hack Clinton
7. Welcoming of interference because of anticipation it would help him win
8. Aiding and abetting it
9. Lying about it (a constant theme)
10. Denying it
11. Minimizing its existence
12. Minimizing its effects
13. Refusal to take actions to stop it or warn about it
14. Trump's refusal to ever say anything negative about Putin, widely seen as partial evidence that he is compromised.
15. Sharing of campaign polling data with Russian agents
16. Altering of intelligence reports
17. Work of Cambridge Analytica
18. Spreading the disinformation created by Russian trolls.
19. Work with Facebook and Twitter to target data

So what about it? Should we have such an article? Many RS touch on the factors mentioned above, so it is a notable subject. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Business projects in Russia
• Election interference
  • timeline
    • before July 2016
    • July 2016–election day
  • topics
• Associates' links with Russian officials
• Steele dossier
• Trump Tower meeting
• Trump Tower Moscow
• Classified information disclosure
• data seizure
• Special Counsel investigation
  • Crossfire Hurricane
  • charges
  • legal teams
  • Mueller report
  • Barr letter
  • Senate report

Is that not enough for you? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That's an excellent list of articles that use RS which apply to this topic. The idea is to collect them under a title somewhat similar to the heading here.

There has been too much emphasis on the dead horse of an unproven "conspiracy" that likely never was formalized, IOW not a "well-developed" conspiracy, as alleged by Steele's sources. They may have seen it, but we don't have the evidence, so it's best to stop digging there.

It's more important to focus on what has been proven and described in RS, ergo the facts about the often-public acts and statements which helped the Russian efforts. Their efforts did not happen in a vacuum. Trump and his associates provided a welcoming and helpful atmosphere, backed by the reputation and powers of the presidency and government agencies, that aided and abetted the interference and misinformation efforts.

Thanks for the list. Any help is appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Compromised: Counterintelligence and the Threat of Donald J. Trump
• Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?

Mueller and a bipartisan Senate inquiry concluded that Trump’s team welcomed Russian help, and tried to coordinate on a few fronts, but it didn’t come to fruition.

But so much suspicion was fueled by Trump’s massive cover-up about Russia.

Trump and his team systematically lied about almost every aspect of the Russia probe. (At the start, they falsely denied any contacts with Russians.) After so many of their denials were disproved, they repeatedly shifted their story. Trump repeatedly undermined and obstructed Mueller’s investigation.

All the while, Trump heaped praise on Putin. He infamously took Putin’s side at the 2018 Helsinki summit by agreeing with Putin’s lie that Russia didn’t try to help Trump win in 2016, leading many to wonder if Trump was compromised after all. [5]

Rollback

A heads up, this probably wasn't a good use of standard rollback. This was a content dispute, not vandalism, and an edit summary would have been appropriate. agtx 01:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I'm on my cellphone and had no other option or time right now. You can do it and explain we follow what RS and history tell us. The lead must follow the content in the body, and the changes are so fundamentally egregious that they should be discussed first. Also their edit warring is not okay, and their violation of BRD was edit warring. They need a consensus for those changes. Gotta run now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree that the user's change was bad, but I didn't see edit warring. They made a change and you reverted it (without explanation). Then they made the change again, because they hadn't gotten any explanation for the rollback. My suggestion is that if you don't have time to explain your revert even in an edit summary is that you should hold off until you do. agtx 02:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

That's what I usually do. This was out of character for me. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Administrator changes

Colin M

David.Monniaux • Fribbler • Grue • Kpjas • West.andrew.g

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversighter changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
• Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news

• The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
• A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: Editing Dinesh D'Souza

I am ensuring sources from both sides of the political isle are available. I see nothing wrong with my edits. --– Brenr 14:00, May 11, 2022 (UTC) 14:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. Don't delete properly sourced content or edit war. Follow WP:BRD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Falsifiability

Template:Falsifiability has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

"I suspect an editor block is necessary"

huh? soibangla (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Not you. I have just warned the editor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

But you said that referencing a change I made. soibangla (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, but what I said did not describe your edit but rather the edits of the disruptive editor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

National Review

Context

Alas, irony is hard to convey online, save by the use of semi-literacies such as emoticons. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The left/right confusion is common. Now Tucker Carlson, who daily pushes the Great Replacement conspiracy theory as a great danger is outright lying and deflecting by trying to backtrack and claim the left is pushing the theory. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON warning

You're reaching disruptive levels of badgering and WP:BLUDGEONing behavior at the move discussion at Talk:Great Replacement. At my count, you've made 16 comments in the discussion. Reiterating yourself if you have felt misunderstood once or twice is fine, but at this point we know what you are voting for. Repeating it 15 more times is not useful and actually makes it more difficult to parse consensus. Please give it a break. No one is confused about what your position is at this point. --Jayron32 14:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Message received. Being treated like a fringe editor and enemy is really chilling. I understand your concern, but want a third opinion to help reach a more balanced understanding going forward. Pinging Doug Weller, an involved admin. Let's discuss this. I don't want to be disruptive, but do wish to reply when pinged or commenting in new threads where I haven't commented before. (That's partially what I just did, and to which you responded.) How many others have you also warned, especially the fringe editors? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I have not treated you like an enemy. I've just noticed that you're reaching the point where the number of times you're repeating yourself, and responding to every contrary opinion, is becoming less and less helpful. Don't make this an adversarial matter. You are not an enemy. You are getting carried away and need to tone it down a bit. Let other people express themselves without having to respond to every contrary opinion. Of course you can respond if you are pinged or directly addressed by others. That was not the problem that led me to ask you to slow down a bit. --Jayron32 15:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Stricken. I know you mean well. It just hit me like a gut-punch as it came without any warning. It's still chilling and creates fear. I'll try to be more selective. Right now I have received a response but will not reply. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Valjean. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

2000 Mules

Call it whatever you want, but you of all people are bowing to the pressure of the trolls. There is no need to waterdown undisputed fact or be diplomatic. On this subject you need not budge one inch. On the flat earth article the opening sentence clearly declared the conspiracy theory to be false and as a matter of empiricism this is NO difference! You are enabling this, even if just a little. We don’t need to bury words like “false” or “no evidence”. It should be labeled as such each and everywhere a false claim is made! You are playing right into the hands of a flaws equivalence fallacy. Don’t you know that? It isn’t a violation of Wikipedia etiquette to say Elvis really did die, that the Earth isn’t flat and that claims by a convicted felon that there was wide spread election fraud are false. The opening sentence in the flat earth page says as much, and the only difference here is a cult of bullies happen to back it, and you can’t take the heat. Do as you will. I’m done, man.2601:280:CB02:52A2:F033:60BC:9DE:6CEE (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Also, to give you a sense of what is at stake here... this really isn't just another article about a corrupt politician OR a silly conspiracy theory. D'Souza is a sociopath who weaponizes his movies into a form of abusive gaslighting (read: is there any other kind? no, but it's especially toxic in this form). To give an example: D'Souza is a racist who calls for the murder of blacks by the military in his own words should they (to paraphrase him) "dare to protest in the streets an election that is overturned by the BIG LIE scams he participates in". He actually says he "hopes for this outcome". D'Souza's own wife wrote a letter to the judge that sentenced him for his own election fraud crimes, calling him a pathological liar and man of little character.

Not that I doubt you believe this, but again, when I'd like to give a crazy example from D'Souza so you can see why it is important not to let sociopaths like him infiltrate wikipedia so he can use it undermine democracy and target minority voters. In one of his last movies, the troll actually has the nerve to interview a crazed white homeless man who claims he performed oral sex on Barack Obama. Not only does D'Souza present this 'as evidence', but this is HOW D'Souza operates: his movies are coded hate and the facts and "theories" are actually not that important to him. He wants a debate but the debate acts as a distraction, gives him attention and fuels his fire, so that he can do what he does best: hurt people that he hates, teach the MAGA cult how to legally harass others with this coded language, and help Trump and the aforementioned cult bully their way into fascistic power. No different than how the Nazis operate. Sorry for the lecture but the TL:DR version of this: just grow a spine man. This is a nobrainer and you know it.2601:282:8100:D3E0:D4F3:3459:35E8:1800 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You're singing to the choir. I agree that he is in a special class of dishonest people, which includes Trump, that repeat debunked lies. They have absolutely no regard for truth and their views and activities are dangerous. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I get it. But we need to toughen up. Tough love? Also, did you see the heartbreaking news out of Texas???? This cult of hate needs to be stopped!!!! :( We don't need to pull any punches. They lie, they mislead, and they are "false".2601:282:8100:D3E0:D4F3:3459:35E8:1800 (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you please remove the "According to Philip Bump" line from the lead? Every source is according to someone, and his findings that there "was no evidence" was actually according to Dinesh D'Souza who got cornered in an interview and admitted it three times when pressed on it. By leaving it the way it is, it suggests this is unique to Bump, or his personal opinion. No. He presented it as a regular article, following an interview. Conservatives are already using the Bump source to falsely suggest he is out to get D'Souza so we don't need to help him.2601:282:8100:D3E0:2559:6622:2220:3327 (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but this one is tricky. Analysis and other opinion articles are supposed to be attributed, and this wording is Bump's own summary of the interview, not an admission by D'Souza. Bump is putting words in D'Souza's mouth, and I doubt D'Souza would accept that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 12:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your email.

If you have a matter that needs admin attention, WP:ANI is the appropriate way to request it. --Jayron32 14:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

• From the team: A changing of the guard

• News and notes: 2022 Wikimedia Board elections

• Community view: Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections

• Opinion: The Wikimedia Endowment – a lack of transparency

• In the media: Putin, Jimbo, Musk and more

• Special report: Three stories of Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war

• In focus: Measuring gender diversity in Wikipedia articles

• Discussion report: Portals, April Fools, admin activity requirements and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19 revisited

• Technology report: A new video player for Wikimedia wikis

• Featured content: Featured content of April

• Interview: Wikipedia's pride

• Serendipity: Those thieving image farms

• Recent research: 35 million Twitter links analysed

• Tips and tricks: The reference desks of Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Strange highs and strange lows

• News from Diff: Winners of the Human rights and Environment special nomination by Wiki Loves Earth announced

• News from the WMF: The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?

• Video: How the entire country of Qatar was blocked from editing

• Gallery: Diving under the sea for World Oceans Day

• From the archives: The Onion and Wikipedia

• Essay: How not to write a Wikipedia article

• Humour: A new crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

On a slow-motion edit war where I think you made a good call. Place close attention

Heads up, I think there is more to this editor soibangla than he is letting on. There are many plants and shills that plague wikipedia, as you already know, and then that editor slipped and dropped this attack on me for what was essentially a misunderstanding. I don't buy for a second that he "was hacked". Also, take into account his history of edit warring above. I think he's engaging in clever WP:GAMING and between that vulgar attack edit against me, and his other one you pointed out, sorry, that is too many coincidences for me. Plus, now he is magically against the use of the word "falsely" after claiming to be for it.lol If he continues to slip, I will launch a formal WP:ANI. Good catch. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)