User talk:Colin Gerhard

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VonWoland, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

JesseRafe (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speculated whistleblower

Jimbo's perspective is that we should wait. You suggested a couple, two are op-eds by Betsy McCaughey, a Republican politician and commentator and ex-wife of Wilbur Ross, so obviously out; the other mentions the name as one of several touted by Louie Gohmert, but then points out that Gohmert "has never publicly identified" the speculated individual. I searched Fox News, I got three hits, all from 2015, one is 404 and the other two don't actually mention the name but are in any case syndication of news from the Washington Examiner. I think when even Fox News and Louie Gohmert are reticent about using the name, that's a pretty good indication that we should be too.

Virtually all sources, and certainly all substantive high quality reliable source reporting, discusses the harassment but does not mention the name. It's my view that the one source you linked that meets RS is insufficient to include the speculated name in Wikipedia, but if you want to argue that it reaches the threshold for inclusion per WP:BLPNAME then I suggest WP:BLPN. The edit filter isn't going to be changed without consensus either there or at some similar high input venue.

In practice I think you'd be unlikely to prevail: I think people will want something beyond one article noting mentions by Gohmert, and will look for quality reporting by a top tier journalistic source such as the Washington Post or the BBC - both of whom reported the Rand Paul stunt without mentioning the name. In fact numerous RS discuss the harassment and intimidation of the speculated whistleblower, especially in the context of Rand Paul, and indeed the recent presidential tweets intended to harass and intimidate jurors, judges and prosecutors, but I still find as close to zero mention of the name as makes no odds. Even Congressional Republicans seem unwilling to mention it in public.

But do feel free to ask, BLPN can deliver some surprising results. Guy (help!) 20:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RS rules have to do with the sourcing of the articles themselves. I was not aware that linking to material published in a mainstream newspaper on a talk page was a "serious BLP violation." There a whole world of RS out there that's not under DNC control. I had no trouble finding a story on Unian, the Ukrainian news service. Colin Gerhard (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Gerhard, the relevant guidance is WP:BLPNAME. I'm going to assume that your implied assertion that the mainstream media is under DNC control is mere rhetorical exuberance. Guy (help!) 23:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you won't take my word for it, here's ANSA, the Italian news agency, and Unian, the Ukrainian news agency. Everyone knows the name, it's easy enough to find it in a published source, and yet these restrictions apply. This situation certainly isn't regular under any of our guidelines. Sometimes its argued that he has to be protected from death threats. Everyone in public life gets death threats. I've certainly gotten my share. Colin Gerhard (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

	Rescue Barnstar
	Thank you for saving AdvanSix! Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mottainai

Hey, Colin, I was wondering if you'd be willing to reconsider your !vote in this discussion? There was some important context that I think you may have been missing as you posted so early in the RFC (but so late relative to the previous RFC and all the other discussion). You referred to the source in question as a full length research article when in fact it was a conference paper that went through no peer review, and you said I don't see an argument for not including it, but since then multiple other editors have pointed out that its author is not a specialist in any of the relevant fields, nor likely were any of the psychoanalysts present at the conference, and that her claims are contradicted by multiple more reputable sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm still waiting on a response to the above, for what it's worth. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]