Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive347

I am requesting a close review of a recent RfC at Hunter Biden laptop controversy. The RfC is here.

The closer refers to having counted !votes and does not indicate that they fully considered the participants’ supporting arguments and concerns or whether there is a valid consensus in the poll. The close does not appear to have fully addressed the significant BLP and sourcing issues, the level of consensus required to change the status quo text, and the discussion of the content of the sources cited in the discussion. Several such issues were raised by the participants who posted more than brief “yes” or “no” responses to support their !votes with reasoning that went beyond merely counting the number of source citations.

The closing text is brief in light of the complexity and controversy raised by the RfC question. After the close, some editors interpreted the result as having decided only the RfC question as stated -- whether to use the word “alleged”. Others cited the close of the RfC as a basis to oppose broader wording that was consistent with the close and not synonymous with “alleged”. Such an interpretation was beyond the scope of the RfC statement discussion, and the !vote arguments and policy issues that might support such an alternative interpretation were not addressed in the closing statement. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors (Laptop controversy)

• This needs to be re-closed by an uninvolved admin/editor experienced in closure, I think. The fact that it was closed by someone who on their talk page describes themselves as a fundamentalist evangelist Christian is one thing, but the fact that poor rationales do not appear to have been discounted (GoodDay's is meaningless and Madame Necker's is simply an opinion about the whole affair; we'll ignore the fact that MN is a new account who has already racked up five different DS notices on their talk page). Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Your comment about the closer's stated religious beliefs does not seem appropriate or relevant. I think it is possible to evaluate the close without making it personal. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah that's pretty messed up BK. The quote on the userpage is "I am a very fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) Christian evangelical." What does that have to do with Hunter Biden's laptop? I assume you're suggesting that because many (most?) Christian evangelical voters vote Republican, therefore a Christian evangelical has some kind of bias or COI that should prevent them from closing an RfC about some AP2 political issue? Does your logic apply to closers who have the atheist userbox on their userpage? Because atheists tend to vote Democrat, does that also disqualify them? By this logic, nobody would be able to close anything in AP2. I'm quite shocked to see the suggestion that a closer's religious beliefs are a reason to revert their close, especially when it's a non-religious topic. I think you should strike that. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  If somebody described themselves as a fundamentalist Muslim I dont think they would be wise to close RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 18:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) is not the same as fundamentalist in the modern sense of the term (our article Fundamentalism explains the difference), and we welcome Muslim and Jewish editors in ARBPIA without question, as we should. It doesn't matter if they're Orthodox Jews or reform Jews, just as it doesn't matter what branch of Islam. Same with Hindus and Muslims in IPA, etc. etc. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I dont really see what your complaint is with what I wrote, I didnt say somebody who identifies as a fundamentalist Muslim shouldnt edit in the topic area, they should of course be welcomed like any other editor, but rather they wouldnt be wise to close RFCs in the topic area, given that people may question their objectivity. And that would be totally reasonably to do imo. nableezy - 19:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  At my RfA, some editors expressed concerns that if we legitimized a categorical criticism of editors' fitness to do a particular thing based on their political affiliations, we would effectively be saying the same about religious affiliations. I disagreed with that concern because, well, political and religious affiliations are different things. For one thing, the former is much more a choice than the latter (although ultimately both are choices to a degree). For another, perhaps more importatly, the former is much more directly tied to events "of this world". One cannot infer how someone votes from their religion. One cannot infer what they think of gay people, or abortion, or drinking alcohol, or whether Hunter Biden owned that laptop. Maybe one could reasonably infer some of these from a more detailed exposition of someone's religious views or their membership in a very niche religious group, but not just from I am a very fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) Christian evangelical and some references to core Christian doctrine. I know that in my case, there are many ways my lifestyle and politics differ from what might expect if one knew only my religious views (some of which are quite traditional). One can no more infer my political views from my religious affiliation than from my gender or sexual orientation (and talk about a slippery slope there).

  Point being, if Compassionate indicated a political affiliation on his userpage, this criticism would be fair game (not necessarily correct, but fair game); but saying that religious views disqualify someone from closing a political RfC is a bridge too far, in my opinion.

  To be clear, none of this is a comment on whether the close was correct, just a rebuttal of this particular objection. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I dont think it is disqualifying, I just dont think it is wise. Im not saying perception is reality, but I dont find it that off base to raise an eyebrow at that declaration. Especially given the close actually does align with the views that one might infer, and that the RFC is already tight on the numbers. And btw, BK didnt actually disqualify the user, faulting the close itself for not weighting certain positions less than they feel appropriate, that being the more important thing in the "is one thing" comparison. nableezy - 21:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think the implication was clear. The raising of the eyebrow apparently required it being referenced in a statement regarding the judgement of the closer. As someone incredibly skeptical of any religion, it was a shit take. Arkon (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, sorry, I don't apologise for that at all. This is clearly a very hot-button topic and it should be closed by someone who very obviously doesn't have any baggage over the situation. The closer may be a Biden supporter for all I know but it's the optics that matter, not the actuality. And then there's the closer's comment in the section above, which may lead you in one direction or another. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  So Wikipedia should have religious tests for certain actions? And are you implying that leftists can't be religious? Besides being "not appropriate or relevant" as Mr Ernie said, I think it's more a violation of WP:NPA. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  People can keep pretending its a religious test, as though it isnt the fundamentalist part and not the Christian part of it that raises eyebrows, but Sir Joseph would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? Be honest. nableezy - 22:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  SJ can speak for himself, but if the closes are policy compliant, the religion of the closer is irrelevant. If some bias affects the close, it can then be handled in review and if a pattern emerges, a ban. But to put the ban before any problems simply based on religious views is obscene and certainly not the Wiki way. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Someone who edits in a biased manner, should not be closing things in that area. Religion is really irrelevant. If you have an issue with the close, then cite policy reason, as Black Kite did in the second half, but merely being religious, or fundamental isn't really a valid reason.

  I have an American flag in my profile, does that mean I shouldn't close US related discussions? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ill restate the question as you appear to have avoided answering it. Would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? Be honest. nableezy - 02:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I have no issues with Muslims editing Wikipedia and closing discussions. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Im not sure why you are either answering for Sir Joseph or why you are answering a different question. nableezy - 02:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I want to put to bed this viewpoint that religious beliefs preclude participation in a volunteer encyclopedia project. I wholeheartedly reject that notion. Previously I was certain you were on the same tack. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe put to bed the ignoring of fundamentalist in that sentence too tho? nableezy - 02:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I already answered the question. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  That has no bearing on the RFC close, which is point I’ve been trying to make. If they didn’t have that tag on their user page you wouldn’t have known. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, thats why you, and SJ for that matter, wont actually answer the question asked. At least El C did, though I very much disagree with him. nableezy - 03:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  What question? Maybe it got lost with the threaded replies, but I have no issue with fundamentalist editors doing anything if compliant with policy. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• RE: Would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? — I at least would, though I don't think I've ever encountered one. And I don't really expect to. It seems unlikely that a hardcore religious fundamentalist (which I don't think the closer truly is) would even get to the point of being able to make sound, policy-based closes, though I suppose it's possible, even if not probable. In that sense, it's a bit of a red herring. But in principle, it'd be okay so long as said close conformed to policy and would be well-articulated. Just like it would be okay for a secular Israeli or Palestinian who is an atheist, or an agnostic, a moderate religious Jew or Muslim, and so on. This approach, which is not expressly grounded in policy (quite the contrary) risks users becoming fearful from disclosing their biases or otherwise expressing themselves (appropriately). Which, why should they? El_C 02:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah... I voted for Biden; does that mean I should move my !vote to the involved section? :-P Levivich (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I didn’t expect you to dig in on this, but since you did, could you give a list of the topics where Christians can’t close discussions? Also, what does being a Christian have to do with Hunter Biden’s laptop? Could a Jew close that discussion? You are now casting aspersions at the closer. Please substantiate your aspersions that they have “baggage” in this topic area. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  As Nableezy said above, you're concentrating on the religion part, rather than the "fundamentalist" part. If I identified as part of a group that overwhelmingly votes for a particular party in the US, I wouldn't be closing contentious USPOL debates. As also mentioned above, I wouldn't be closing ARBPIA debates if I was Jewish or Muslim either, but that's irrelevant here. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Jews overwhelmingly vote for a particular party in the U.S. As do Black people. As do LGBTQ people. This would be a terrifying precedent to set, barring most minorities from closing AMPOL discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's comparing apples and oranges, though, as fundamentalism and politics in the US are inextricably linked. Having said that, I am not saying that declaring a political affiliation, or even just a POV, disbars you from anything, I am simply saying (and this doesn't seem to be getting through, despite the fact I've said it three times now) that when you have a very contentious issue which needs a decision and there may be the possibility that you may be seen as having an interest, it's almost always better to leave it to someone else. Also, to be honest, that discussion really needed an admin, or there was always going to be an issue ... as you can see. Black Kite (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  fundamentalism and politics in the US are inextricably linked, and they're not in other countries? Race and politics are inextricably linked in the US, too. Black people in the US overwhelmingly vote Democrat; could a Black person close this RFC or would they also have too much, in your words, "baggage"? when you have a very contentious issue this is not a very contentious issue, it's a run of the mill political squabble. you may be seen as having an interest no, that's so weasel-y. What interest does a Christian evangelical, even a fundamentalist (in the historic sense), have in Hunter Biden's laptop? You're the only person who is claiming a connection between Hunter Biden's laptop and Christian fundamentalism. I have yet to understand the connection between the two. Unless the connection is "they vote Republican" -- if that's what you're talking about, please come out and say it plainly, and then explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Black people, LGBTQ, and other groups like Tamzin pointed out above. By the way, I'm not even sure if the closer is an American at all. If they're a non-American Christian fundamentalist, do they still have "baggage"? that discussion really needed an admin, or there was always going to be an issue ... as you can see An admin of what religion? and this doesn't seem to be getting through Indeed, because you're arguing that religious affiliation creates a political bias or the appearance of one -- that's offensive, and inaccurate. You're advocating for discriminating against closers based on their religious beliefs -- offensive, morally wrong, and a dangerous precedent. It's really, really bad to suggest that the closer's religion (or race, gender, etc.) be taken into account in a close review. Like really bad. I genuinely hope you take the time to really think about what others have written here, and what you've written here, and the implications of it, and that you come to the conclusion that you were wrong to bring up the closer's religion. Levivich (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I am wondering if there was any point writing my previous comment, or the one before that, since it appears that no-one is actually reading them. I'll give up there, I think. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  We've read it, but it doesn't actually address any of the problems with your statement. Your comment's disparaging someone's faith (in any way) is an unreasonable and highly inappropriate remark. That it came from an Admin is not encouraging and exhibits a pretty severe bias. The fact that you stand by your remarks...even more concerning. But I suppose that's par for the course... Buffs (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  This really isn’t that contentious anymore. It was 2 years ago, but now, per one of the RS quoted in the RFC, “almost no one” disputes the laptop’s authenticity. Apparently those who do are the editors in that RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Black Kite, that is awful behaviour. You should retract your borderline personal attack against the closer immediately, not double down, triple down, and quadruple down.

  Politrukki (talk

  ) 12:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• I was actually about to start a closing draft when I saw on my watchlist that it had been closed. My initial reading was that it was too close a call to find any sort of consensus for either option, specially due to the raised NPOV and BLP issues. Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 15:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  While I lean on overturning to no consensus due to my own reading of the discussion, I think it's important to note some of the comments on the closer's personal bias here are way out of line. Overturning a close because the editor is from a certain group or minority, without any proof that it affected their close, would set a terrible precedent in precluding editors from closing RfCs in certain areas, as Tamzin mentions above. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 01:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. Though numerically the vote was close, with the "No's" being in the majority by only a few votes, I agree the closer properly weighted the votes based on the quality of arguments and application of policy, in particular
  WP:NOTAVOTE. Levivich (talk
  ) 16:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• It doesn't seem like a great close. I'm particularly looking at Some editors asserted that the ownership is still unclear but largely failed to support this with reliable sources, while editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection, which simply doesn't line up with the quotes from sources produced in the RfC. There were a few more "no"s than "yes"s, but there were also more inexperienced/new editors saying "no" and more poor arguments on the "no" side (although not by much). The later comment by the closer extending the RfC about "alleged" to apply to qualifying the belonging in any way is an overreach. I'm not saying there was consensus for the "yes" side, either, though. We have sources that appear pretty split on this, in terms of the language they use, and both sides have arguments backed by policy. I suppose I'd be inclined to err on the side of BLP, but that's my own $0.02. Although I don't think anyone would love the idea of a repeat RfC, it might be more effective to provide a set of options for wording and/or do a more thorough analysis of the sourcing apart from the RfC, along with weighting by how recent the sources are. i.e. what is the consensus of sources published since June (arbitrarily)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Are we looking at the same sources? That sounds sarcastic, but I am genuinely seeking clarification, as among the sources cited in the RfC, I count three sources that consistently use language like "alleged" and "purportedly" (all from April or earlier), eleven that pointedly omit such language, and a couple that use "alleged" when describing what earlier sources said about the laptop but omit that language when speaking about it themselves (as well as a couple whose constructions are too ambiguous to confidently parse). Where is the disconnect in what we are perceiving? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  There is a section, "sources" which lists several bulletpoints. In order of whether they use/describe some qualification of ownership: no, yes [here and elsewhere, there is ownership/verification attributed to the emails, but not the laptop], yes, yes, yes, no, yes, sorta [for the first part, but again regarding emails], no, no, [quote from someone who funded the effort, not the publication], yes [again separating laptop from emails], no, yes [sorta], no [but the sentence isn't about this], yes, yes, [someone "yelling about Hunter Biden's laptop" isn't a statement about authenticity], yes, [doesn't address it], mostly no [attempts to rely on inference from the title]. While it's entirely possible to come to different conclusions about the consensus among those sources, it's hardly one side failing to support their argument and the other producing a plethora of sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Adding: my evaluation of the close has nothing to do with the closer's userboxes/religion. Yikes, that doesn't seem like good practice. Those arguing that we should overturn on that basis are providing an easy target so people can endorse without addressing the substance of the close (as two of the last three endorsements have). i.e. this "the closer is a fundamentalist Christian and fundamentalist Christians vote a certain way that probably gives them an opinion about this topic ... so optics" line of argumentation isn't just lousy in its own right, but people seem to be focusing on that rather than the problems with the substance of the close (see above). It's weird to me that I'm the only one to flag that the closer declared their closing statement to extend far beyond the actual RfC, for example. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Vacate for a more experienced closer to re-close. With US politics, it's not enough that the close is right; it has to be seen to be right, so we leave closes that touch on US politics to the wizened and elderly who enjoy the fullest confidence of the community.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Probably a
  WP:TRUTH vote, that we dont really know if it is or it isnt. Those votes should be given less weight when there are users providing numerous reliable sources that state as a fact what those users dispute to be a fact without any sources that likewise dispute it. The numbers may say no consensus, but as ever this isnt a vote and the strength of the arguments for "no" were much stronger than those for "yes". Id have closed it as a consensus for no as well. nableezy
  - 17:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  If the only issue is

  WP:NACRFC? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

  17:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Its a BADNAC because it was a close call, and we leave that to people we've said we trust to make those close calls. nableezy - 03:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close Well thought out and justified through and through. These objections regarding experience or the users religion (really?) are incredibly superficial. Arkon (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close. It's a reasonable decision, and it reflects the median point of mainstream news coverage at this time. And if you read the lede of this article as a whole, it contains plenty of indications of how murky this whole saga is and how not every claim about it is credible, so readers will not be misled. And the religion of the closer is irrelevant. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn close, and re-close by uninvolved admin or experienced non-admin closer - per Black Kite and S Marshall. It's the optics that matter here, and a good close by a partisan closer is not acceptable in controversial subjects. Also, the rigamarole over "give me a list of what Christians can't close" is hyperbolic and absurd, a very good indication of why a pristine close is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Are you saying the closer was partisan or was that a hypothetical unrelated to this case? If the former, I would ask you to substantiate the claim. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is not an appropriate line of argument, BMK. What proof do you have of topic area partisanship in the editing history of this closer? If you have no such evidence, then I submit that the close should be judged on its merits. Which is to say, there would need to be some record of problems involving the topic area by the closer — ones that go beyond a declaration of adjacent (?) bias on their user page. And while I agree that optics matter, without evidence of such problems, they only matter with respect to the appearance of the close as being of substance.

  To that: though I haven't read the discussion and I don't know if I'll get a chance to, it does seem a bit insubstantial, though it may well be a correct assessment (or not, I have no idea). Personally, for a subject of this import, I probably would have written twice to four times more if I were to close that RfC myself. So, again, even if correct — optics. That said, I have been criticized on this board in the recent past that my standards for closures of weight are too high. Still, to me, at a glance, the close seems too brief. El_C 00:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn - Many of the sources in the "source" section seem to support "alleged" being included, and many don't. There is sourcing that was presented in the article that supported both sides. So I'm not really seeing the "no" side having such stronger arguments that the discussion should have been closed in the "no" favor despite a near even split among participants. This close was not flat out terrible and I wouldn't say it even arises to the level of unreasonable, but nonetheless, it's best for the close to be done right, and I think the right close would have been no consensus. I don't believe the closer was trying to make a
  WP:SUPERVOTE, but it can sometimes be hard to balance the line between super vote and strength of arguments. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk
  00:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close per Levivich and Wasted Time R. As I see it, the close was correct based on the sources. Those seeking an overturn, as Levivich and others have noted, are using reasoning I will collegially term dubious. Jusdafax (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Vacate Having read the RfC, I agree with those above who point out that this closure does not appear to have accurately weighed the !votes which do not have significantly different strengths of argument. C727's response to inquiries about the close also point to that being the case. Should be reclosed by an administrator. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  @FormalDude This is the section for uninvolved editors. Since you were active in talk page discussion and made 1 of the 4 controversial post-RFC edits, please move your response to the "involved editors" section. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've moved this comment to the involved section from the uninvolved per our guidance on

  fixing format errors. Formal appears to be away from Wikipedia at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

  21:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Red-tailed hawk. I didn't think to do that myself, in case Formal wanted to challenge their "involved" status; it didn't seem like a 100% cut-and-dry formatting error. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Given the objection by FormalDude below, I've moved it back. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Red-tailed hawk: I'm uninvolved with respect to this RfC as I did not participate in it in any form. Please move my comment back. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

   Done— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Regardless of the closer and possible COI, at the end of the day, it seems that sourcing wins out here, but as a broader comment and reading through what's there, I think that that was a poor RFC and/or the issue wasn't fully explored first. In context of the laptop story, it is important to recognize the media's treatment of the story and how that changed, and there may be points where "alleged" ownership should be used to describe the broader media's stance on the matter when discussing the history of when the story first broke. It's now at the time that the media seemingly all agrees about the ownership, so we would no longer need alledged. I would recommend editors on that page to revisit this idea, knowing when "alleged" is actually appropriate in terms of the historical facets, and when it can be dropped. --Masem (t) 02:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Dunno — stumbled on this from following up on
  WP:AN3. It's a harder one because the closer needs to be confident in weighing policy against (and potentially overriding) arguments given. Given BLP, specifically, unless there are RSes with clear assertions stating it was definitely his (i.e., the sources themselves are putting their asses on the line from a legal standpoint), the inference should be reworded to disclaim/avoid it so as to avoid using Wikipedia's voice to assert factual-ness (at least, that's my interpretation of policy and my superficial skimming of the discussion). If I were closing it (I've done many of these via ANRFC), I would not say there's clear consensus based on policy; it's not a good argument to say "but there aren't (m)any sources saying it wasn't his" as it's still SYNTHy/OR to imply fact in Wikipedia's voice unless the positive sources, themselves, are 100% confident in stating ownership as a fact. I would, however, also suggest options combining the arguments involved to discuss for a subsequent RFC. For example, even though nobody mentioned it, "involves a laptop computer , its contents, and whether it was owned by Hunter Biden" is possibly a more neutral, factual representation of the topic at hand, because it unquestionably gets to the meat of what the article is about (and ironically the RFC) without making any risky statements of fact. This could help steer a subsequent RFC into a more productive direction focusing on examining sources and reporting facts as cut and dried as possible to avoid Wikipedia making determinations. Long story short, BLP sets a significantly higher standard for factually assertive statements to begin with, and that's the more important question; a new RFC to discuss these issues and/or rewording options would be warranted. --slakr^\ talk
   / 10:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment and Questions - How are we to tell new editors that they MUST follow and include reliable sources but then turn around and tell them not to follow reliable sources in this case? I have no political affiliations. I don't care anything about a laptop and who owns it. I just want to make sure I understand how to tell new editors when to use and when not to use reliable independent sources. How do we determine that a reliable source is being lazy? Don't they have an editing process? We very curtly inform editors all the time that Wikipedia isn't trying to present the truth, we only share what reliable sources say about notable subjects. If the sources are wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. That is mantra used across the encyclopedia all the time. Is that just lip service or do we apply our policies and guidelines equally across the board? --ARoseWolf 14:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. With respect to The fact that it was closed by someone who on their talk page describes themselves as a fundamentalist evangelist Christian is one thing, merely being religious does not make one
  WP:NACRFC section, notes that any non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin, so the claim of BADNAC here is self-defeating if that's the only remaining issue. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)
  17:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse BK's highly inappropriate response notwithstanding, the logic of the closer is sound. While some (politically) want to draw doubt about the laptop, the fact is that reliable sources indeed show it was. "Alleged" is not needed. Buffs (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Concerns: Having read the discussion and the close, I would second Rhododendrites's concerns about the quality of the close, though I suspect a new close could very well come to a similar conclusion. That said, I do have serious concerns about Compassionate727's addendum to the close here where he uses his position as closer to prohibit any qualification that weakens the claim of ownership based on how he "imagines" the RfC participants would vote on the issue if asked. I don't see any consensus in the RfC that should prohibit someone from writing that the laptop is "widely believed to belong to Hunter Biden" as User:Korny O'Near suggested. (I'm not sure if that's the most accurate representation of the sources, as I haven't looked at them myself.) @Compassionate727: if you're reading this, would you consider striking or modifying your addendum to reflect what RfC participants actually wrote? ~Awilley (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  @

  indirect discourse) and this discussion was about the first sentence of the article, so it's about the use of such qualifiers in summaries (and extremely short ones, at that). So I'm definitely not imagining this as a blunt prohibition on any qualification in all contexts, and I'm currently mulling over how I might best clarify that, but I don't believe the rational core of the addendum was off-base—though I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C

  ) 16:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close. There was a consensus to omit "alleged", based on the strength of arguments. The close is perhaps not as nuanced as it should be – it doesn't mention that the "yes" opinions largely weren't grounded in policy and guidelines – but closers don't have to be perfect. There's no evidence that the closer tried influence the outcome by "super voting" or such.
  The filer refers to "significant BLP and sourcing issues", but it's not clear what the alleged issues are. In the RFC they were asked about potential BLP issues, but they evaded the question. Yes, the material is covered by the BLP policy, but BLP per se is not a trump card; if the material is properly sourced (NOR and V), it still must strictly adhere to NPOV policy.
  For what it's worth, I think the RFC question was too unspecific. Questions like that tend to lead to unclear situations that may require too much interpretation in edge cases. Which is what happened after the close.
  Politrukki (talk
  ) 12:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  The BLP and NPOV issues relating to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden have been extensively discussed on talk on this article's page and before this page was created on the AfD and related page. They have been clearly specified and identified and "evasion" is not at play here, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Another evasion noted. What do you mean by "significant BLP and sourcing issues"? And to my knowledge, nobody has suggested that the laptop belongs to Joe Biden. Why would you mention Joe? How are "the AfD and related page" relevant to this discussion? Please be specific. Maybe I missed something. Thanks,

  Politrukki (talk

  ) 14:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Whether or not the actual BLP issues were previously discussed is no reason not to bring them up in the RfC. RfCs by their nature are designed to attract editors who have no participated in previous discussions. The reason why you never explained the BLP issues is that there are none

  I phrased the question that way following the recommendations at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Example. They are supposed to be concise. While SPECIFCO claimed that because the RfC was about alleged, it did not preclude "believed to be," there will always be editors who wikilawyer. I posted the RfC after near unanimous support for keeping the term and notice that the first six votes after mine were to keep. SPECIFICO immediately posted "An irksome revert is no reason to call for an immediate RfC. Ordinary discussion is the next step. Please withdraw this RfC. Or write an essay "BR-RfC"". [14:43, 28 August 2022] Obviously there is a hard core of editors who cannot accept anything that remotely reflects on their political leaders. So support for following policy in the RfC was never going to be overwhelming. TFD (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus Seems just blatantly like a supervote to me. And when people in the discussion even here have to get into numerical specifics of whom discussed the sources or not, then that even more indicates a no consensus result because consensus was split. Add to that the non-NPOV closing description and the close itself seems way out of line. Silverseren^C 01:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors (Laptop controversy)

• Overturn to no consensus. To put this in
  WP:AGEMATTERS, the policy C727 linked in that last quote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs
  ) 14:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• I would welcome a review from an experienced closer in order to solidify the consensus. There have already been attempts to circumvent the close by messing with the descriptor. What sticks out to me in the RFC is that the sourcing presented came overwhelmingly from the "No" !voters, which the closer noted. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy#Sources Here is a link to the section in the RFC listing the sourcing that many of the No votes seem to base their vote on. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  And Yes votes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• To be more honest than I feel comfortable being, it feels to me like SPECIFICO is forum-shopping because he didn't like the result. Shortly after I closed the RfC saying there was a consensus against stating that the laptop is "alleged to have belonged" to Biden, SPECIFICO added that it is "believed to have belonged" to him, which Mr Ernie reverted; at that point, SPECIFICO reached out to me via email thanking me for my closure and asking me to weigh in on the issue (there was no indication that SPECIFICO felt anything about my closure was incorrect); I did, explaining why I felt the arguments against using "alleged" also covered "believed" or any similar weasle-ish words, at which point he attempted to downplay it as "an after-the-fact personal opinion" rather than the clarification of the closure that he had requested. Now that several other editors have agreed that SPECIFICO's new wording contradicts the consensus I found, he's here seeking to overturn it.

Between my various comments, I believe I have adequately explained why I found the consensus I did and don't intend to engage extensively with this unless people have questions. But to summarize one last time, for the benefit of uninvolved persons: pretty much every source cited in the discussion was provided in a list mid-discussion; many of them, including pretty much all of the most recent sources, described the laptop as Biden's without qualification. A majority of editors agreed that there is no longer any dispute in the RS that the laptop is Biden's; whether they explicitly mentioned Adoring nanny and his list or not is immaterial, I think it is clear from reading the comments that they are aware of it, and it would be foolish to say that they need to say exactly the right things for their intent to be relevant in shaping the consensus. Likewise,

WP:AGEMATTERS was clearly on at least some participants' minds (see e.g. Thriley's reference to "current" sources), even if nobody explicitly linked to it (and it is relevant regardless). I likewise took into account the way the discussion unfolded; while in total, 11 people supported using "alleged" and 14 opposed, the ratio of support to oppose votes swung heavily in favor of the opposers as more and more sources were added to the list. For example, after Guest2625's large addition

on September 1, three people voted for using alleged and six against; nobody would question that a two-thirds majority is a solid consensus without a compelling policy reason. And given the large number of RS produced in favor of directly stating the laptop is Biden's, I don't think BLP is a highly salient issue (BLP is not a license to ignore sources), especially when it only indirectly implicates Biden, given the ongoing controversy over the authenticity of the documents.

I'm willing to admit when I screw closes up (I have done that here before), but I don't see any compelling reason to believe this is one of them. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• This misrepresents my email to the closer, in which I followed what I believe to be best practices to first approach the closer with a concern before formally requesting a close review. Compassionate, as I think is now clear, thanking you for your effort was not an endorsement of your conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thing is, Specifico, your edit on Sep 28 at 12:46 adding "believed to have", with the edit summary more direct representation of status, consistent with RfC, shows that at that time, you were fine with the close of the RfC, and were even making an edit consistent with that close. No close challenge from you at that time. It was only after the discussions at the article talk page and ANEW (last post: 2:40 Sep 29) (both of which you participated in) resulted in the reversion of "believed to have" on the basis that it was against the RfC closure, that you then filed this close review (at 13:47 on Sep 29). It looks to me like you didn't have a problem with the close if you could change "alleged" to "believed to have" (i.e., if you could ignore the result with crafty wordsmithing)... only after that was shut down did you seem to raise issues with the close itself. In my view, this seriously undermines your argument. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Evidently, and even if it were, it would be reasonable for you to change your mind about my closure after discovering that it was broader than you had thought. I mention the email because 1) it seems to fit within what a pattern of back-peddling here and, more importantly, 2) I had wondered even when I first saw the email why you had reached out to me privately concerning such a public matter as on-wiki consensus, instead of using my talk page. Given everything that has happened since, I wonder if it was so that it wouldn't be obvious to everyone else that you had asked for my input (and implicitly assented that I held a bit of authority on that issue) in case that turned against you, which seems like an oddly underhanded way of seeking clarification of consensus, but a rather natural one if you had been planning to challenge an unfavorable finding the entire time. I find myself struggling to articulate that there was anything truly improper about it, yet the level of cynicism I see there discomforts me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think you were forum shopping. Thanking the closer doesn't mean endorsing. But your article edit surely (see Levivich's comment above) looks like a smoking gun.

  Moreover, you can't make an unsubstantiated allegation that Compassionate727 mispresented you. Would you kindly publish the email – as Compassionate727 is likely unable to do so for copyright reasons – so that the community can be the judge or retract your allegation? Why would you even use email if the message didn't contain any so-called harmful content (private data, defamatory content, etc.)?

  Politrukki (talk

  ) 14:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• One admin already reviewed this RFC case and determined that the closer was correct in their assessment of consensus on the WP:ANE case, and also opined on the article's talk page that the subsequent edits were out of line based on the RFC. I guess you're looking for a second admin's opinion, then? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  @EvergreenFir: just letting you know that two comments you've made have been referenced in this discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Merci, @Iamreallygoodatcheckers. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a challenge or a review of this close and whether it was a
  WP:SUPERVOTE. Andre🚐
  16:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse closure- I promised to accept the RFC result (no matter what it was) & I'm keeping that promise. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  As your entry was cited specifically one of the reasons to challenge this close, re: "meaningless", your endorsement carries virtually no weight. ValarianB (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's a matter for the closer or the re-closer of that RFC, to decide. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. If you noticed, understood and worried about things like that then I doubt you'd ever sleep. Begoon 14:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, while it's not clear to me why they participated in either the RfC or this review, that was uncalled for. It's not like they're hurting anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I commented already welcoming any review because I think it should be clear, but here are my thoughts. Of the 10 "yes" !votes, only 3 refer to sources, and none refer to any policy. Consequently, of the "no" !votes, 10 explicitly refer to the sources provided, with the remainder hinting at them and referring to evidence. On this basis, the close is firmly on solid ground. The OP here challenging the close uses their !vote to attack the RFC as premature and suggest the opener of the RFC made a mistake. One RFC participant suggested NPOV wording which avoided this issue altogether (also suggested by Slakr above), which I believe should be pursued as a much better way to handle this. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn Apparent supervote by an inexperienced editor unfamiliar with measuring consensus. ValarianB (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • 7 years, 27k edits = "inexperienced editor" 😂 Levivich (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Perhaps ValarianB meant "inexperienced closer"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
      • That wouldn't be accurate, either. Levivich (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse As the closer correctly pointed out, editors who thought the ownership was unclear failed to provide sources. Nor did they present any policy based reasons why facts reported in mainstream news media should be reported as allegations in this article. I note also that SPECIFICO did not inform RfC participants of this discussion. TFD (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think participants in the discussion should be notified, since they'd just come here and re-do their same votes (ie exactly what you're doing). Uninvolved people are the ones who should be in this discussion. This weird section splitting in that regard is a new one on me. Silverseren^C 01:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree, because "review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself." (See Wikipedia:Closing discussions.) Before posting my endorsement of the close I carefully read through this discussion and reviewed the close.

  On re-reading the RfC, I was surprised that SPECIFICO's side was unable to provide any evidence that ownership of the laptop is currently questioned in reliable sources or any reasons based on policy or guidelines to question it in the article. So whatever the vote was, the closer was correct because only one side provided valid evidence or arguments.

  It was therefore important for participants in this discussion to be aware of this situation, since it was not expressed at the beginning of the discussion thread. TFD (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  The substantive content question of the RFC was whether the older sources which described the laptop as alleged, were superceded by the newer sources that just referred to it as "Hunter Biden's laptop," That was not a clear-cut question and the opinions were varied as to whether there was sufficient sourcing to say that in fact, Hunter Biden's so-called laptop was in fact his since some amount of the provenance and the authenticity of the laptop was unclear at best, and there was evidence of tampering. So should it be called his "alleged" laptop since it is still unclear how the laptop was "lost" or "left" and that it appears to have evidence of being tampered with and/or part of an oppositional plot involving Rudy Giuliani, etc.. Not to rehash the dispute, but you shouldn't hand-wave the existence of a dispute as simply being a 1-sided matter. An allegation of possible crimes being proven by the existence of incriminating information on a laptop being used to accuse people of wrongdoing or malfeasance is a BLP issue. The content question of whether it was in fact truly all his in entirety, remains relatively vague even though RS refer to it as his laptop without elaborating on its vague backstory. Andre🚐 22:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  None of those arguments were made in the RfC, probably because they are weak. Early news reports tend to be guarded. For example, on 9/11, ABC reported, "There has been some sort of explosion. We don't fully know the details. There is one report as of yet unconfirmed that a plane has hit the World Trade Center."[1] Do you think the 9/11 article should therefore say a plane allegedly hit the tower?

  Expressing doubt where none exists is often a polemical tactic used by the tobacco industry, climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists and has no place in serious articles. There's even a Wikipedia article about one example: Teach the Controversy.

  Whether or not the laptop was tampered with is irrelevant to whether Biden owned it. If you sued in court for the return of your property, the defendant could not argue that he had tampered with it, therefore it no longer belonged to you. And of course the article mentions this possibility and it was never an issue. TFD (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Both points are straw man. The WTC bit is especially egregious -- the claim that we should evaluate sources and BLP content based on a false equivalence comparing the chaotic early moments after the WTC calamity to the blind-man laptop tale published in an unreliable tabloid via Trump political operative and sanctioned liar Giuliani. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, it's a good point. Things that are reported as unconfirmed at first later become confirmed. Once they're confirmed, we should not and do not state that they're unconfirmed. Allegations, once accepted by the RS as true, are no longer allegations. Whether the 2020 election was "stolen" is another example; having been disproven, we no longer say "allegedly stolen" or talk about "alleged irregularities". We don't say Nixon's men "allegedly" broke into Watergate. Also, truth doesn't become less true because "sanctioned liars" say it's true. There are many examples, of which WTC and Hunter Biden's laptop are two. Giuliani says Al Qaeda did 9/11, that doesn't make it any less true. We don't say Bill Clinton "allegedly" had inappropriate sexual relations with an intern, even though that story was broken by Matt Drudge. There are so many examples of this. It's not a straw man, it's how the world works. The laptop belonged to Biden, according to RS. Not allegedly belonged to Biden, but did belong to Biden. RS says it directly and no RS says otherwise. We're not going to use "allegedly" or "believed to be". Time to drop this stick and move on. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is the crux of the dispute. RS never said the allegations were confirmed, they just stopped referring to them as allegations. Our assumption that they are confirmed is original research and synthetic. Andre🚐 14:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Another straw man: "Once they're confirmed...". This really is not complicated. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

RS never said the allegations were confirmed, they just stopped referring to them as allegations. Hmm, I wonder what would make them do that? 🤔 Anyway, that sentence is the best explanation I've seen as to why Wikipedia should also stop referring to them as allegations. Levivich (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

But

WP:BURDEN. Let's just await the close. SPECIFICO talk

16:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV issue, because there are some sources that still used "alleged" or similar. The issue here -- the only issue -- is how to neutrally summarize the sources. That's what editors discussed, and the closer closed, and while there are multiple valid viewpoints on the NPOV issue and on whether the close should be overturned, WP:BURDEN is not among them, nor is (as you said above) anyone making a claim that we should evaluate sources and BLP content based on a false equivalence. You waste editor time by making these specious, irrelevant arguments, and refusing to concede any quarter, such as by suggesting WP:BURDEN or WP:V hasn't been met here. (It's ironic, because "deny everything, argue everything" are classic Trump tactics.)

But I agree, let's just await the close. Levivich (talk

) 18:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I think

WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against you and "the horse" is nothing but a smear on the street. Let it go and let's have a closer end this pointless drama. Buffs (talk

) 22:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I really don't see that the consensus was so clear. I'm not sure how this discussion will be closed if at all or what will happen, but I find that @Levivich's allusion to "Trump tactics" is a personal attack or adjacent. Specifico's argument hinges on the idea that was never given an RS that the "Hunter Biden laptop was confirmed authentic," quite the contrary in fact: it was confirmed, at least in part, to be inauthentic, but other parts were confirmed authentic: but this does not confirm it as authentic and there is a burden to satisfy as to its authenticity. RS stopped referring to "Hunter Biden's alleged laptop" and mostly began referring to it just as his laptop: the substantive question of the RFC was whether this is sufficient for Wikipedia to follow suit. I do not believe there was a consensus that it should since doubts remained. Instead, it would be reasonable to refer to the laptop as a laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden. Anyway, I am not litigating the close here but pointing out that there was a substantive issue at dispute that is not clear-cut. Andre🚐 23:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Per Vox (cited at the article), nothing has been confirmed as inauthentic / misinformation yet. If you have a source claiming something has been verified as inauthentic, please link us to it (although it would have been better to do that during the RFC). Side note: can someone please close this? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Among the reasons for the inconclusive findings was sloppy handling of the data, which damaged some records. The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years....The Washington Post’s forensic findings are unlikely to resolve that debate, offering instead only the limited revelation that some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic. The security experts who examined the data for The Post struggled to reach definitive conclusions about the contents as a whole, including whether all of it originated from a single computer or could have been assembled from files from multiple computers and put on the portable drive.[2] Andre🚐 23:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Your previous post said some things were confirmed to be inauthentic but this source you quote here says some of the data is confirmed to be authentic. Are you mixing that up? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

What I should have said was, it was confirmed at least in part that the laptop was unable to be authenticated. By which I mean the "other files" on the drive. people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI. Maxey had alerted The Washington Post to this issue in advance, saying that others had accessed the data to examine its contents and make copies of files. But the lack of what experts call a “clean chain of custody” undermined Green’s and Williams’s ability to determine the authenticity of most of the drive’s contents. Andre🚐 00:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Without going into the merits of any of these arguments, I will note that they are all about the underlying content dispute rather than the closure itself, which is exactly why Silver seren said that participants of the RfC should not be participating in the close review. Lay it to rest, please. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No sources say people other than Hunter Biden had "written files to it." They say it is possible and therefore each email has to be individually authenticated. So far the Washington post has authenticated 22,000 emails and not found any that were tampered with. But again, the question in the RfC was not whether the emails were authentic, but "Should the article use the term "alleged" in reference to the ownership of the laptop computer?"

Suppose someone steals your laptop and hacks into and misuses your email accounts. Do you think a judge would buy the argument that it wasn't your laptop because the alleged thief had added fake emails?

I suspect this is filibustering. Some editors try to slow down the improvement of articles about Democrats by challenging anything that could possibly reflect poorly on them. No reasonable editor would present any of your arguments in an article that had no political significance. TFD (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually the Washington Post does say that, which I just quoted, TFD. Andre🚐 18:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Is another RFC gonna be necessary or not? It's been 3 weeks, since this challenge was opened. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Buffs (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Please close this

The last opinion voiced (excluding follow-on discussion) was 9 Oct. The last comment of any substance (excluding "are we going to end this?") was 2 days ago. This discussion has run its course. Buffs (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

now 5 days... Buffs (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I requested closure at

WP:ANRFC. I agree this is ripe for a wrap-up Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs

) 15:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Buffs (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

now at a week... Buffs (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Attempt made at an involved user closure. At least one disagreed...it appears to be over procedural grounds. Buffs. No offense taken nor malfeasance assumed :-) . (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm requesting for IP User: 112.211.70.39 be banned because they keep vandalising Subic–Clark–Tarlac Expressway, Tarlac–Pangasinan–La Union Expressway and Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria and unrevert the rollback that I and ClueBot did. Check Special:Contributions/112.211.70.39 ― Dulcetia 06:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It appears that

But you did engage in ablism and a personal attack when you said if you think no one else viewing these edits isn't thinking the same then you are truly deluded [6]. It's not a rhetorical device to say you are truly deluded to another editor. Had I not wanted to draw attention to this, as it largely had gone unnoticed, I would be asking for you to consider the personal attack you made per

WP:ADMINCOND

.

Also it's pretty clear that per their signature TheresNoTime uses they/them pronouns, not he/him. Could you fix that please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Since when has this not been a valid rhetorical device. Admittedly it's 35 years since I went to a school but on what basis am I supposed to understand this term is now banned and it's a damned site less offensive then accusing me of hate speech. I gave corrected pronouns, I checked TNTs page but couldn't see a statement and missed it in the signature. Thanks

Spartaz ^Humbug!

21:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the pronouns. In future when referring to the pronouns of an unknown editor, I find it easiest to use the {{they}} template and its derivatives, as it uses whatever pronouns the editor has set in their preferences page.

on what basis am I supposed to understand this term is now banned It's called ableism. In this case it stems from the usage of the word to refer to people who have delusions. If you've not encountered it before, perhaps you may wish to seek out a modern equality and diversity training program. If you want a thorough but not exhaustive list of various ableist words, this blog entry is pretty comprehensive for both the words and why the words are problematic.

less offensive then accusing me of hate speech You've used ableist language to attack another editor, whether unintentional or not. TNT's response both here and on their talk page is rather polite and measured in the circumstances. Perhaps instead of causing more heat in this circumstance, you should use it to reflect on the language you feel is appropriate to use, despite it correctly being pointed out as an issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• No, "delusional" is deprecatory twitter-speak used by people with opposing viewpoints. It's plainly insulting language, so that's truly not a word we should be using on Wikipedia regardless of how offending it is. But "delusion" stems from the actual mental illness
  Delusional Disorder, so wouldn't you find using that term a bit (very) insensitive? I mean, obviously you don't, but maybe you should. Thanks! —VersaceSpace 🌃
  21:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

And yes, it is ableist, which seems to be a main point of contention here. Forgot to mention that in my original post —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t assume what I think please, I have said multiple times that I am upset by the unjustified accusation of hate speech

Spartaz ^Humbug!

22:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not about what you think, it's about what you said. That's the important thing here, because nobody could actually know your thoughts just by looking at words on a screen. I'm of the belief that having said some discriminatory things doesn't make a whole person discriminatory. But it's still wrong to say those things, and yes in this case what you said was ableist, whether you meant it that way or not. Sorry —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Seems like both of you are acting sub-optimally, but each is convinced the other is acting more sub-optimally. Wouldn't the rational solution be that both of you just stop talking to/about each other, starting now, and then no one else has to wade thru yet another clash of personalities? (Based on a historical evaluation of previous similar suggestions, the odds of a rational solution occurring naturally on WP are approximately 24%, and fall significantly lower every time either person mentions the other person after the initial suggestion. But, it isn't zero, so I'll still give it a shot.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • why should anyone expect me to just accept a false claim of using hate speech.
    Spartaz ^Humbug!
    22:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    Where exactly did TNT accuse you of "hate speech"? Or are you suggesting that "ableist trope" is synonymous with "hate speech"? ––FormalDude (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    The phrase used was Please take some time to reflect on your words, there's no need for such hate. which PackManEng immediately below took to mean I was being accused of bigotry.

    Spartaz ^Humbug!

    23:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    And you're continuing to call TNT "he" after being informed that their pronouns are "they/them". Why are you doing that? ––FormalDude (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    Already fixed and I'm very angry and upset so my typing is getting ahead of my proofing.

    Spartaz ^Humbug!

    23:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    I think it would be beneficial for you to take a break from this for a bit. Tempers running high never helps a discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    it would be easier to do so if people stopped attacking me for not understanding another person's pain while doubling down on mine.

    Spartaz ^Humbug!

    23:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    In that case, it would be wise to step away for a bit. I've spoken up in your defense below as I feel that many of the comments here leave something to be desired, but I'm not convinced that TNT intended to explicitly accuse you of hate speech (certainly, the word 'hate' was inflammatory regardless of its intended meaning). If I suffered from a condition that caused me to experience delusions, I'd probably react angrily if I was arguing with someone and they implied that I was delusional. However, upon further reflection, I'd realize that they probably weren't actually referring to my medical condition. Hopefully TNT will eventually arrive at that same conclusion, but for now I don't think there is much to be gained here.

    LEPRICAVARK (talk

    ) 23:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

    you are undoubtedly correct.

    Spartaz ^Humbug!

    23:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm likely not winning any friends by saying this, but FWIW: Spartaz, please, don't escalate this any further. I assume, as should everyone watching this, that you didn't know about any medical condition TNT has, and that your language was, as you say, a rhetorical device; one I've used on occasion. Even so, knowing what you do now, I think it ought to be obvious that rhetorical device would be hurtful to someone in TNT's position. And their reaction should be understandable, at the very least. Besides, I genuinely struggle to see how anything TNT brought up above requires escalation to recall. Surely you ought to discuss things with her before going there? TNT, I don't know if you're watching this; but if you are, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to assume, as I did, that Spartaz didn't know of your condition, and was using a phrase that, directed at another person, would generally mean "you are gravely mistaken". I have nothing but respect for both of you: I don't believe anyone gains by escalating this further. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m not going to stand still and just leave an unjustified accusation of using hate speech unchallenged. I would happily let it go If the accusation were withdrawn but I’m damned if I’m going to just accept such a slur without defending myself against it.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

22:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

So instead you've come to AN to try and sanction the person you derogatorily insulted? (and, fwiw, who you misgendered as well) I hope this results in a

WP:BOOMERANG. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈

) 22:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Your words were hurtful, even if unintentionally so. I've asked TNT to accept that no ableism was intended, but I'm asking you to try to understand why you got the reaction you did. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I don't entirely get it as the term in my British ears is mildly rhetorical and in no way equates to hate speech. The latter of which, I associate with antisemitism, fascistic nationalism or homophobia and is possibly the worst thing you can accuse an aging lefty of. It's a disgusting slur.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

22:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Spartaz, ablism is a form of hate speech. Disability, which includes both physical and mental health, is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. It is punching down on a minority, in the same way that antisemitism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or ageism is. I'm telling you as another British person, regardless of whether or not it was unintentional, what you've said is problematic and has been perceived to be problematic. The correct response when you are informed of this should be to apologise, and not to double down by saying it's a "false claim", or trying to deflect based on your age.

I urge you to please reflect on this. Because regardless of your original intent, you are currently making things worse by refusing to acknowledge the problem that multiple editors have now tried to inform you about. This is not helping. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, as another British person I find that a ridiculous overreaction. Accusing someone of "hate speach" in this context is far more offensive and unaccepatble. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Spartaz acknowledged in the very first post in this thread that he should have chosen his words differently. What's not helpful is the fact that so many of you are either oblivious or indifferent to how deeply Spartaz was hurt by TNT's words. This is a very delicate situation to resolve as both editors acted in substandard fashion. Let's stop hammering Spartaz over word choice that he already admitting regretting.

LEPRICAVARK (talk

) 23:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

All TNT did was say Spartaz was using an ableist trope, which is true whether he meant it that way or not. And that's not deserving of an apology; I seriously hope TNT ignores this. —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted the comment I first wrote but you are being one eyed and ridiculous.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

23:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a little more to it than that. TNT's use of the word 'hate' in this comment is what seems to have set Spartaz off. I think both editors have overreacted by reading more than what was intended into one another's words.

LEPRICAVARK (talk

) 23:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

they took it as hate, and were well within their right to do so. An apology is in order to TNT, not from them —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really. 'Delusion' was a poor word choice. 'Hate' was a poor word choice. Neither of them rose to the level of AN thread, but here we are. And I'm not interested in telling other people when to apologize to each other; that usually doesn't end well.

LEPRICAVARK (talk

) 23:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not either, but that seems to be the intention of this thread. If anything, TNT wants to not engage with Spartaz, hence the removal on their talk page —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Thankfully, it seems that tempers have cooled for the time being.

LEPRICAVARK (talk

) 01:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

And I've said above that I understand the sense in which you used it, and that it does not equate with ableism in a traditional lexicon, let alone with hate speech (I would draw a clear distinction between ableism and hate speech, mind you, but that's somewhat besides the point). However, TNT has made it public that they struggle with a medical disorder that sometimes causes delusions. In context, therefore, your comment sounds like you're telling TNT they cannot believe the evidence of their eyes, rather than just saying they're mistaken. Under the circumstances, I think a sharp response was understandable, and merits empathy. I think DMacks says it better than I do below, so unless you'd like further clarification I think I'm going to step away now. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly I missed the part where TNT made their struggles public. Clearly I would have chosen different language had I been aware of it but it's ridiculous to behave as if I or any other editor should be expected to behave with any deep knowledge of another editor pontificating on a public noticeboard.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

23:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not personally holding you to that expectation, and I have clearly asked TNT above to reconsider that expectation themselves. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here believes Spartaz was referencing an actual mental illness. Still, that phrasing (especially in an unsubstantial hate-post) is very odd. It's akin to calling a neurotypical person "autistic" because they did something stupid, in my opinion. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Calling a neurotypical person "autistic" because they did something stupid is just "odd" to you? What year is this? Suppose it's fine to call things we don't like "gay" too? ––FormalDude (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Odd in a very negative way. I guess the emphasis wasn't clear because of the plain text, but it was meant very negatively. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

If that is directed at me you actually don't know what I meant by the term I used

Spartaz ^Humbug!

22:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

My usage of the word "odd" was meant very negatively. That statement had nothing to do with you —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a generational gap here as the term I used when I grew up had the meaning of "deceiving yourself" and certainly I never grew up with it having any kind of mental health association.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

22:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Calling someone "deluded" for holdng an absurd opinion is mild (albeit arguably to some ears regretable). Accusing some of hate speech isn't and is a gross and serious overreaction. I'm with Spartaz on this. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, as time progresses, so does the lexicon. Ten years ago people threw around "faggot" like it's "fuck," but people got informed and stopped doing it, and now the same trend is happening with neurovariance, mental disorders, and more. From your comments here it seems to me you didn't intend to offend, and this whole AN/I thread is a mountain out of a molehill. I recommend that apologies are exchanged, everyone ditches the AN/I thread, and we all go on our merry way. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 22:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

See my comment above about exactly how offensive I find being accused of using hate speech is.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

22:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned, but I understand not thinking of deluded as an ableist word. It continues to be used in the common meaning of having been duped, or believing something incorrect. It's also still commonly used as a word for convincing someone of something incorrect. The medical disorder was named using a word that already existed because it was descriptive of the disorder, rather than the other way around. Even googling "deluded ableism" returns a large number of sources on ableism that user the term deluded. It should have been said in a less personal attacky way, but I think it's pretty clear it wasn't used as ableist language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm at the younger end of millennials and I have virtually only ever heard "deluded" being used as a moderate indictment of someone's beliefs. No chance I would have interpreted it as an ableist slur. I can see how someone who has been diagnosed with a delusional disorder might feel it was personal...but it is also nowhere near calling someone "autistic". A search of the DSM Library for "deluded" returns just 266 results, with under 10% of those in publications after 2000, and of those, over half are on history of psychiatry or philosophy rather than clinical research. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether you intended it to be hurtful or not, and I assume you didn't, the fact is that it can be and in this case does seem to be. You didn't know that it was? Fine. In former times it wasn't and that's how you learned it? Fine. You didn't mean offense? Fine. But it's time to recognize that now many do find it offensive, and in particular the person to whom you referred. So now you have a chance to learn from this. You now know you made a mistake, you can appologize and move on, better-positioned to avoid offending people with whom you need to collaborate. DMacks (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Is TNT not expected to apologise for accusing me of hate speech or should I just accept that unchallenged?

Spartaz ^Humbug!

22:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Folks, I do find calling someone delusional to be aggressive and rude. I'd never heard anyone describe it as hate speech or ableist but with a web search, I am seeing some do consider it ableist. But jumping to accusing someone of hate speech for using the word is just wrong and I do think an apology is called for. Hobit (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Who called anyone delusional? The word in question was 'deluded' which means one has been fooled or misled. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Suggested apology Levivich (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2022 (

Can someone please explain to me what any of this has to do with creating and maintaining an online encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This page is not used for creating and maintaining an online encyclopaedia. Levivich (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be much ado about political correctness and feelings. Zaathras (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Trying to undermine one group's opinion with buzzwordy phrases doesn't really work when the other party escalated the situation and created the thread —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• No way can ableism be normally construed as a hate speech in everyday conversation, but in a collaborative environment such as WP where plenty of users look under every rock to see if they can find an excuse to complain about being insulted, it does more harm to our environment than the occasional use of centuries old colloquialisms. Indeed, insist enough and what you find under the rocks can get the nicest people sanctioned and the same complaint will ruin an admin’s Wiki career and enthusiasm to continue working as a volunteer in Wikipedia’s minefield.

There’s an excellent BBC article about it. The very last paragraph leaves us all with food for thought. I’m an old Brit and I finished high school getting n for sixty years ago; I’m also a professional linguist, but it would be hard to make me stop to think before I say things that were perfect culturally acceptable 60 years ago. When I'm writing speeches I naturally take more care.

This is all a blowback from a recent Arbcom case and I think it’s time to simply end this thread and leave TheresNoTime alone - they are worth more than ten of any of us. We all have better things to do with our keyboard time, and the thread is falling largely on 'deaf' ears - Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ironically as a screen reader user, I didn't initially notice the apostrophes around the word "def" in the previous message (as I have it set up not to read out such punctuation unless I request it to do so), so I was about to ask whether the last few words were intentional. I'm not at all phased by ablist language though; I'm happy to turn a blind eye to it, as are most people in my little corner of the blind community ... for us there are bigger fish to fry. But I can't claim to speak for all blind/visually impaired people let alone all people with disabilities and I understand that many people take ablist language a lot more seriously than I do. Graham87 05:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to drop all language that is ablist, as much is well-integrated into our popular vernacular. But the best policy is to, when offense is taken, at the very least apologize for causing offense. And another crux to note here is that the term was used for personal disparagement, regardless of any ablist implications. SecretName101 (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Spartaz, any way you look at it your comment was a personal attack, and therefore against Wikipedia policy. I don't think it merited an ANI thread so you could try to have the last word and get back at someone who gave as good as they got and then banned you from their talkpage. Let's all go back to abiding by Wikipedia policy and discussing edits, not editors; content, not people. This is easily avoided by never using the word "you", and commenting only on points, not people. If you have to resort to personal attacks, it's usually seen by others as coming from a state of weakness anyway. It does take discipline to avoid remarks about people, but it is a discipline that should be cultivated in a collaborative project that has a policy against personal attacks. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Basically, If I inadvertantly use a phrase that offends someone I am at fault but when their angry response ssed a term that I find truly offensive then I'm supposed to suck it? That's fair and equal and not at all unjust or ridiculous.

  Spartaz Humbug!

  06:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Here are your three consecutive edits: an unprovoked personal attack and threat on an AN thread [7], followed by an even stronger personal attack {and an insistence on resignation} on usertalk [8], followed, when preempted by TNT's well-warranted removal of your TP attack, by opening this ANI thread [9] even after TNT had twice explained on the AN thread their issue with the specific personal attack used. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Spartaz it’s obvious that you started it by jumping into an incredibly benign thread with an extremely disproportionate level of hostility, and started a completely pointless flame war, which you are now continuing. Don’t go looking for drama and maybe you won’t find any.

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - Spartaz has retired. GoodDay (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Some people just can't bring themselves to say, "Sorry for the foregoing. I really lost it there." That's all it would take. If such is not forthcoming after they calm themselves, might an IBAN be in order? SMDH. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Knowing when to walk away (when to fold 'em) is a huge part of avoiding PAs. It's another skill, a discipline. Just let the whole thing go, and either avoid wiki for a few days or focus on some other part of the 'pedia. I think all it would take here is just to withdraw the thread. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Just saw this. I suppose little use in continuing this thread. SecretName101 (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure if it is useful to the conversation or not, but I will point out that the blog entry mentioned earlier by Sideswipe9th does include the notation "Note that only some of the words on this page are actually slurs. Many of the words and phrases on this page are not generally considered slurs, and in fact, may not actually be hurtful, upsetting, retraumatizing, or offensive to many disabled people. They are simply considered ableist."
  That noted, I agree with the essence of VersaceSpace comment (echoed by others) that it was defamatory. Regardless of any debate about whether or not the application of the term "deluded" was an offensive application, it was certainly aggressive and disparaging towards another editor.
  I am no angel, and have certainly have had my share of moments on this site where I put a wrongly aggressive a front up. That being said, I would discourage Spartaz from taking such a tone. The same sort of message could instead have been conveyed writing something like "I am confident that other editors viewing these edits are thinking the same thing". SecretName101 (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• I'd like to provide my thoughts as an uninvolved editor, being that I have not participated at AN in the past (I did at ANI, once, to report a legal threat) nor do I have an active working relationship with any editor here. It is my hope that this may be beneficial for people who have gotten invested here as I see a lot of people I respect participating. This is not intended to spark further heated debate. I welcome any uninvolved administrator to counsel me for having done this if they feel it appropriate.

Two wrongs do not equal a right, even if both wrongs are of different severities. Spartaz acknowledged he would have used different terminology had he known how it would effect TNT. I do not find that his questioning of whether what he said was ableism or hate speech to be unbecoming or disrespectful here. Wikipedia is a diverse community, and this includes those who hold a minority view. Generally, we should not in our pursuit of assigning appropriate weight disrespect the view with lesser weight. So long as Spartaz does not continue to make such statements without care on the English Wikipedia, he is free to continue to hold his own personal beliefs relating to the broad usage of "deluded", and I find no evidence that Spartaz would partake in such behavior.

Should Spartaz have acknowledged and apologized for his unacceptable behavior unrelated to the usage of "deluded"? Yes. Should he have explicitly apologized for how his statement was reasonably interpreted rather than focusing on stating it was not his intent? Yes. I believe he should still endeavor to do both these things should he decide to return to active editing. That said, I would like to believe that Spartaz has more than gotten the message that his behavior was unbecoming from the community members in this thread. I would assert that this is not a typical case of

WP:BOOMERANG. It is standard for the behavior of all parties to be reviewed. That is even more necessary here, as this thread involves 2 editors with many years of tenure and who have advanced permissions. I also respect TNT's work quite a lot. But having said that, the accusation that Spartaz was pushing ableist tropes ([10]) rises beyond being dropped in my view. Making an ableist statement, which I do not see any commenting editors above assert was done intentionally (which is necessary to point out, as if it were intentional the accusation may have credence), and pushing ableist tropes are not equivalent. The latter implies advocacy, which has not yet been demonstrated. Spartaz, I believe, was reasonable in requesting some form of acknowledgement of error by TNT even though their error is not nearly as severe. I feel that this nuance was not communicated sufficiently or is currently not accepted by the community, for which if the latter is true I shall concede to the majority but disagree. —Sirdog (talk

) 09:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, in that Spartaz started a ridiculous unprovoked fight immediately calling for a longterm admin/steward/etc. to be recalled or resign. He immediately took the fight to the innocent party's talk page, attacking in even stronger tones. All TNT did was figuratively tell him to buzz off, using words that were sharp but not literally intended to indict Spartaz any more than Spartaz's word "deluded" was literally intended to medically diagnose TNT. It was a knee-jerk self-defense reaction to multiple ridiculous uncalled-for personal and professional attacks. In terms of I would like to believe that Spartaz has more than gotten the message that his behavior was unbecoming from the community members in this thread, clearly he hasn't, since in his last post he instead re-justified his own untenable position and stormed out, clearing his talk page and retiring from Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to post since this isn't my fight and I don't know much about the backdrop. However, at some point it seems like, intentional or not, this is weaponizing victimhood. It looks like Spartaz's usage was in line with the dictionary definition, "believing something that is not true." That definition doesn't say anything about metal issues. If this is an issue then we need to scrub articles of references that say "X was deluded in thinking Trump won the 2020 election". Springee (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I've never heard the word "deluded" used in a way that suggests mental illness. Rather, it suggests that the person was taken in by hype, propaganda, or their own wishful thinking. NightHeron (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify: you think the person who briefly expressed offense at what can only be described as an insult is the one weaponizing victimhood, not the person who in response started a noticeboard thread and rattled off over a dozen comments instead of apologizing, or, hell, simply moving on? ––FormalDude (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

After my initial post I thought, I probably should go back and say, calling someone deluded is almost always not going to be viewed as civil. I'm only commenting on the ableist part. Since you and I have had editorial disagreements (but not uncivil disagreements) I will pick on you ( :D ). If you said I was delusional for wanting some content in an article it would be reasonable for me to be offended that you called me delusional. It wouldn't be reasonable for me to suggest you are some type of "-ist" for using "ableist" language. Springee (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Is AN the right place to request a history merge? It's somewhat controversial and I feel weird going to an individual admin. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

{{

histmerge}} if it's easy, Wikipedia:Requests for history merge if it's not. Primefac (talk

) 16:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't find that somehow... Hobit (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)