Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

RFC inclusion of Sigurdur Thordarson claims

The following discussion 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.

---

Statement: Should the following text be in the article?

On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported that a key witness in the United States’ case against Assange had admitted to giving false testimony used in the superseding U.S. indictment. The witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, told the paper he fabricated earlier testimony that Assange had instructed him to hack into the computers of members of Iceland's parliament, as well as other allegations. Thordarson said he had been working with the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI in return for a promise the agencies would not share with Icelandic authorities information that could lead to a prosecution of Thordarson. According to the interview, Thordarson continued his criminal activities while working with the FBI with the promise of immunity from prosecution.[462] The Washington Post reported that Thordarson's testimony served as background for what Assange allegedly told Manning. The paper noted that supporters including Edward Snowden have said the admission of fabricated testimony undermines the case against Assange. However, their report states that the interview does not touch on the core allegations against Assange.[463] Private Eye states that the claims from the witness feature extensively in the UK court judgement, and that the U.S. hacking charges rely heavily on the testimony that the witness now admits was fabricated.[464]Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The text has been updated a bit and the current version is at Julian Assange#Appeal and other developments NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It should not be updated during this RfC. Please reset it. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree if there was much controversy over the facts and edit warring. But there isn't. The RfC is about deleting it wholescale. In that case improving the text and references is a reasonable option to try and avoid avoid deletion. I'll add a citation to John Pilger since a reason for deletion is lack of major coverage. NadVolum (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This RfC is about the specific text above, not about deleting reference to Stundin and Thordarson wholesale. The question is Should the following text be in the article? Cambial foliage❧ 14:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is a redline comparison of the text shown immediately above, as contributed by Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC), and the current version in our BLP.

On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported thatinterviewed Sigurdur Thordarson, whom it described as a key witness in the United States’ case against Assange had admitted to giving false testimony used in the superseding U.S. indictment. The witness, Sigurdur Thordarson. Thordarson told the paper he had fabricated earlier testimony that Assange had instructed him to hack into the computers of members of Iceland's parliament, as well as other allegations. Thordarson said he had been working with the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI in return for a promise the agencies would not share with Icelandic authorities information that could lead to ahis prosecution of Thordarson. According to the interview, Thordarson continued his for ongoing criminal activities while working with the FBI with the promise of immunity from prosecutionactivity.[462][463][464] The Washington Post reported that Thordarson's testimony served as background for what Assange allegedly told Manning, and was not "the basis for charges". The paper noted that supporters including Edward Snowden have said the admission of fabricated testimony undermines the case against Assange. However, their report states that the interview does not touch on the core allegations against Assange. Private Eye states that the claims from the witness feature extensively in the UK court judgement, and that the U.S. hacking charges rely heavily on the testimony that the witness now admits was fabricated.[464] [465] Some media critique and alternative news sources have commented on a lack of reportage by the major media sources on the retraction.[466][467]

Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Polling

• Include text There is a discussion above at #Witness Recants. A couple of editors in that discussion say it should be completely blanked out until such time as everybody is completely satisfied with the text, no specific objection has been raised that I can see except for the word key used by the original source and most others. I think the various views should be shown rather than just removing it, and I think the current text does that adequately - but I wouldn't go around trying to delete it wholesale if it didn't! 86.20.127.101 (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Have got myself a username now. Was User talk:86.20.127.101. NadVolum (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. A key U.S. witness shown to be a serial fraudster, liar and sex offender, having made deals with the FBI to dish the dirt on Assange. This information can be found in mainstream sources. Yes – absolutely this material belongs in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• No. Inconsequential and lack of mainstream coverage indicates it has not been demonstrated to be significant. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• No for now. While the story has received attention in alternative media, it hasn't in mainstream media {beyond the WP article}. The WSWS even ran an article pointing that out. It doesn't matter why the information has been ignored, WP:WEIGHT precludes us from adding it to the article until it receives notice. TFD (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• Include it is also covered the The Intercept, Iceland source, washington post, and intercept is more than enough for WP:DUE. We dont censor sourced content at wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That link didn't mention Thoradson but I found another by The Intercept that did The unprecedented and illegal campaign to eliminate Julian Assange. Why do you think the No's here would consider that a mainstream media which is what they seem to think is required to avoid removal? NadVolum (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

No. It would take multiple mainstream sources. Intercept is at best erratic. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• No as my comment was moved I shall restate it here This has had no impact on the case (in the two months since this was announced), nor have any major news sources accepted this as true, or indeed covered it in any great depth. So there are issues of wp:undue and wp:notnews here (again after 2 months, not even a report about what the defense team has said). Indeed (and ironically?) its very lack of coverage is one of the justifications for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Include. WP and FAIR treat them as reliable and no one has provided evidence to the contrary. Applying WP:UNDUE is a bit tricky as the policy talks about representing majority and minority views, while here there is no majority view contradicting the facts in the Stundin article. Alaexis_¿question? 13:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• No. Per TFD, this is a classic case of undue weight - there are insufficient mainstream sources on this that (1) exist and (2) demonstrate that this is encyclopedically/biographically important. Exclude. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• No. No evidence that this is significant - I searched the top (by circulation) UK newspaper, plus a few other UK and US mainstream sources, and I couldn't find any references to Sigurdur Thoradson except the (paywalled) Washington Post article that, I'm told, says that Sigurdur's recanting will not change the legal issues. If the legal proceedings change as a result of his recanting, or if mainstream sources pick it up, then this article should include it, but, given the lack of either, any weight seems like undue weight. Rks13 (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• No - Simply not enough coverage to justify its inclusion. I'm more than happy to change my vote as soon as this gets some traction in reliable sources, but so far it's only a small story that was picked up mainly by alternative media outlets. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes It is important for it to be included and there are reliable sources that reported it. Sea Ane (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes I can't read it since it's behind a paywall, but IMO WaPo reporting on this is pretty strong evidence that this is sufficiently WP:WEIGHTy to be included. Loki (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, include sentence, but no more unless this turns out to play a major part in Assange's life.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• No. The Washington Post notes that the interview with Thordarson took place and that the claims were made, but does not verify his claims as fact, just that they were made, and also notes that ...the Icelandic article (referring to the one in Stundin), which contains no direct quotes from Thordarson, does not touch on the core allegations against Assange. Since WaPo is certainly the "centerpiece" source here, and states that Thordarson's retractions do not impact the core of the case, I think we're well into undue weight territory until and unless further developments make clear that Thordarson's retraction really has had a substantial impact, or unless it is more widely covered in general. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a bit in the consortiumnews interview which refers to a much longer article with quotes in the Icelandic language version of the story. NadVolum (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• No. Needs much better RS covering. This is backed an interview (mentioned by WaPo) which has not been independently verified. These claims need much better backup than that. This is far below the necessary threshold per WP:REDFLAG. Dead Mary (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Weak exclude. The level of coverage does not seem to reach that required. If included, the text could be cut back substantially (Snowden is not an expert on general legal matters, nor on this case in particular, and we don't know what exactly he was told). If the 'revelation' was likely to impact the UK extradition hearings, we could reasonably expect to have heard something in UK media by now. Pincrete (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. There's lots of support by famous people but that doesn't count for such an opinion. I've read a proper lawyer saying it is actually key but that wasn't a major media source. I'll remove it, hope that's not too bold! NadVolum (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I reworded it to ensure that "including Edward Snowden" appears not in Wikipedia's voice but in that of our cited source, The Washington Post, which in this instance singled out Snowden among WikiLeaks supporters. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. I think if this features in the appeal on extradition, we can expect it to be reported after it is raised in court, not prior to that.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports on notable stuff in reliable sources, I see nothng about waiting for court judgements. NadVolum (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Who are you? Burrobert (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Burrobert (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

What are the references to which those citation numbers would lead? It would be very helpful to be able to see that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• So this has had no impact on the case (in the two months since this was announced). Nor does it seem to have been picked up by major news sources (other than one (and maybe two if you count private eye as a major news source), which seems to dismiss this as not all that important (apart from private eye)). So there are issues of wp:undue and wp:notnews here (again after 2 months, not even a report about what the defense team has said). Indeed (and ironically?) its very lack of coverage is one of the justifications for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are sources from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting and Media Lens and Jacobin (magazine) discussing the lack of coverage.

MacLeod, Alan (2 July 2021). "Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage". FAIR. Retrieved 5 August 2021.

"A Remarkable Silence: Media Blackout After Key Witness Against Assange Admits Lying". Media Lens. 1 July 2021. Retrieved 5 August 2021.

Marcetic, Branko (10 July 2021). "The Julian Assange Media Blackout Must End". jacobinmag.com. Retrieved 5 August 2021.

I think they confer notability in themselves NadVolum (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Again all low key sources, and yes this is the argument I was referring to with "Indeed (and ironically?) its very lack of coverage is one of the justifications for inclusion". As I said, no major news sources have picked this story up, so this violates wp:undue. But all of this can be read in the section above. No new arguments are being made. So it is time to let fresh voices have a say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

No major news sources except Washington Post. NadVolum (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Errr, you do know you have just chosen the not to include option?Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It was edited by another editor to reverse what I intended. NadVolum (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I realize that now, I have warned them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The sources

https://stundin.is/grein/13627/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fworld%2feurope%2fjulian-assange-extradition-appeal%2f2021%2f07%2f07%2f41bc3914-df2e-11eb-a27f-8b294930e95b_story.html

"Icelandic Saga". Private Eye (1553). London: Pressdram Ltd. 6 August 2021.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. So, as those go, Washington Post is considered generally reliable. I don't see any discussion as to whether Stundin is or is not, but in our own article about Private Eye, it seems to be a rather sensationalist source that should be treated as questionable. So, I think it may make sense to wait until there is more source material available about the matter; Wikipedia isn't really intended to be a breaking news source. If it turns out to be a significant development in the case, I am sure it will be more widely covered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The very first paragraph of Private Eye says "The publication is widely recognised for its prominent criticism and lampooning of public figures. It is also known for its in-depth investigative journalism into under-reported scandals and cover-ups". I don't think the first sentence negates the second. NadVolum (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

As to your query abiut Stundin's reliability I've raised a query at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Stundin_a_reliable_source.NadVolum (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The policy UNDUE is completely irrelevant. NPOV means we "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." We do not infer, or more accurately imagine, the position taken by hundreds of other sources from the fact they haven’t published anything on the subject. That’s (extremely poor) original research. We do not need to give it any weight, and there is not undue emphasis here. Cambial foliage❧ 17:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I see WP:WEIGHT goes to exactly the same place. I think the relevant bit is "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspect". I don't see anything about totally removing anything which is actually covered in a major news site and where there are no sources disputing the basic facts and there are lots of less important reliable sources covering it. The only bit I see about removing on that ground is "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia". It also says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources,", it does not say amongst major media sources. NadVolum (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I note the new source says it is only a claim he is a key witness and so far it has had no effect. So no it can't be used to support the test as written, the RFC is about that text.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• I realise that you have put forward text that has already been included in the article, however you are putting the cart before the horse. It would have been more productive and simpler to first ask whether Thordarson’s recanting should be mentioned in the article. If this proposal was accepted we could then have discussed wording. There may be editors who support mentioning Thordarson but do not like the exact wording you have put forward. For example, some editors have mentioned that calling Thordarson a “key witness” is not warranted at this stage. Burrobert (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this is the text that was included without consensus, so it is the text we discuss. As I have said in other forums here, we discuss the specific text, not blank cheques. That is why we have wp:brd, once reverted you discuss, you do not add it back and then argue "but we can discuss the exact wording".Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

    "this is the text that was included without consensus, so it is the text we discuss". You should take responsibility for the wording of the RfC. It didn't come about by an Act of God.

    "we discuss the specific text, not blank cheques". The RfC guide gives an example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?". Something similar here would have been preferable: "Should the article mention that Thordarson recanted his testimony?".

    Anyway, we can't unscramble the egg.

    Burrobert (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

    What?Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven you said: "this is the text that was included without consensus" If by “consensus” you mean unanimous agreement, then you are correct, but since such an ideal state of affairs hardly ever occurs on the Assange page, we are effectively forced to put edits out which don’t please everyone. I yesterday removed the last sentence in the paragraph under discussion (reacting to complaints of article bloat which I thought I’d take a step toward addressing) so I hope editors take into account that the paragraph quoted above has now been altered, and that compromise is being sought. Editors should also note a long discussion on the text including a vote (the majority voting for including the text in some form or another – with little support for complete removal) so “without consensus” seems a little unfair. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

No it does not have to be unanimous, but it has to be a rather greater difference than we have here. And the fact the text is being altered during this RFC is why it should be removed until we have decided what to say. As any discussion will always be about the last version. That is what BRD is about, making sure everyone is on the same page with what to include.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the Second law of thermodynamics, which says you can't unscramble an egg. Burrobert (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

And what relevance does this have?Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Note WP:ONUS is also clear, we do not have to make a case for exclusion, you have to make a case for inclusion, and until then this should not be in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You say “we do not have to make a case for exclusion”. I don’t think that’s right – we are supposed to be seeking consensus here, not hiding behind interpretations of rules.

Yes WP|Onus says “The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” However, in this instance, the majority who want some form of inclusion have already gone to great trouble to find consensus. The “case[s] for inclusion” have been made on this page many times already – they are compelling in my opinion. Overriding the opinions of a majority, and - in this instance - simply erasing material until an open ended series of discussions and appeals reach a satisfactory conclusion, would not be a helpful way forward.Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

But involved users do not get to decide their arguments are completing, after all, I think mine are as well. Ans yes "until an open ended series of discussions and appeals reach a satisfactory conclusion" is how we do things.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

In the discussion above titled “Where we stand” (which I believe you initiated) votes where invited for, “Include text as written”, “ Include text with rewrite”, or “exclude text”. Only two opted for “exclude text”, one of them was yourself, the other was an editor who had also voted for “Include text with rewrite” ie voted twice. An earlier headcount had 9 wanting to keep text in some form or another and the same 2 for exclude. You cannot expect to be allowed to exclude the text based on that. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You have perviously been referred to WP:ONUS. There is not consensus to include. You have also been told we do not count votes. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: There is and always has been consensus to include, as I documented two days ago. When I asked you who gets to decide the outcome of this discussion, you replied that we must seek an uninvolved editor or Admin to evaluate consensus. When I asked you how and when do we seek an uninvolved editor or Admin to evaluate consensus, you did not reply. The next day, Slatersteven opened an RFC. I presume we must now wait until the RFC runs its course before seeking an Admin to evaluate consensus. Do I correctly understand the process going forward? Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven You certainly did some bold edits without consensus there. In your first edit you removed the following:

“The witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, told the paper he fabricated earlier testimony that Assange had instructed him to hack into the computers of members of Iceland's parliament, as well as other allegations. Thordarson said he had been working with the U.S. Department of Justice and FBI in return for a promise the agencies would not share with Icelandic authorities information that could lead to a prosecution of Thordarson. According to the interview, Thordarson continued his criminal activities while working with the FBI with the promise of immunity from prosecution.”

You gave as justification “Then lets give the same weight to an RS, and let’s not say the claim is true.”

In fact the text you removed (above) made no claims about what is true, other than the implicit assertion that the Stundin reporter is telling the truth when he says Thordarson told him these things. Where you suggesting the reporter was lying? Surly not? The text that has replaced it works so hard to cast doubt on the entire business that IMO has become a dog’s dinner that fails to scan properly. We need to talk about these changes because, as they stand I can’t see many people regarding them as an improvement. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It also did not make it clear they were in fact unverified claims (which it now does). And I do not say the claims may not be true, an RS does. That is the whole point, the best source for this says exactly what I added (in fact its a direct quote). We go with the best sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Basket and Prunes, you need to read our PaG's to learn how WP operates. You cant ask others to be your tutors. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Your condescension towards me as a new editor is unappreciated. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

None intended. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven You are missing the point – you seem to have erased material and given an erroneous reason for doing so – unless you really are claiming the Stundin journalist is lying? At least you could now clarify what you meant, in your edit summary, by “...let’s not say the claim is true” [1]. Which claim (please be specific)? Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

No I am saying an RS has implied they are, so we have to go with what the RS says. We can't imply or say it is a fact when it is just their opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Where exactly does the requirement as in 'there are insufficient mainstream sources on this' come from in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? There has been wide coverage and analysis in reliable sources, just not in corporate media. WP:WEIGHT just talks about reliable sources. In particular that says "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." Saying mainstream media is giving prominence to prevalence in the general public rather than to reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• I don't know what difference it makes but as far as I can make out the Washington Post article just copied the bit about Thordarson from (icelandic). This was by DV (newspaper) from which Stundin was formed by an exodus of staff from DV after a hostile takeover. As far as reliability is concerned we're probably talking about two competing Icelandic papers! NadVolum (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• It was mentioned at the RSN discussion that Stundin wwsn't one of the top ten Icelandic newspapers by web ranking. I checked the top three of the ones they mentioned and all three mentioned this topic. Ten MPs call upon US to drop charges because of the retraction (icelndic), Siggi The Hacker, Wikileaks And The Lost American, Siggi The Hacker, Key Assange Witness, Admits to Perjury, [source of WaPo coverage?(icelandic). Or is he whole of Iceland too small to count? NadVolum (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think that's a neutral statement of the question, but the answer is yes. This is not a local story about the reindeer olympics. I see no broad coverage in the US which is the applicable venue. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Personal opinion unrelated to article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I would really love it if the US meda was halfway unbiased but the country is in the midst of a vicious tribal war and the newspapers have been losing money and need to hold onto their readership and they all depend on corporate owners. And Assange has annoyed both sides as well as the government. I suppose a ranking of 44 in the 2020 World Press freedom index is quite good considering the problems. NadVolum (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@NadVolum: WP:SOAPBOX advises that article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Please confine yourself to suggestions on how to improve the Assange BLP. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

What I was pointing out is that requiring wide coverage in the major US media is probably not a way to get a neutral point of view on this particular matter. Read Wikipedia's own Media bias in the United States on political and corporate bias. There is wide coverage otherwise in reliable sources. Media analysis sources have specifically remarked on the strange omission in the major media. That is not evidence that it should be omitted, that is strong reliable evidence that it is notable and should be included. Otherwise Wikipedia's coverage becomes synonymous with Associated Press and Reuters. NadVolum (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone said we can only use American sources?Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

See just above from SPECIFICO "I see no broad coverage in the US which is the applicable venue". NadVolum (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Then that would be wrong, any major news service would be usable, be it UK, Australia or wherever.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Iceland, etc. -Darouet (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Well a lot depends on the definition of major, what I am talking about are those with an international reputation for accuracy and coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:Please don't validate Nad's misrepresentation of my position by responding to the straw man. You should be aware I did not disqualify broad coverage from other venues. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"Misreprepresentation"? How about "misunderstanding", that should work far better for you in this sort of circumstance. NadVolum (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Straw man? You said regarding a news report in one of Iceland’s leading news outlets: “This is not a local story about the reindeer olympics. I see no broad coverage in the US which is the applicable venue”: In what possible context is that ok? Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "that", Prune? I don't know what you are asking.

Nad: No, we're not here to misunderstand one another repeated and biased "misunderstandings" suggests misrepresentation. Nobody has stated that mainstream US sources are the only significant sources, but it's a much tougher lift when the home domecile apparently does not consider this matter significant. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think some editors are losing sight of the legal state of play. A British judge has refused Assange's extradition to the USA on mental health grounds. This is currently being appealed by US prosecutors. The "key witness" at this point is the defence psychiatrist. We are a long way from a prosecution in the USA, if it ever happens. What part Thordarson's testimony will play in Assange's life is at this point unclear, but it seems likely very little.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: The only occurrence in our Assange BLP of the term "key witness" is sourced to Stundin: On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, interviewed Sigurdur Thordarson, whom it described as a key witness in the United States' case against Assange. Please provide WP:RS to support your counter-assertion that The "key witness" at this point is the defence psychiatrist. We must be clear that the defence psychiatrist is not a witness of any sort—key or otherwise—in the U.S. Department of Justice's superseding indictment against Julian Assange. And it's that indictment that Stundin is reporting on, not the appeal presently lodged in the High Court of Justice in London. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of that comment? It only underlines the truth of what I said, and highlights the fact that this discussion is going down the rabbit hole of discussing a legal battle which is not the one Assange currently faces, and may be one he never has to face.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland By that logic perhaps the U.S. courts should not have bothered spending hundreds of man hours drawing up two indictments against Assange: because he may never be extradited? That just won’t wash – there is a real possibility of Assange facing these charges in the U.S., and people interested in Assange will be interested in the validity of those charges – which are, it seems to a lot of people, at least somewhat undermined by the character of a witness and the way the FBI have behaved. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not really up to us to decide if things are key, just to try and report stuff in reliable sources with a neutral point of view. But the point here is that the main charges are of 'conspiring to obtain'. That's flatly contradicted by Chelsea Manning as she says she got no encouragement or help from Wikileaks or Assange, it was her own decision. However for instance if the prosecution can show Assange is some evil person encouraging and helping others to hack into things then that can be ignored, she'll be a good American turned by and defending an evil hacker rather than a whistleblower. The evil bit is easy because of the rape charges, and Thordarson was going to provide the encouraging and helping to hack into government sites to cause trouble to them side of things. Not saying that's what they would actually do of course, I'm no lawyer. NadVolum (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@NadVolum: It's not true that Chelsea Manning "flatly contradicted" the 2020 superseding indictment's allegation that Assange conspired with Manning to crack an encrypted password hash that would have enabled her to hack into a computer file accessible only by users with administrative-level privileges, which Manning did not have. She never mentioned that incident in her sworn statement during the 2013 pretrial court-martial hearing to which you allude, and prosecutors were forbidden by rule to cross-examine her on that occasion. She refused to testify before the 2019 grand jury in the case, and thereafter has said nothing publicly about this issue. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

See Forensic expert questions US claims that Julian Assange conspired to crack military password, evidence by a former criminal investigator in the US army. It really does need something like Thordarson's evidence to get anything to hang together. Removed speculation NadVolum (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@NadVolum: At 17:32 24 August 2021 in one thread on this talk page, you asserted I made no speculations nor did I ask for any and added in your edit summary No speculations here. At 17:56, 24 August 2021 in another thread on this talk page, you remarked Sounds like a joke to me but that's just speculation. It's unhelpful for you to speculate on any thread here. Please desist. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed that, Sorry. I came back to remove it but you beat me to it. NadVolum (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@NadVolum: When deleting content from one of your talk page contributions to which another editor has already responded, please use Wiki markup strikeout formatting; thus Sounds like a joke to me but that's just speculation. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

---

More reliable media have reported on this: The Hill, The Wire. Alaexis_¿question? 12:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Williamson bit would be the very essence of UNDUE content. She polls at less than 1% last time I checked. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I certainly would have considered John Pilger a better source. But how is the Hill not a major media source in the USA for political matters? NadVolum (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Just to clarify an earlier comment about Baraitser's judgment. In the 132 page document, she mentions "Teenager" 22 times. Manning is mentioned 143 times, Kopelman 43 times.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@ JackUpland Not sure to what “earlier comment” you are referring, but just in case it’s mine you need to know that, in my stats I was referring to the U.S. Second superseding indictment | here – which is the most relevant document re. “teenager” and includes him 33 times. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify by "earlier comment" I was not referring to your comment. Obviously.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Just looking at that I see a particularly important mention of teenager in what's titled "First Strand (Count 2)" which is all about hacking and ties Teenager and Ms Manning together. Strand 2 doesn't talk about Teenager, but talks about aided and abetted but that seems to be because the UK law has 'or' in it and that's enough rather than what is in the US charge which seems to require knowingly inducing and wilfully causing Ms Manning to disclose information as well as things like that. Strand 3 about actually disclosing the documents is counts 15 to 17 and seems to be the only one where Teenage wouldn't be involved in proving a case in the US. Basically most of the case is that he conspired to obtain the documents and a little to that he released them. It isn't called the 'First' Strand for nothing.

The point is that some reliable sources say key. The Washington Post says not. There is no good reason to dismiss key as a real possibility just on the say so of the Washington Post. If if he is very possibly key it should be in. NadVolum (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@NadVolum I agree – The Washington Post does not always get things right and every source has it’s biases – There’s no doubt in my mind that “teenager" is a key witness. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Has this RfC run its course? If so, I'd like to manually archive it to Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 27 and place it following

• Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_27#Witness_Recants and
• Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_27#References_fo_Stundin_Thordarson_recant_section_discussed_above

in order to group these three related sections together for future reference. Basketcase2022 (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be closed first.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have restored the two prematurely archived sections related to this RfC and grouped them, respectively, before and after this section to allow editors to see the discussions in context. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the status of this RfC?

According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Duration, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins. Since there is no RfC template in this section, presumably the bot removed it. I also find that this RfC is no longer listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All. As a newcomer, I am unfamiliar with the RfC closing process. Please advise: may I manually archive this RfC—plus its two related sections Talk:Julian_Assange#Witness_Recants and Talk:Julian_Assange#References_fo_Stundin_Thordarson_recant_section_discussed_above—or does someone intend to restart the RfC? I believe this talk page is unwieldy due to overlong discussions that have failed to reach consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

We should get an uninvolved editor to close it. There's no point having an RfC with no result.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

How do we find an uninvolved editor? Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Basketcase2022: Make a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests. ––FormalDude talk 02:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I have just made a request.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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.

Recent deletion on main page

Quite a number of the edits I have made on the main page over the past few weeks has been almost immediately reverted by SPECIFICO – I’m not convinced these reversions are all warranted - could some other editors at least take a look at the latest deletion and either tell me where I erred or reinstate (ps in deleting my edit SPECIFICO also took out existing material from the article). Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

As I have said more than once, the article is already too long and we need to remove stuff before we expand stuff. We really need to take out most of the "they said" stuff. In fact it seems to me that half this article could be replaced with "and a number of commentators and celebrities have come out.... of Assange Such as" (either in support or in opposition, and list three or four really notable examples).Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes but there are legitimate differences about what should and should not be included - editors should perhaps discuss these things before setting themselves up as judge and jury and blanking another editors work when it is permissible properly sited material. This has been done on several occasions now and I find it extremely unhelpful. Also note, some of the material that SPECIFICO took out at the same time was more than a year old – no extra explanation was offered in the edit summary for that Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. there was some miss-wording in the year+ old material that I was in the process of correcting before it was deleted. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

If content is disputed both wPbrd and WP:ONUS are clear. As any new addition is going to be disputed it might be a good idea to assume it will be and make the case here, first.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, the old content I removed failed verification. My summary said I removed unsourced content RE: support. Don't misrepresent other editors' work. It is not constructive and it wastes everyone's time. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Neither of you are addressing the issue of SPECIFICO deleting long standing (one year +) material in the same edit as removing my contribution, and doing so without a clear explanation. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear the deletion was described under the umbrella: “Undid revision 1045249603 by Prunesqualer (talk)...” no mention was made of removing fairly long standing material at the same time. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You appear not to have read my edit summary nor to have read the reply I gave you immediately above before you repeated your complaint. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

IMO Your edit summary beginning ““Undid revision 1045249603 by Prunesqualer (talk)...” was inadequate. I believe you should: reinsert my edit and reinstate the 1+ year old material (that you removed in the same edit), then we can reasonably discuss the issues you have with each. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the detail of what was deleted I will deal with my own addition and the year old material separately:

• Re, my added material: The article already explained that "...Swiss bank, Julius Baer, failed to block the [Wikileak’s] publication of bank records." I added the following (based on information in the existing sources):

"In an earlier ruling on the issue a U.S. Judge had ordered the permanent deletion of the wikileaks.org site, effectively closing it down. However the decision was reversed two weeks later, by the same Judge, because of concerns about breaching freedom of speech protections embodied in The First Amendment."

Is anyone seriously suggesting that the near shutting down of Wikileaks by a U.S. court is not worthy of inclusion in the article? UNDUE? Surly not.

• Re. the year old material, not composed by myself but deleted at the same time: it read:

” Assange commented that financial institutions ordinarily "”operate outside the rule of law,"” and received extensive legal support from free-speech and civil rights groups”

I accept the sentence is miss-worded, implying as it does that the banks “received extensive legal support...” however I was in the process of changing the wording to fit the RS when it was deleted. After amending it would have read something like:

“Assange commented that financial institutions ordinarily "”operate outside the rule of law,"”. During the hearings Wikileaks received extensive legal support from free-speech and civil rights groups.”

This version fits perfectly with the RS and seems worthy of inclusion to me.

Unless anyone has reasonable objections I would like to reinsert the above material (including amendment). Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the court detail is UNDUE. The "support" bit is unverified by the source. We already know Assange's supporters claim free speech when it's convenient. No, your edit cannot be reinstated without consensus on talk. Currently, you have no support at all, just a complaint. SPECIFICO talk 09:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

We’ll take this one issue at a time: “The court detail is UNDUE”? Sorry to repeat, but are you “seriously suggesting that the near shutting down of Wikileaks by a U.S. court is not worthy of inclusion in the article”? Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit ". The text "Assange commented that financial institutions ordinarily "operate outside the rule of law," and received extensive legal support from free-speech and civil rights groups" is long-standing. If there is disagreement about its removal, it should be replaced while a discussion takes place. Burrobert (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

OK - my suggested wording is less ambiguous but given the current climate on this page I’ve stuck to the rules and restored the long standing version Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Whilst you are here, I wonder, do you have an opinion on my suggested additional two sentences (in grey above) beginning “"In an earlier ruling on the issue a U.S. Judge ...” ? Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The information you added is noteworthy so I support it being added to the article. The size of the article is not a reason for excluding content. I think it would be better to present the events in chronological order rather than going back in time and saying "In an earlier ruling ... ". So, first state that Wikileaks published certain documents. Then provide the initial ruling of the US judge. Then give the reversal and reasons. Btw, I agree that the longstanding text which you just restored is ambiguously worded and your version would be clearer. Hopefully after discussion, consensus can be reached to use your version. Burrobert (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer: Please do not assert that there is a "rule" that your preferred text must be restored and that unsourced text should be reinstated after its lack of verificartion has repeatedly been pointed out. I have commented further on your user talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Tag it then, and lets delete it after a few months if no sources are provided. Yes (by the way) uncited material can be removed, and this is just a compromise to give them time to cite it.Slatersteven (talk)

Except that it would be SYNTH and UNDUE even if sourced, because its position in the article is to promote Assange's views and actions. But the relevant factor here is that the court decided in his favor. That's the adjudication of the issue, not whether unnamed and possibly uninformed advocates popped up. As to the first bit of UNDUE text -- this article is Assange's life story. He is not an expert on finance and taxation or international law and his actions speak for themselves. His vague and false statements about banks operating "outside the law" are of no encyclopedic merit -- the opinions of one person who claims no expertise or particular knowledge of the legal and policy issues invovled in international tax matters. It's chaff. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

And as I said this is just a compromise, we do not need to delete it now. Give them a chance, they now know there is an issue that needs fixing. Its long standing text, and so they need to be given time to back it up.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you believe either of them has understood or acknowledged the UNDUE and UNVERIFIED nature of Prune's edits? I see him insisting the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

AGF, so yes I assume they understand policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I am referring to their comments above, not assumptions. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for interrupting your private chat but ...

The long standing text is "Assange commented that financial institutions ordinarily "operate outside the rule of law," and received extensive legal support from free-speech and civil rights groups.". It is sourced to the New York Times article which says "Still, Mr. Assange said in London on Monday, financial institutions usually “operate outside the rule of law” because of their economic power" and The Guardian article which says "Backed up in court by a dozen lawyers from free-speech and civil rights groups, Wikileaks representatives heard Judge White acknowledge that the injunction raised serious First Amendment issues". Burrobert (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that we are including — one way or another — the legal opinions of Assange who is not a qualified lawyer and (as a current jailbird and a convicted criminal) is not particular successful in his legal arguments. I am all for including the opinions of Assange (if he has any) as previously discussed. But I don't see the benefit of regurgitating the comments of someone, who is not a lawyer and apparently has never studied the law, in regard to legal issues. If he had comments regarding computer programming there would be a point. If his lawyers put forward an argument, there would be a point. But I don't think the fact that Assange has jumped out of bed, combed his hair, and got on the telephone or the Internet to say that cornflakes are "unlawful" or that a fart from his ex-girlfriend is "grievously bodily harm" is particularly notable. It is pretty obvious that he is clueless about what the law is in any jurisdiction. Please don't interpret this as saying I am not compassionate.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I follow your reasoning. However, some may see your utter contempt for Assange and his knowledge of the law as making undue assumptions. After all, a lifetime of risk taking, and pushing against the boundaries of law around the world, is bound to result is some spectacular miscalculations – that IMO doesn’t warrant the contempt you show. Assange certainly had access to thousands of confidential banking documents, and studying them would give even a lay person some insight into the behaviour of banks, and their relationship with various legal entities. Also note his comments are clearly signposted as just his opinion i.e. saying: “Assange commented that” and using quotation marks not editorial voice of authority. With a little more trust and co-operation on the page perhaps we could have found a better wording but as things are “long standing” offers a little protection against giving and inch and a mile being taken. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, ywah, but I would prefer that his opinions were actually deposited in the "Opinion" section instead of featured in the article as if they are in fact solid legal opinions that would stand up in a court of law somewhere. You seem to assume that someone like me who doesn't genuflect to the Assange cult has "utter contempt" for him. That is wrong and biased. Obviously.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Blind reversions must stop

It took me an hour to restore my contributions that were recklessly reverted. Please, I urge editors to exercise care in restoring what they deem to be the "last consensus version." Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 I might not always see eye to eye with you on matters Assange, but your conscientious maintenance work on the page is really appreciated – I am certain the collateral damage in the reversion, that trashed some of you work, was inadvertent – but I for one will take extra care when making reversions not to cause collateral damage - I’m sure the other editors here will do the same. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Then maybe you should have dealt with the issue that was in violation of the RFC. It only had to be done this way as it was hard to see who had changed what and when. So it seemed to me best just to reset it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That's an obnoxious approach. If you cannot see who had changed what and when, then resetting it is the worst thing to do, not the best. It's lazy and irresponsible. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

No it's not, it's what we should do. It is down to us to police this page, if you are not doing it it's down to others to do it. You could have reverted those changes before you decided to make a mass of tiny reverts, you did not. So others had to do it, and that meant reverting you as well. So maybe (from now on) before making 20 small edits makes sure there is not something else you need to do first, and do that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven I am getting a little tired of behaviour, surrounding this page, that borders on trolling - I would suggest you cool off a little, consider how we can all make the atmosphere surrounding this page less dysfunctional (I realise that’s not easy with opposing strongly held opinions but we should all at least make some effort to be civil and reasonable). Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Then maybe users should not use language like "recklessly" or "obnoxious", this only occurred because a user allowed an edit to stand that they should not have done, and thus made it harder for other editors to revert it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Victim blaming. Yeah, that's the ticket. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven You made an inadvertant slip, we all do sometimes, If you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that, then at least just drop it. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 Just for the record, I strongly approve of your editing approach – making small discreet edits is generally good practice - as each edit can be properly labelled and understood, good for transparency and trust. Editors who heap several significant changes into one single edit with one edit summary should take note (if I had my way editors who do that would be warned and if persisting, sanctioned). Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. That was my error, and it caused a big hiccup in the proceedings. My apologies to everyone. -- Valjean (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Reverted yet again without good reason

I recently removed this edit by Valjean which was placed in the midst of our RFC debate and was clearly in breach of WP:OWN. SPECIFICO reverted my deletion here, Ironically giving the explanation “WP:OWN”. In other words SPECIFICO reverted an edit which fixed a “WP:OWN” issue - reinstated an edit which was in breach of “WP:OWN” and gave as his/her reason “WP:OWN”. Reversion of my edits without good reason by SPECIFICO, have become practically routine. I wish to know why other editors are tolerating this outrageous behaviour. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this may be an issue a lot of users have. But material under discussion should not be reverted whilst an RFC is ongoing. Note that if it is long standing content it should not be removed or altred.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently I havn’t explain myself clearly. It was Valjean who replaced “long standing content” with his own edit. I merely deleted his/her replacement text. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

NO you explained yourself, they altred and you just deleted. Thus you were both in the wrong, it should have been restored.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I have reset the page to the last version before this latest round of add and delete.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you – that’s appreciated. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

PS - Just for the record I was unable to simply “restore” due to intervening edits which compounded the WP:OWN. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

If anyone owns the page I do because I've been editing the page longer than anyone else, I come from Down Under, and I know what a bullroarer is.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

NO user owns this page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on my (limited) understanding of Australian law, it is radically impossible to have any property that is not owned by anyone.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

We are not governed by Austraian law, and even if it was, Jimmy wales would own it, not you, so stop this tack and instead read wp:legal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Privatemusings, who is still alive and kicking, got here before you Jack. Rather than having an outright owner, we should allocate shares in the page based on the percentage of text each editor has contributed. Burrobert (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer, you should be more careful about throwing around accusations of “WP:OWN” for content you have been fighting over. (Notice that I haven't even !voted at all.) I was just creating a whole new and far more complete version (below). Maybe that was out of process, but it was the type of edit an editor who happened on the page and saw would make in an attempt to improve the content. I resolved that issue. My version is certainly better than the current version. You deleted far more than what has been under discussion, and the current version is recognized as deficient.

Current: "Assange must have known that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material."

My version: "Kevin Poulson, writing for The Daily Beast wrote: "Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer wasn't his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia's GRU months after Seth Rich's death." Rich could not have been the source of the leaks, because Assange received the mails when Rich was already dead and Assange continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material. On July 14, four days after the murder of Seth Rich, "Guccifer 2.0" sent Assange an encrypted one-gigabyte file containing stolen DNC emails, and Assange confirmed that he received it. WikiLeaks published the file's contents on July 22."

So what's so wrong with my version that it deserves deletion, other than just an "out of process" argument? -- Valjean (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Valjean – your error here was that you replaced material which was concurrently under discussion in a RFC (on this talk page) – you where, at the time of making you edit, actively involved in the RFC (resolution process), but where possibly unaware that it is not considered acceptable to unilaterally change the material that is actively under discussion. I accept I also messed up: I tried straightforwardly reverting you edit but was unable to do so because of intervening edits to the same section by yourself and Basketcase2022 - so I simply deleted the paragraph you had put in – but I neglected to manually reinsert the sentence your edit had replaced, for which I apologise. The correct action for the editor who reverted me would have been to insert the original text themselves (and maybe drop me a line pointing out my omission). I won’t go into details of you edit here as the RFC above is the place to resolve that. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

THis, we are discussing this, and until the RFC is closed it should be left alone.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer and Slatersteven, you are both right, which is just one reason why I'm not edit warring over this. That path is never good, so let's continue working toward a resolution. I really appreciate the collegial atmosphere in this discussion. We know that isn't always the case. I apologize for causing this hiccup. I shouldn't have been so bold.

I would like you to consider the merits of my version and discuss it. The matter of what Rich knew or didn't know is sufficiently complex to not be solvable with a simple sentence, and we are not allowed to SYNTHesize the answer that really covers it, but we are allowed to cite, with attribution, those RS which do that. -- Valjean (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

By all means, suggest it as an alternative in the RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Nils Melzer

There seems to be some disagreement about including Nils Melzer's views in TGM's bio. Are there any arguments for excluding his views? To what extent should we cover Melzer's various reports and findings? Burrobert (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

His views are mentioned his name occurs 3 times. He is one man, so he gets about as much coverage already here as he should.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is that three mentions is enough? What about if we swap one of the existing mentions out to include the text that was removed? Burrobert (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Why? also (and again) we should, be reducing content, not adding it. This is just more wordage covering the views of someone whose views we already cover.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What does TGM stand for? Not following that one. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

TGM is just a nickname for Assange. We aren't adding any additional content. The text that was removed was long-standing content. Policy is that the size of an article should not be used as a reason for excluding or removing content. However, if we are using three mentions as the benchmark, then we should include the three most noteworthy of Melzer's findings. Here are the three mentions that are currently in the bio:

• After examining Assange on 9 May 2019, the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Nils Melzer, concluded that "in addition to physical ailments, Mr Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma." The British government said it disagreed with some of his observations.
• On 1 November 2019, Melzer said that Assange's health had continued to deteriorate and his life had become at risk. He said that the UK government had not acted on the issue.
• On 30 December 2019, Melzer accused the UK government of torturing Julian Assange. He said Assange's "continued exposure to severe mental and emotional suffering ... clearly amounts to psychological torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Here is the text that was recently removed:

• In a later interview, Melzer criticised the "secretive grand jury indictment in the United States", the "abusive manner in which Swedish prosecutors disseminated, re-cycled and perpetuated their 'preliminary investigation' into alleged sexual offences", the "termination by Ecuador of Mr Assange's asylum status and citizenship without any form of due process", and the "overt bias against Mr Assange being shown by British judges since his arrest". He said the United States, UK, Sweden and Ecuador were trying to make an example of Assange. He also accused journalists of "spreading abusive and deliberately distorted narratives". Shortly after Melzer's visit, Assange was transferred to the prison's health care unit.

Which of these three mentions best describe Melzer's findings? Burrobert (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What we have now summarises it just fine. As to the size issue, it is about making sure the reader can get a good idea of the topic without having to wade through walls of text, we are an encyclopedia, not a textbook.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You believe then that the current three mentions give a more complete picture of Melzer's findings? I thought the text that was removed was more comprehensive. Anyway, let's see what other editors think. Burrobert (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Burro, I am asking you what the 3 letters T-G-M stand for. Please just answer. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hearken ye, Burro and Citizen S, Melzie is righteous and full of PS. The dictator on the blower is starting to scream and the mower in the distance is playing old cream. Suffice it to say TGM (TM) is making all the yards in the factory slegm. Grand juries grand mals and open furies are part of Babylon just the same as Yuris. Christ took a whip and took down the bulls, the Pope did the same but we're not fools. Hat me if you can, but smell the ginger. Tin hares show the way, but do not l...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

but also (￣▽￣人) Burrobert (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I too am curious what the 3 letters T-G-M stand for? -- Valjean (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO and Valjean: TGM stands for The Grand Master. This purported "nickname for Assange"—which you won't find with any Google search—is consistent with Burrobert's repeated allusions on this talk page to Assange as "our hero." When I politely asked whether that was meant to be sarcastic or if he truly regards Assange as a hero, Burrobert dodged my question. So don't fell slighted if he refuses to respond directly in this instance. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Cool! We need heroes, and I used to see him in that light, along with Greenwald, Mate, and others whom I now see as having fallen from grace and carrying water for Russians. -- Valjean (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

If not in the hatted section below perhaps | This might be a better place for your current debate. Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Unconstructive dispute that distracts from our purpose
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You can waterboard me all you want, but I'm not telling. Burrobert (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC) You're also not contributing anything constructive to Wikipedia by repeatedly using cryptic "nicknames" for the subject of this BLP. As shown above, it serves only to distract, which is a form of disruptive editing. Please desist. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Ah, Burrobert's being a good sport. A bit of humor doesn't hurt. -- Valjean (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Humor—is that what you call it? Another good reason, I suppose, for not taking Burrobert seriously. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC) I suspect we are focusing on different things. I'm pretty sure that Burrobert was joking about waterboarding. -- Valjean (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC) I'd drop the cryptic stuff. I find it hard enough to communicate over the web with people and I really try hard to make things simple and straightforward. There is no need to be a PITA, and not as in a type of yeast-leavened round flatbread baked from wheat flour or any other meaning in Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC) If you want you can probably find some fun minded people at WP:Silly Things. But I'd separate that side from here, it is just too easy for that to be misunderstood on the internet. NadVolum (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Basketcase2022 Undoubtedly Burrobert likes a joke, but I think it wise not to underestimate – My impression is he is probably the best informed editor currently working on the page (re. matters Assange). Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Until Burrobert confirms he is joking when using cryptic "nicknames" for our BLP subject, I remain unconvinced that his intent is humorous rather than thinly veiled advocacy. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Prunes, the editorial and behavioral rules of this project do not depend on your "impression". You have user pages for that. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Notification: Discussion at BLP noticeboard; NPOV noticeboard; RS noticeboard

An editor has opened a new section regarding this page at the BLP noticeboard, at the NPOV noticeboard, and the Reliable sources noticeboard about a subject raised on this talk page. Cambial foliage❧ 09:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

They also make some disparaging remarks about the editors here, although they do not refer to any specific individual. Cambial foliage❧ 09:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

We do not ned to have this discussion of 4 separate forums. As for the rest, take it to their talk page or wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You're wrong. It's generally accepted, as already noted on this talk page, that editors should notify the talk page of an article when it is raised at a site-wide noticeboard. The editor who did so failed to notify this page: this section serves to rectify that. Cambial foliage❧ 10:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Need and can are not synonymous.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Rel? Cambial foliage❧ 10:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Rel? what the hell is a rel ?Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Sorry but SPECIFICO has a long track record of aggressive and disruptive editing – he/she frequently attacks others for bias, but has an editing record that shows as much bias as anyone on the page (if not more) – now he/she is spreading our debate onto four separate pages simply because he/she is unable to get their way on this page. Quite impossible. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That does not really explain what rel is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The notices at NPOVN and BLPN are not inviting discussion there in separate threads. They are soliciting new editors to come here and notifying them of the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This has now been raised at ANI, take it there.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Three disputed references

Disputed inline tag removed by OP; no further discussion is requested.

In the BLP section headed Later years in the embassy, the final sentence is followed by four references. I am tagging the second, third, and fourth as disputed. Yahoo! News is contested elsewhere at both this talk page and in an ongoing RfC at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Accordingly, I will not tag it, since I believe editors are by now well aware of the unresolved challenges to this source. The second reference is to The Sydney Morning Herald, which incorrectly claims Yahoo News! "argued that the pursuit of Assange was driven by former CIA director Mike Pompeo when he was installed as Donald Trump's secretary of state." In fact, Yahoo! News contends "these plans for an all-out war against [Assange] were sparked by WikiLeaks' ongoing publication" of Vault 7 that began more than a year before Pompeo became secretary of state. This citation, being manifestly false, should be removed. The third reference is to The Intercept, which does nothing more than recap the Yahoo! News story without a shred of corroboration. Near the bottom of its article, The Intercept recalls that "In December 2017, WikiLeaks published video footage of what it plausibly described as a 'grab team' waiting outside the embassy." To illustrate, The Intercept reproduces a 23 May 2018 WikiLeaks tweet embedding said video. That is not independent investigative journalism following up on the Yahoo! News story; it is The Intercept padding its copycat story with a nearly 3½-year-old speculative tweet from Assange's own organization. As for the what the Senate Select Committee did in 2017, The Intercept′s 28 September 2021 rehash adds nothing of value to its 25 August 2017 story by Sam Biddle. This reference is useless, redundant, and should be removed. The fourth reference, to The Times, immediately follows the paragraph's final sentence: "Some of its sources stated that they had alerted the House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans that Pompeo was suggesting." Yet The Times does not report that anyone alerted House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans Pompeo was suggesting. Since it fails to support the sentence that precedes it, this reference should either be removed or repositioned to whatever text it does support, if any. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC) The disputed tag you used is for information that is verifiably wrong. It is used for disputing statements in article text, not for disputing sources. What is the statement in the article text that is verifiably wrong? If you used the tag because you wanted to argue about the reliability of the sources, you need to remove the tag you used and/or replace it with an appropriate one. If you want to dispute the reliability of those sources, you will need to overcome the site-wide community consensus of reliability indicated at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Times, and The Intercept. What you write about the Syndey Morning Herald is simply, flatly completely wrong. Yahoo: "It was a campaign spearheaded by Pompeo". SMH: "[Yahoo] argued that the pursuit of Assange was driven by former CIA director Mike Pompeo". It seems that it is you writing things that are manifestly false. Cambial foliage❧ 22:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Basketcase2022 According to Wikipedia: Wikileaks began publishing Vault 7 material on 7 March 2017. Trump nominated Pompeo to be the director of the CIA on November 18, 2016 – he took the job on January 23, 2017. i.e. your dates appear to be wrong (acording to Wiki). Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Please read what I wrote: The Sydney Morning Herald incorrectly claims Yahoo News! "argued that the pursuit of Assange was driven by former CIA director Mike Pompeo when he was installed as Donald Trump's secretary of state." In fact, Yahoo! News contends "these plans for an all-out war against [Assange] were sparked by WikiLeaks' ongoing publication" of Vault 7 that began more than a year before Pompeo became secretary of state. As you yourself point out, Pompeo was not, as The Sydney Morning Herald falsely asserts that Yahoo News! argued, then secretary of state. Which makes The Sydney Morning Herald doubly wrong, since it attributes something to Yahoo! News that's not there, and since Pompeo was then CIA director. If The Sydney Morning Herald had simply consulted Wikipedia, they might have gotten the facts straight instead of mangling the timeline. Basketcase2022 (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC) I understand now, you were concerned that they made an error about his job title at the time the pursuit of Assange was instigated, and believe this was a reason to discard the source entirely. My mistake: I now realise no response was merited. Cambial foliage❧ 23:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Your personal reconception of what renders journalistic research investigative, invented to try to win a point that has zero impact on the acceptability of the source, remains uninteresting and is not relevant to making decisions about what content belongs on the page and what sources can be used to support it. Cambial foliage❧ 22:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Not disagreeing or anything - I was just wondering if anyone had analyzed the video of the 'grab team' to see what was on the page they showed. I know it can't be read from the video but I have a feeling that between the multiple frames of the video there is just enough information for a program to make it readable or to make a good reconstruction of the contents. It might show they were a grab team which would definitely corroborate the story - or it might show they were waiting for some equipment to do some road maintenance for instance. NadVolum (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Contested removal of content based on WP:BLPPUBLIC

On 5 October 2021, I deleted "that Pompeo was suggesting" with the edit summary remove name of individual alleged by a single, uncorroborated source to have planned criminal activity while serving as a top official of the U.S. government. WP:BLPPUBLIC advises that in the case of public figures, if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. The next day, my edit was reverted.

Wikipedia's BLP policy directs that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." All references supporting the accusation of criminal activity that, by name, "Pompeo was suggesting" rely on a single uncorroborated source, Yahoo! News. Since that source is the subject of an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia's Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I request that my edit be immediately restored until the RfC is closed. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a single source. There is no BLP violation. There are three reliable sources cited immediately after the sentence in question that directly support it (and the statement is attributed). There is also a very clear consensus in the RfC preceding this section that the content is appropriate. You and one other individual stated your belief that the text that includes what you removed should not be included. At least 10 editors believe otherwise, and they give their reasons with reference to the relevant policy. Cambial foliage❧ 17:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at the RfC shows considerable support for removing Pompeo's name from the proposed Yahoo content, even among those who favor the Yahoo content in the article. The reinserted text reads as if Pompeo instigated a plot to kill Assange. That is not in the sources and it's a straight BLP violation that should be removed both for that violation and for the as yet unresolved RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this could be dealt with sufficiently by adding his title before the name, and then it is clear that Pompeo proposed the hostile action while in his capacity of leading a terrorist organization. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf: Thank you for succinctly confirming the editorial bias at play here. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m not seeing enthusiasm for removing mention of Pompeo (in this matter) from a majority of the include camp. Let’s get this RFC wrapped up and then perhaps discuss some limited rewording – but I have to say Pompeo is clearly a key figure in the assassination/abduction story and I cannot see how we can with any integrity keep him out of this. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no source that says Pompeo was the one who launched the idea of killing assange. If you disagree, cite such a source and quote the words that say killing Assange was Pompeo's idea. It should be easy if any such source exists. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

When this RFC is over and done and we have acceptance that the Assassination/abduction story belongs in the article I will then happily discuss a rewording. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no source that says Pompeo was the one who launched the idea of killing assange.

Nowhere in the current article text does it say this, and nowhere on the talk page has anyone suggested it say this.

Article text: Yahoo! News found "no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved." Some of its sources stated that they had alerted the House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans that Pompeo was suggesting.

Yahoo News report: There is no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved, in part because of objections from White House lawyers, but the agency’s WikiLeaks proposals so worried some administration officials that they quietly reached out to staffers and members of Congress on the House and Senate intelligence committees to alert them to what Pompeo was suggesting.

The Intercept report: As we now know, Pompeo responded to this challenge by ordering the CIA to draw up plans to kidnap Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he was receiving diplomatic protection..

Is there any serious cause for this section, or is it only yet more obfuscation and timewasting? Cambial foliage❧ 22:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The current text, as you have most recently amended it, refers to a murder plot that no RS has attributed to Pompeo. You then say refer in the next sentence <the plans that Pompeo was suggesting>. The clear implication of that juxtaposition is that it was Pompeo pushing the murder plot. That needs to be removed from the article now. We don't leave BLP problems in the article pending discussion. The default is to remove such text, and several editors have stated their discomfort with it. I suggest you reverse your recent addition. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be absurd synth to assume that Pompeo was acting on his own as a private individual and not in his official capacity. 'Pompeo, head of the CIA, proposed to kidnap and murder assange' would be sufficient. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Source for that, please? SPECIFICO talk 11:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at the RfC shows considerate considerable support for removing Pompeo's name from the proposed Yahoo content No it doesn't. Please don't misrepresent discussions to attempt to add more weight to your side. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You'll need to familiarize yourself with the discussion in the Oct 3-5 period, for example. Begin around here. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess we have different understandings of the word "considerate" "considerable". Mr Ernie (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Presumably they meant Showing careful thought rather than Careful not to inconvenience or harm others. Careful thought or not, there is no consensus support in that discussion for removing Pompeo, and the RFC supports its inclusion. Cambial foliage❧ 17:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It was clear he mmeant considerable and it was a typo.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to see Pompeo removed. His name juices up the story but the business looks like it was started up before he came along. It really was the CIA and Assange. Pompeo could be quoted for any relevant public statements he made though. NadVolum (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, considerable. A typo indeed. Corrected above. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Consensus required restored

So please take it slow, folks. If a dispute becomes acute, wait for an RfC to close and then follow its dictates. If there is urgency that is of a BLP nature, use WP:BLPN to expedite. Use WP:AE to report CR violations, but please give ample allowances for self-reverts by explaining the violation in a clear and precise way. This sanction isn't that intuitive, so goodwill will go a long way. G'luck! El_C 23:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Violation of discretionary sanction (18:46, 9 October 2021)

On 8 October 2021, an administrator imposed the consensus required provision on Julian Assange. Its procedure for removing content is described in the relevant explanatory supplement:

• Editor1 removes a portion of article content;
• Editor2 reverts, re-adding some or all of the content;
• Prior to consensus on the article talk page, no editor may re-remove any of the re-added content.

On 9 October 2021, citing WP: DUE, Prunesqualer removed a portion of article content.

One minute later, Slatersteven undid Prunesqualer's revision with the edit summary, "I disagree, as you are well aware."

Seven minutes afterward, Jtbobwaysf manually reverted Slatersteven's edit, thereby re-removing re-added content prior to consensus on the talk page.

This violates the discretionary sanction in the Editing Julian Assange page notice that directs, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the worst sanctions admins can apply, and I hope El C removes it. This sanction actively impedes editing progress. At one of the last AE reports where this sanction was violated the reviewing admins were almost unanimously opposed to it. Why bring it back? Mr Ernie (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, from an outside perspective, it looks like recently nearly every substantive change just gets undone (edit warring that obviously destabilizes the page). CR is the final page-level restriction in the DS arsenal. Nobody likes it. I don't like it. I've removed it more times than I've added it. But I do think that in this instance it's better than doing nothing. Because even with 1RR, there are enough participants for frequent/immediate reversions.

Now, if you wish to see CR repealed outright, you should request it at WP:ARCA (i.e. to modify Arbitration policy thusly), all the more if you can show that it doesn't really get enforced at AE. If ArbCom's view is that, in general, the enhanced +1RR sanctions (CR and EBRD) should be done with, then that would be that.

I realize that at RfPP you wanted to do nothing. But my view was that it was either this or a lengthy full protection. Better impeded editing than no editing at all was my thinking. Certainly, I'm open to proposals, including ones that are outside the box (DS allowances do go far). But my experience has been that usually the more novel the sanction, the less effective it proves. And CR itself is already rather novel. Needless to say, once the influx of late dies down, the CR can retire once more. El_C 05:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Does it, we had made some progress until people started to ignore the sanction. Hell I removed some of it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

In fact (it seems to me) stuff I removed is now back in because people could not obey the DS. We were arriving at a compromise, and now we are not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am unhappy about the consensus required sanction. I think the article suffers fom WP:STONEWALLING and it just seemes to be a way of increasing that. Yes there were people who felt their edit really had to be in but I think they seemed to be amenable to reason and they did not disrupt things too much for progress. It is the continual calls for consensus and restoring the status quo without any relevant discussion that get me. NadVolum (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

NadVolum, I'd take a dim view of editors who outright WP:STONEWALL or otherwise WP:GAME the sanction. But your 'request' that I somehow extrapolate instances of that out of a ~600K talk page (which I mostly haven't read) — that is an unrealistic expectation, especially considering that en's scarce admin resources are chronically stretched thin.

I'll make it clear, though, that if it becomes obvious that someone is invoking the CR with flimsy reasoning (i.e. their objection lacking substance, etc.), then that could be addressed accordingly. But, again, the alternative of either doing nothing or a lengthy full protection, did not strike me as the optimal path toward mitigating some of the challenges brought by this latest influx. Hope that makes sense. El_C 14:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

What seems to have happened is that several editors have made BOLD edits for which they could have anticipated objections. Then others have quickly reverted, sometimes with difficulty due to intervening tweaks that prevented "undo". I hope that for edits likely to be controversial, editors will propose on the talk page first. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That is what I assumed the intent was, and to add. If it is objected to don't the talk page do not make it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Goodbye to progress, I guess the arguments now will be over what is the version to start from. Unlesss there is a very good reason otherwise I would suppose it is the version when the sanction was applied as per m:The Wrong Version. NadVolum (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can figure out that is this version [2]. NadVolum (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

There's also WP:Stable version. I wouldn't fancy tying to do that! NadVolum (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)