User talk:Darouet/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Please comment on Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

The recently created Israel Palestine conflict page is nominated for deletion in connection to the preceding community discussion. You are welcome to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Palestine conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 14:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Princess Beatrice of York

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Princess Beatrice of York. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Augustin-Louis Cauchy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Augustin-Louis Cauchy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Contests

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your note @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I'm happy to see that Dr. Blofeld has organized this. I'm really supposed to be finishing my PhD and not editing, but I am deeply interested in increasing Africa coverage, especially in east Africa, and will help when I can. I've added myself to the east Africa participant list. At the very bottom of my user page is a "to do" list that includes dozens of articles that should be created just to review major geographical features of NW Kenya. @Dr. Blofeld: a straightforward beginning to this project would be to find maps of whatever region you're concerned with and mark down rivers, towns, mountains, valleys, escarpments, parks, etc. as candidate articles. In my experience in Kenya at least, most of this most elementary work has yet to be done.

When I next go back to Turkana, I will organize an edit-a-thon in Lodwar. I would say that people in many less-developed areas of Africa could use this kind of prize money far more than I. Darouet (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey

You are not an authoritative source on Egypt. Assume good faith, and go for constructive criticism. Not negative criticism like you always do. I also want to complain to admins about your tendencies to disrupt genuine, bold, and brave attempts to improve Egyptian politics in the name of "consensus," Darouet.

Keep calm and carry on. Zakawer (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Zakawer: I have reported your most recent edits here, at the 3RR board. You can make comments there to defend yourself. I have nothing against you personally, but your edits, immediately after being blocked, continued the same behavior that led to your being blocked in the first place.

I would encourage you to think hard about what the admin told you last time you were blocked, and consider changing your approach to this topic. Evidence of that changed approach would involve reverting your edits. If you persist in this mindset and these actions, you may end up being blocked from editing wikipedia indefinitely. -Darouet (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey

You are not an authoritative source on Egypt. Assume good faith, and go for constructive criticism. Not negative criticism like you always do. I also want to complain to admins about your tendencies to disrupt genuine, bold, and brave attempts to improve Egyptian politics in the name of "consensus," Darouet.

Keep calm and carry on. Zakawer (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Zakawer: I have reported your most recent edits here, at the 3RR board. You can make comments there to defend yourself. I have nothing against you personally, but your edits, immediately after being blocked, continued the same behavior that led to your being blocked in the first place.

I would encourage you to think hard about what the admin told you last time you were blocked, and consider changing your approach to this topic. Evidence of that changed approach would involve reverting your edits. If you persist in this mindset and these actions, you may end up being blocked from editing wikipedia indefinitely. -Darouet (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Darouet, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Widr: I appreciate it! -Darouet (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge

Hello. I've revamped the contest page into this, based on the new British model. Long term goal, but I've added entries since the beginning of July to give it some initial life. Please add anything you've done then this then too! I hope it proves productive long term. The contests are still planned, but will be more tools towards increasing bulk output in overall goal. It's a permanent goal now, and open! I would be grateful if you could keep a record of all your articles you do there, as I really think seeing the combined efforts will encourage others to create more content too! Please spread the word to the others, cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Biography feedback requested

Your input is requested about an RFC regarding Donald Trump. Here is a link directly to that RFC. The lead of that biography currently says, "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial." The RFC proposes to insert the words "or false" at the end of that sentence. Thank you in advance for participating. If you have the time, there is a second RFC at that talk page which proposes to instead add the words "or hyperbolic".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Georges Cziffra.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Georges Cziffra.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michael Greger

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Greger. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Timber Sycamore

On 30 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Timber Sycamore, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Timber Sycamore is a covert CIA program that arms and trains rebels in the Syrian civil war? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Timber Sycamore. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Timber Sycamore), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing, whether it's a river in Malawi, a Nigerian footballer, or a South African civil rights activist, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. For those of you who signed up to the North African contest, that will hopefully be held in the new year. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for Undoing

	Vigilance star
	Thanks for keeping an eye on people trying rip out large chunks of well-sourced text from the US Involvement in Regime Change article. Please stay involved of you can NYCJosh (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Diego Maradona

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diego Maradona. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen Bannon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Bannon. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Darouet. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hello D. I saw the problems that were occurring on the Ghouta chemical attack article and I filed a RFPP request. Ten days protection have been applied so you should get a little peace and quiet - on that article anyway :-) Thanks for your vigilance and have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @MarnetteD: I really appreciate your help! -Darouet (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Failure to attribute statements in article

In October Darouet stated: I've been working to properly attribute statements made about López Rivera's criminal activities in the article: many statements and assertions that derive from police or prosecutors have not been attributed to them, and have instead been presented as simple facts...A good, simple example is this: The New York Times wrote that "Mr. Lopez-Rivera was apprehended a few months ago, when, the authorities said, he made an illegal turn after running a stop sign in Glenview, a Chicago suburb, then gave the police a phony Oregon driver's license." After a POV butchery by editors here, this was translated to "It was a few years later that López Rivera was fortuitously apprehended, when he made an illegal turn after running a stop sign in a Chicago suburb, then gave the police a phony Oregon driver's license."

So, attribution is dropped, and the event is described as "fortuitous" (not in the source).

If you see other mistakes like this please correct them. -Darouet (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The example above is strange: OLR was not arrested because he was under surveillance or because he was committing a crime, but just because he made an illegal right turn. That happened by chance, not by design, certainly not by any design of the authorities that prosecuted him. That is the definition of fortuitous. Sorry if I was being bold in relaying facts by adding this explicit fact. Timothy McVeigh was fortuitously stopped because of a bad tail light. I suspect the editor may be confusing the words fortuitously and fortunately. The latter would be POV, the former is not, specifically in reference to these facts.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rococo1700: thanks for note. Sorry I don't have more time at the moment, but I looked it up in the OED, and you're right: I assumed "fortuitous" implied a positive or beneficial event, when it does not. The only correction required is that the fact requires attribution to the police. WP:TROUT. -Darouet (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

House, not Senate

If you click on Devin Nunes, you will see he is not a Senator.

On the other hand, the real Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr has said he will work with Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain to investigate the intelligence operation. Sagecandor (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. -Darouet (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, just be a little more careful please. Sagecandor (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In general the article could use more attribution of claims or statements, especially given the gravity of the allegations. -Darouet (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

We should avoid Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Sagecandor (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, "accusations," per your NPR source. Darouet (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:ACCUSED is also not the most neutral language to use. Sagecandor (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I'm just quoting NPR verbatim. -Darouet (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Changing merge tag mid discussion by community

Please don't change merge tags mid discussion by community, as you did here: [1].

There is no consensus to do this, and it is disruptive in the middle of the ongoing discussion.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: That is the proposal on the talk page. Referring people to the discussion with a different proposal is misleading. Why did you flip the proposal at the top of the articles? -Darouet (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That is NOT the original proposal. Several editors have also said the reverse is a no-go. Sagecandor (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I totally misread the proposal. I think it would be even worse to merge the material into Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election, given the egregious POVTITLE violation. -Darouet (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving articles in mid-discussion

Please don't rename an article while the article's title is being discussed. I see you did this with 2016 United States election interference by Russia, which is still n mid-discusssion at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia#Requested move 13 December 2016. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: Thanks for your note. The page has endless problems and the title is the first one, but it was a mistake for me to just change it. -Darouet (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding new info to the intro at 2016 United States election interference by Russia

Can we please avoid adding new info [2] to the intro at 2016 United States election interference by Russia, and instead add new information not previously in the article first to the article body text, and then summarize back in the intro ?

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Look at my edit and talk page post. The source was cherry-picked. Don't partially quote from sources in a way that misrepresents them. -Darouet (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but can you also agree to above ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

In general I agree, but if there is an egregious misrepresentation of a source, I'll fix it. I'll of course refrain from violating policy while doing so. Sagecandor can you please check to make sure there aren't other problems of this kind? I shouldn't be the only one doing so, and you're active enough I think you should be curating the lead carefully. It's important that the lead accurately reflect sources. -Darouet (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. I just also don't want the intro to become a quotefarm, from any perspective. I want it to be nice and concise. Sagecandor (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: understood. I quoted instead of paraphrasing out of defensiveness, assuming my effort to accurately reflect the source would be reverted. I appreciate your supporting an accurate paraphrase. -Darouet (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, but can you also in the future first add that kind of new additions and new sources first to the article body? Sagecandor (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought we covered that above. -Darouet (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Sagecandor (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andy Murray

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andy Murray. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you @Iryna Harpy: that is very kind! I wish you a happy winter solstice as well :) Cheers! -Darouet (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

We had summer solstice last Wednesday. The world is upside-down here in Orstraylia! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Oooh... and congrats! When are we officially obliged to start calling you Doctor? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Iryna :) You will never be obliged, but as of the 19th of this month, I'm allowed to accept that designation! Not in a medical emergency, of course... -Darouet (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll bear in mind that it's DrD as of the 19th... and not to call you the next time I tweak my back. Mind you, I doubt that you'd be any worse than other doctor I've seen about it. The only difference seems to be that you couldn't legally write out a script for painkillers. Pity! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

DS Violation

You have violated DS at "Russian Interference" by reinstating content that I challenged by reversion. I welcome your views on this and we can discuss this among ourselves and other editors on talk, but you must not violate the DS restriction that is described in the template at the top of the talk page. Please undo your reinsertion of the content I disputed and we can work through any disagreement on talk. SPECIFICO talk 12:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey @SPECIFICO:: that doesn't strike me as a DS reversion: I haven't edited the SZ content previously, and kept some of the content you added (though it seems highly dubious to me), while modifying portions of it. I understand that, in general, the SZ topic is contested. But can you explain to me why you're allowed to edit it (e.g. why this edit [3] is OK) but why I can't (e.g. why this edit [4] is a violation)? The issue was just as contested when you edited as when I did. If you can explain this I'll gladly self-revert. -Darouet (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm tied up in meetings today and can't respond. Ask a friendly Admin if you don't believe me. I'm not going to have time to report you today, but your action, which as I said on talk, I presume to be inadvertent, is a clear violation and is unacceptable. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to be bullied so that you think you can edit the article, but I can't. Nevertheless, I'll see if an admin wants to comment. -Darouet (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, no bullying intended. I assume it was an error. I also see that you have a relatively short edit history here. I replied further on my talk page. SPECIFICO talk 12:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Upshot? SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I am traveling and without (easy, affordable) Internet. I did go back through the edit history earlier and see that my edit introduced text almost identical to text you also added sometime between the 2nd and 4th. I still maintain I have not reinstated text you removed by reversion. I made a post at Bishonen's talk page and they never replied. -Darouet (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

7th Floor Group

Why did you accuse me of being a sockpuppet? Additionally, if you can clear it up for me, two of the reasons for deletion of the article are completely false reasons, "Unwarranted promotion of fringe" and "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". The source email is https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-04-of-05/view page 56, first full paragraph, and is unclassified/declassified, and has NOTHING to do with Wikileaks, and it has NOTHING to do with the "fringe" - it appears to be written by an FBI investigator (I am not sufficiently familiar with FBI documents to understand what is probably behind redactions).

The notability criticism seems correct.

I expect Wikipedia to become irrelevant if it fails to deal with the problem of "notability" effectively meaning "the main topic of enough mainstream articles". The reason is that the mainstream media is expected to undergo continued loss of staff, expanding use of secret sources (which, obviously, makes them, in some cases, less reliable than Wikileaks, since Wikileaks at times can provide cryptographic verification). It's pretty trivial to disprove the criteria of "notability" by simply perusing newspapers from the 70s. Very little is notable, though many papers had unique articles on the same topics. In other words, too much notability and there will be no importance to Wikipedia, though I must say that seems the very goal of not a few.

I'm not asking or expecting Wikipedia to change. I'm simply curious about those items: the lies about the source and the quality of the article (why not use Google?), and then, of course, the accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SevenTowers (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@SevenTowers: Can you please send me the diff of my accusation? I have no recollection of what you're writing about. Thank you, Darouet (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. It was a while ago. Here's the conversation (maybe I don't have email updates turned on or something, so I didn't notice): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/7th_Floor_Group SevenTowers (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Viral Acharya

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Viral Acharya. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Trying to figure out--

What text of mine do you think I am repeatedly editing into the article at Russian Interference? I don't edit that one very much. If you have links of me reinserting the same stuff, I'd like to see how I erred? Thx. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Will reply shortly - have a meeting. I read the case you asked me to. It's my impression we'll need mediation to arrive at consensus and healthier editing environment. -Darouet (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There can't be mediation when we are infested with ideologues, meatpuppets and socks. You take everything from an adverserial stance rather than collegial. Just for example, when I tell folks that they've violated DS -- most rational collaborators would check and realize that they hadn't understood and they'd correct their error. That's not what we see from editors such as yourself who act as if they're in a tug of war or worse. I have no opinions about politics or any of the personalities. I do care about facts and neutral reporting, which is what drew me to some of these articles. At any rate, thanks for your interim reply and I look forward to seeing what diffs you think justify your attacks on me. I hope you understand that removing text can never be undoing a revert without consensus, because text must first be inserted. The first revert that challenges article text is -- as explained on many policy pages and guidelines -- normal editing. The reinsertion is what violates DS. (As I tried to explain to you and you never acknowledged.) Now rational collaborative editors would be expected to study these policy, guideline, and sanction matters to become even better collaborators. In the absence of that, we do occasionally see some real jerks who have to be taken to Arbcom or AE to free the community of their disruption. That's not a threat, just the way we keep things humming along here. Anyway I look forward to your diffs when you have time. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I've replied on the article talk. I'm not trying to give you a hard time and am certainly not trying to attack you. My view is that repeatedly invoking DS/AE when simultaneously contesting content strikes others as hypocritical, and even an effort to bully others from editing. I understand if that is not your intention. Part of the reason it's aggravating is that you need to demonstrate with diffs that the version you're reverting to is some kind of stable or consensus version. If you remove material that was not recently added, or to a version that has been contested for a long time (which given the volume of edits on this topic could be a week), it is not clear that you are not the one who's technically violating DS.

More broadly speaking, I think you may not realize how combative you come across on this topic. I don't mean that as an insult. Repeated editing in this area tends to darken the lenses of engaged editors because, as TJW pointed out, the environment is so toxic, it affects us too. I am also guilty of this.

The reason I think that DR-mediation is ideal is that it can allow heavily involved editors to work with a neutral party to flesh out content and policy. I've had good experience with it in the past and it's easy to see, in that context, if someone (like a meatpuppet or sock) is not editing in good faith. I'll propose it on the talk page because we have enough experienced editors, it should work - and I think it would improve the whole tone of discussion there. That would be good for all of us. -Darouet (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your user page says that you're a scientist, so I am assuming that's true and giving you more attention than I would give to the other disruptive ideologues, many of whom are now blocked or banned for their stupid and obstinate advocacy. I'm doing that in the hope you are dedicated to truth and understanding, which would place you head and shoulders above many of those now departed editors. You're coming off like the Trump spokesperson who recently offered "alternative facts" on Meet the Press TV show in the States. You have misunderstood the letter and intent of the DS. I'm only saying that because in my judgment you, unlike most of the others on that article, actually care to pursue what's true and logical. Ironically, the editors who are increasingly vocal at the Russia article were inspired by an editor who got a swift TBAN for his personal refusal to accept the core WP policy concerning NPOV and mainstream sources. You'd think they would have reflected as to what fueled his spectacular self-immolation. You, being logical, realize that it's unacceptable to deny the validity of mainstream sources and DUE weight on a site where those are core principles. It's also pretty much black and white when a DS warning says "don't reinsert disputed content" and then you do it, well... What do you expect, that the community will just ignore the DS that was enacted only after years of disruption by political ideologues such as the clueless banned and blocked? I am not here to harangue you. I warned one of your fellow editors on the Russia thing to cut out his nonsense before he got banned. I told him nobody wanted to see him banned. He ignored me. Do as you choose. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to wrap this up: You do still need to undo your edit that reinstated text deleted by @Volunteer Marek: -- not by me as you falsely claimed in your edit comment -- because your edit was a bright-line violation of the Discretionary Sanctions and is block-worthy on its face. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've deleted the text I had re-inserted that, based on my investigation of the article's editing history, had been challenged. To re-instate VM's edit would be to reinforce his violation of the DS you have repeatedly invoked. I won't do that. I'm also asking that you to defend your removal of Carr and the Harper's Magazine source. While it's true you reverted the addition of this text, you have not yet provided a rationale for its removal. Stating your reasons will help promote discussion on the talk page and will improve the atmosphere there. You're not responsible alone: others (like myself) will need to participate in a content-based discussion to move the article forward and make editing a productive, even pleasurable experience.

I have clashed with TheTimesAreAChanging in the past, but in this case, I did not agree with their TBAN because I found their behavior exactly commensurate with yours. I wish I'd seen that discussion when it happened because the result was unjust. It's not that their editing behavior was ideal. Rather, calling someone out for poor behavior requires clean hands.

Also, I don't like disclosing my personal opinions, but just to be clear: I hate literally everything about Trump as a president, as a person, and as a manifestation of all that is wrong with the United States. But the world is a lot bigger than Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Vladimir Putin. And that's a good thing. -Darouet (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If you think there's any similarity between my policy-based civil editing and that banned editor's behavior, you have not paid close enough attention. But I think you might in the future You just haven't yet. Incidentally, I have never seen VM violate policy or DS. He's too disciplined and knowledgeable to waste his time on disrupting the Project that way. SPECIFICO talk 02:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Specifico what is the point of these comments? Provide diffs, talk about content, or suggest some avenue for resolving content disputes. You write, "you have not paid close enough attention. But I think you might in the future You just haven't yet." [sic] What am I supposed to take away from all this? -Darouet (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm done here. My words are clear and they're available for your reference. It's your choice. Happy editing. SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, fine. Stop threatening other editors, and don't make silly, passive aggressive comments on my talk page. -Darouet (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of Talk Pages

You seem to be confusing statements you or I made on this personal page with statements made on the article talk page. There should be no personal remarks, let alone attacks, on article talk pages. I don't recall having mentioned your DS violations in that article talk page thread about "marginal commentary" and you should not have made your last two comments there. Please review talk page policies if you don't understand this point. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have only ever seen hatting used in very specific circumstances: in AE discussions where a contribution is off topic, or against obvious trolls. It's very offensive to hat my comments, especially since they're in response to your claim that my edits violate DS.

In this talk page comment you state that reverting VM (as I did) amounts to a DS violation. You've brought the discussion to my talk page and made the same explicit statement here, and then again on the article talk page defended your interpretation of DS violations. For you to bring this accusation both here and on article talk, but then hat my reply to you on the article talk, is again offensive. Do not do that. -Darouet (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Swiss UMEF University

Could you please provide the link where the UN Global Compact refers to UMEF as "Delisted... Expelled due to failure to communicate progress"? I've already added a "verification failed" tag to the Global Contact claim since I can find no evidence that it is part of Global Contacts, but I never found the delisting info either. If this article survives your PROD (without a miraculous appearance of reliable sources) I will take it to AFD if you don't. Meters (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: agree completely. If you go to ref 15, https://www.unglobalcompact.org/, and search for "Swiss UMEF," you get one hit. Clicking on it takes you here: "Global Compact Status: Delisted. Reason for Delisting: Expelled due to failure to communicate progress." It shows they were expelled in October 2016. -Darouet (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know how I managed to mess that search up the first time. Meters (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries Meters. None of those "references" are conventional or concern the university. -Darouet (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup. I have yet to find a reliable one that actually says anything useful about the school. I'm glad Bizetshine mentioned this at the Teahouse. Meters (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Tip

A ping and a signature need to be in the same edit or else the ping won't work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Haha sorry NeilN. I've been here for a while and I still clearly don't know how this all works. I appreciate your taking a principled stand on this one by the way. -Darouet

Arbcom Enforcement

Hello. Just a bit of unsolicited advice: evidence-based AE is not ANI (which is a free-for-all of back-scratching and spin.) At AE, your subjective endorsement of Thucydides is apt to be discarded, and if you'll have a gander at his talk page over the past 6 weeks, you'll see that it tells quite a different tale to anyone who fact-checks your view. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey @SPECIFICO: I had already read Thucydides411's talk page, where discussion has certainly not been so friendly. While it's true the tenor there has been abysmal, my impression has been that Thucydides411 was defending themselves against accusations and very aggressive comments. On one's own talk page, I think it is reasonable for someone to defend themselves. I have seen this in many contexts and never held it against others - even when I was upset about their editing behavior and tone elsewhere - when they were in their own space.

I don't have time right now to link a lot of Talk comments from the page we've been editing together. But you'll notice my comment did use diffs and reference, cite, and link to policy. Furthermore, Sandstein appears to have agreed with those policy comments.

I have to go now but I'm going to make one suggestion. I mean it sincerely and in a friendly way. I think you should be more circumspect in comments on the talk pages of other editors. I have a feeling that, if you proceeded exactly as you do in every other regard, people who disagreed with you would be still be more friendly towards you. Sorry I can't explain more now, and thanks for your note. -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't talking about Thucydides' tone, which is unremarkable. I was talking about his obstinate refusal to learn and observe WP site policy. Actually, for my part, I go to user talk pages because policy tells us not to clutter article talk with personal remarks or anything except content and article improvement. It's obvious that many diverse editors see the problems with Thucydides' behavior. I suspect that many editors are eager kids still working through childhood authority issues and they seem to think that community policies and guidelines are personal restrictions rather than a framework for freedom. A lot like Trump attacking the court of appeals come to think of it :). Also, I think that several editors on these politics articles are making a false inference that their behavior is ok because they haven't been blocked yet. Witness TTAAC who came crashing to earth or below, sockpuppetry and all. Induction is a complicated process. The most accurate assessment would be not that their conduct is OK but rather the more probable explanation that normal folks don't have enough interest, patience, or time, to formulate AE complaints that would get them blocked or banned. And note, I have never launched such a complaint and I'm not likely to invest that amount of attention in anonymous characters on the internet. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You've falsely disparaged me at AE by omitting to state that the removal of the Clapper smear at diff [78] relates to the BLP violation. At this stage, I'll assume that this omission was not intentional per AGF. Please remove this from your list or make clear this was a BLP edit not a violation. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I am amazed nobody presented these diffs previously. I will look at the sequence stack in a moment and see if what you're saying makes sense. I am not a priori opposed to mentioning it in the sequence. However I have also linked all the diffs, and they can be read by admins interested.-Darouet (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have included a note in the diff stack that you made BLP claims. I think they were spurious, but I don't believe you knew them to be so. I was away for a few days. Have you made a post at WP:BLPN yet? -Darouet (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The majority of editors endorsed the need to remove this BLP violation. It's not spurious, it's disputed. I hope you didn't use the word "spurious" which itself would be casting aspersions. Please have a look at WP:ASPERSION - I do appreciate your response, however and please know that I consider you a collaborative, if sometimes partisan, editor on WP. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I checked the AE thanks for the note about BLP, although "claim" is a POV word and "cite" is a more neutral word in English. But you add the (snarky sounding) comment "still no comment on talk. False. Comment giving rationale in initial edit summary and then comment on talk that same day 11 Feb in which I pointed out that the text I removed did not refer to the alleged misrepresentation as an opinion -- which was clearly a BLP violation and had already been amply discussed by others. The reason for my short comment was that the issue had already been put on the table and I had nothing lengthier to add that would have convinced the edit-warriors to stand back. Please get your "no comment on talk" bit off the AE. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: the timing of the edits to article/talk as I've presented them ([Sequence of Diffs]) appears correct - I checked these after your complaint here - and I consider the talk comment and (absence of) BLPN posts relevant to any evaluation of the legitimacy of the BLP concern. When I have a legitimate BLP concern I always run to WP:BLPN immediately because editors there take the issue very seriously (I do too), and I know they'll help me if I'm correct. I agree with Guy that in this case, there was not a legitimate BLP concern. I further believe this is why nobody ever took the issue to BLPN. -Darouet (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

How dare you? Shame. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? I can't tell if you're joking or not, but you usually don't come to my talk page with humor. -Darouet (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You're free to jump to BLPN immediately. That doesn't mean others must do it, and the individual choice of an editor as to whether or when it's needed has nothing to do with the underlying merits. Any editor can take it to BLPN. Generally, it's best to give the talk page a chance and since there was active discussion there, BLPN would not have added anything until the views were laid out and considered. What is outrageous -- and I mean really IMO a horrendous and mindless personal attack I.M.O. -- is for you to insinuate that because I didn't behave according to the script you have in your mind that my good faith and the veracity or correctness of my concern is in doubt. And that, in plain English, is what I mean by "How dare you?" And if that's not clear enough for you, you can ask others to check what it means. I'm done with this thread. Shame on you. (in my opinon) SPECIFICO talk 01:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Well I accept your earnestness that you really felt it was a BLP vio, and am sorry for offending you. I was not only referring to you, above, when I stated that someone claiming a BLP vio should go to BLPN (if not you, then one of the others claiming the same). I had considered going to BLPN and may still, though these AE cases have occupied so much free time, it's been impossible so far. -Darouet (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

When you're in a hole, stop digging. Each post of yours only demonstrates to me that you do not understand the issues, the editing policies, or the behavioral norms here. Any of the Clapper-bashing editors could have taken this to BLPN at any time. But for the twentieth time, nothing gives any of them the right to edit war. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That goes both ways, SPECIFICO. -Darouet (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I find it highly offensive and outright misogynist that you call me "unappealing" and it goes without saying I do not think you would use that language about a male editor or even a woman closer to your own age. This is shameful. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You were blocked for "creating an unappealing editing environment" - is that not a direct quote??? And I have not been sure if you are male or female, though I suppose now I know. I would be surprised, astonished, etc. that you would immediately interpret and respond to my comment in the most hyperbolic and offensive way possible. But at this point, nothing you write on anyone's pages surprises me. -Darouet (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen, NeilN, and EdJohnston: In response to my AE comment, where I directly quote from SPECIFICO's block log ("creating an unappealing editing environment"), SPECIFICO has accused me of misogyny (directly above). I don't think you can accuse someone of much worse - this is like calling someone a racist - and is totally unjustified. I also don't know how I'm supposed to interpret this as a good faith misunderstanding - it's a direct quote - and somehow SPECIFICO is trying to twist the reproduction of the block cause into, "I, Darouet, find you personally unappealing as a woman." I did believe it was possible SPECIFICO was female because of the "mind the gap" sticker on their user page, but many, many men support gender equality.

On my own talk page now, SPECIFICO has repeatedly issued vague threats [5][6][7], personally insulted other editors [8], called me shameful [9][10][11]... and this is just here, never mind interactions elsewhere. Do I really have to put up with this if I want to edit on Wikipedia? -Darouet (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You can ask them to stay off your talk page and that request should be honored. Any concerns about your behavior would then go to a more central forum like ANI or AE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: so far as I can tell, almost every time an editor appears at AE/ANI, bringing or receiving a complaint, they end up blocked or boomeranged if they haven't towed the "official" US line on Russia issues. I have no desire to follow that path, or slog through a 5th AE case on this same topic. I just want SPECIFICO to stop making these outrageous comments. I also don't see the point of banning them from my Talk page, if they ever intend to actually discuss encyclopedia improvement. You really don't see any problem with their misogyny accusation, repeated below when I asked them to strike the comment? -Darouet (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:, will you strike your accusation, or do you maintain that my AE comment was misogynist? -Darouet (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk) 21:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh Gee! Here's a pointer: Don't make ad hominem (or as my Prof. of Gender Studies used to say ad womanem) remarks. -- Personal remarks are rarely constructive on internet discussions. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I said that is what I feel and I shared my feelings with you here privately and it is not an accusation, it is a fact. That is how I feel. You hurt my feelings. Can we move on now? I didn't introduce it at AE or use my feeling to impeach your words there, did I? Others will draw their own conclusions. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Darouet didn't make any personal remarks about you. Bringing up the term "misogynist" is highly manipulative on your part. Keep that stuff off of Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the mansplaining, kind sir. IMO, you have some gender education in your future. I hope it's not too painful. Words matter. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I almost think you're trying to provoke me to go to ANI with your response. I couldn't have crafted a better example of toxic behavior if I tried. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's remarks here are sub-par. A reminder that discretionary sanctions cover behavior and decorum. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Honest question: what the fuck is this even about? If an outsider sees a bunch of threats and accusations (and I'm seeing those from SPECIFICO) but no substance, this is fair indication of disruptive behavior. Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Hi Darouet. Thank you for maintaining the highest standards for collaboration and collegiality. Kind regards. - MrX 13:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dick Cheney

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dick Cheney. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Y -Darouet (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Winnipeg

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winnipeg. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Y -Darouet (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Y -Darouet (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Bassel Khatarbil

Bassel's family confirmed that the Syrian government executed the Palestinian/Syrian open source developer Bassel Safadi RIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.34.31 (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

“Everything is out in the open” has become a common refrain. Some bus drivers keep a plastic bag stuffed with cash for checkpoint bribes right by the steering wheel. Regime supporters who once insisted the 2011 protests were a myth now acknowledge their existence. And soldiers, like Ali Aqil, no longer insist that civilians were not among their victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.71.209 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sayerslle, I actually agree with you on this. But you were banned because of your inability to edit with others in a collegial manner. -Darouet (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Oliver

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Oliver. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Done Y -Darouet (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The Nation: DNC "Hack" Narrative Collapsing Under the Weight of Forensic Analysis

I thought you would enjoy reading The Nation's devastating account of the metadata discovered by an anonymous source (under the nom de guerre "Forensicator") on the DNC files allegedly hacked by Guccifer 2.0—who we have been told is a front for Russian intelligence—as well as the analyses of several former high-ranking U.S. officials from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). (See also here and here for more information.) Author Patrick Lawrence compares the "Russian" "hacking" of the DNC to the sinking of the USS Maine and Iraq's mythical weapons of mass destruction, and it's not hard to see why once you've read the full article. Here are some choice excerpts:

• "Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second. These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds. ... 'A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,' [Skip] Folden said. 'Based on the data we now have, what we've been calling a hack is impossible.' Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. 'Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,' he wrote. 'Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).'"
• "Time stamps in the metadata provide further evidence of what happened on July 5. The stamps recording the download indicate that it occurred in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone at approximately 6:45 pm. This confirms that the person entering the DNC system was working somewhere on the East Coast of the United States. In theory the operation could have been conducted from Bangor or Miami or anywhere in between—but not Russia, Romania, or anywhere else outside the EDT zone."

There are also indications that "evidence" of Russian involvement was intentionally fabricated:

• "In addition, there is the adulteration of the documents Guccifer 2.0 posted on June 15, when he made his first appearance. This came to light when researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer's top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath. They found that the first five files Guccifer made public had each been run, via ordinary cut-and-paste, through a single template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian fingerprints. They were not: The Russian markings were artificially inserted prior to posting. 'It's clear,' another forensics investigator self-identified as HET, wrote in a report on this question, 'that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings.'" In light of this, Lawrence asks: "Did the DNC quickly conjure Guccifer from thin air to create a cyber-saboteur whose fingers point to Russia? There is no evidence of this one way or the other, but emphatically it is legitimate to pose the question in the context of the VIPS chronology."

Lawrence concludes by reviewing what was previously known about the FBI's failure to examine the DNC's servers, CrowdStrike's multiple conflicts of interest, and the comically inept Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) by "hand–picked" (i.e., cherrypicked) representatives of just three (rather than "seventeen") intelligence agencies with no dissenting opinions. (By contrast, 10 intelligence agencies contributed to the infamous 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi WMD.) He acknowledges that "there are many other allegations implicating Russians in the 2016 political process. The work I will now report upon does not purport to prove or disprove any of them," but cautions: "Given that we now stand face to face with very considerable cases of duplicity, it is imperative that all official accounts of these many events be subject to rigorously skeptical questioning. ... houses built on sand and made of cards are bound to collapse." Finally, Lawrence adds: "Under no circumstance can it be acceptable that the relevant authorities ... leave these new findings without reply. Not credibly, in any case. Forensic investigators, prominent among them people with decades' experience at high levels in these very institutions, have put a body of evidence on a table previously left empty. Silence now, should it ensue, cannot be written down as an admission of duplicity, but it will come very close to one."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had read the claims of "Forensicator" but did not think it would be worth including anywhere until they get picked up and analyzed by RS. This report seems to have enough credibility to be cited in a few articles (with attribution of course). — JFG ^talk 07:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Eh. He goes on and on and on with a lot of rhetoric and hyperbole and when he finally gets around to telling you who these supposed "experts" are it turns out it's... consortiumnews and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity - in other words, bunch of conspiracy theory aficionados and Putin apologists (and of course Lawrence is one too). And that's when he actually TELLS you who these "experts" are rather than including these strange unattributed quotes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup, a group formed initially to push the strange conspiracy theory that intelligence on Iraqi WMD was being skewed to justify an invasion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There were a number of people who were critical of intelligence on Iraqi WMD. Some of these people were smart, intelligent, informed. Others were happened to be batshit insane who happened to be right this one time. You know how some economic analysts are said to have "predicted nine out of the last four recessions"? Because these folks are ALWAYS predicting an economic disaster, when one does occur sooner or later, they claim vindication even though they shouldn't. It's the same thing here. Some people always claim wacky conspiracy stuff or this kind of malfeasance. By sheer probability they will end up being right about *something* at some point. And Iraqi WMD is that something.

Or in other words, you're engaging in a pretty basic logical fallacy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You can write them off as conspiracy theorists all you want, but when William Binney says something, I'm inclined to at least consider it seriously. I wasn't engaging in any logical fallacy -- I was making fun of your attempt to poison the well by pointing out that the "conspiracy theory" that caused VIPS to be founded turned out to be true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI we have a 220 Mbs line here and I doubt that's uncommon. This is a good real-time example of what "fake news" looks like, so between this and the RT stories, it's instructive to see the details that mislead a casual reader. Long BS facts and figures seem to work real good. Also false equivalence, references to "examples" from past conditions that no longer obtain... Forensicator sounds like "Ternminator" and other ators that appeal to the red state American spirit. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Megabytes != Megabits. A sustained download of ~1.7 Gbps would be very impressive -- if not implausible. You can say that you don't agree with their analysis, or that you're skeptical of their conclusions, but it's not "fake news." Trump likes to write off stories he doesn't like as "fake news," but "fake news" is made-up, not something you simply disagree with. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be getting a bit confused. I have ~30 megabyte speed, 220 megabits on "speedtest" I pay for ~180 and it's usually better than 200. I'm sure most businesses and large organizations have similar these days. The "expert" is nonsense probably some 400# kid in New Jersey, USA. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I misread the original as 220 MB/s. A transfer rate of 220 Mb/s is pushing the limit of what I'd expect to be possible, but it is about what one would expect for a USB2 flash drive. The "experts" here, are, however, admitted experts. William Binney held one of the top technical positions at the NSA before retiring. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedtest is a local yardstick, designed to measure the speed of the "last mile" connection to your home. Try uploading something to a server located in Russia Romania (as claimed) and see what happens. (Hint: you'll be happy if you get more than 20 Mbps.) — JFG ^talk 07:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Pretty clear you are sucking wind on that one, as they say at MIT. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Charming WP:PA, as usual. Thanks for the laugh! — JFG ^talk 13:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You can tell the Nation piece is a BS story because he spends so much time talking about how important and ground breaking what he's about to tell you is, he goes on and on about experts and professionals... but he doesn't actually get to actually discussing what this "something" is till like the second page. And what his actual sources are even later in the essay. And then it turns out it's the same tired ol' disinformation that consortiumnews and RT and the whole Putin-o-sphere of media has already been putting out for months, nothing new. All hype no substance.

Now, I'll say one thing. He is a far better writer and more articulate than your average pro-Putin propagandist. He knows how to use words. He also knows how to abuse words. I think this is why TTAAC fell for it (no offense TTAAC). This guy's good at dressing BS in stylish clothes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

When an EEML guy tells me someone is a pro-Putin propagandist, I take it with a grain of salt. I can read the analysis without writing off the people who wrote it in advance. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You really are a tedious bore. There was like a few minutes a few months ago when I thought you had actually something interesting to say and tried to be friendly, but you have worked really hard to dispel any such notions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You think your Maker will give you a pass on personal attacks just because they're on a user talk page? SPECIFICO talk 03:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

What, am I not allowed to take what EEML editors write about supposed "pro-Putin propagandists" with a grain of salt now? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I suppose you were pointing out the irony that VM criticized this report by an ad hominem argument, firing back that you could just as well make an ad hominem argument about him? None of these arguments should hold much weight in a sober discussion about the merits of this analysis. — JFG ^talk 06:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It's more that I expect VM to write off anything that doesn't fit squarely into the "Russia = evil" paradigm as "pro-Putin propaganda." Hearing them say that the report is pro-Putin propaganda just doesn't change my opinion of it at all - the statement conveys no new information. I haven't looked very closely at the report yet, but since William Binney is apparently involved in it, it definitely deserves real consideration. It certainly deserves more than a cursory dismissal. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you stopped lying about me now. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• This Bloomberg piece by Leonid Bershidsky is also noteworthy IMO. --S. Roix (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeh, also I know that internet connection speed varies with the inverse of the great circle distance to the target node. It's just like a straight line copper wire. I just read it on the web. I forget where, The guy said he's an expert. He has his own blog. I got the link on my facebook. I'll double check on reddit. Fake news? SPECIFICO talk 13:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Users' own opinions and investigations on how the news piece is structured, whether or not it's Putinist propaganda, and at which speed Internet connections work don't matter. We're not discussing whether it's true or fake, we're discussing whether it has enough third-party coverage to be included. --S. Roix (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

And clearly it does not. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks TheTimesAreAChanging and S. Roix for the references. I'm traveling and sorry I can't respond in greater detail now. For everyone else, please remember that this is supposed to be an editorial room, and civility tends to be harder on the internet. -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

They're not "references" they are organic fertilizer. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, that's not what "civility" means. Keep your incendiary and typically lunatic posts from my talk page. -Darouet (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This guy right here says more or less the same thing I said but much more eloquently The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even Debunk. I'm not a tech guy, but I do know a bit about bullshittin' and as I mentioned above, this article raises a ton of red flags right off the start. Really, it just takes a bit of common sense and some critical thinking to spot them. (Like you know, the fact that Lawrence takes more than half the article to actually tell you what this evidence is suppose to be, while spending the first part trying to amp you up with emotional appeals and hyperbolic rhetoric - that always works well with the gullible).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The most in-depth refutations of VIPS and Lawrence can be found here and here (the latter persuasively demonstrates that the notion of Guccifer 2.0 as a DNC or CrowdStrike front is highly implausible and inconsistent with all other evidence, as Guccifer 2.0 released Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee documents with the apparent purpose of helping congressional Republicans and promoted theories that the Democrats would rig the presidential election to taint an anticipated Hilary victory). While the metadata under consideration is not controversial, it simply does not justify the sweeping conclusions that VIPS and Lawrence draw from it, particularly because "the documents originally released in the initial weeks by Guccifer 2.0 were, by and large, not DNC documents" at all. Moreover, the presence of someone potentially related to Guccifer 2.0 on the East Coast is hardly smoking gun evidence of an "inside job," and can possibly be explained by reference to the Russian diplomatic compounds in New York and Maryland shut down by President Obama. See also The Nation's "A Leak or a Hack? A Forum on the VIPS Memo." (Or click here for my brief takeaway.) None of this to say that it is wrong to ask questions, or to be skeptical of the CIA.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)