This should be merged to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Back to the discussion on the merge to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, which I'm against. This article has enough content for a standalone article. Redirecting it to the email leak article would suggest that Wikipedia believes that the murder of Seth Rich is strongly connected to the leak, which presumably we want to avoid. TradingJihadist ( talk) 02:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor just came adding random citation needed tags. The reference for those claims are in the next source, as can be easily seen. I suspect that person did not bother to check the source. TradingJihadist ( talk) 01:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Can someone post how to get to the discussion of the nomination for deletion, if such still exists -- or remove that boiler plate? I spent quite a bit of time trying to find the discussion, but today could not find a trace of it. A few days ago I found the discussion without too much trouble. Thanks ( PeacePeace ( talk) 16:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC))
What the heck do these Seealso entries have to do with this article? I guess it's not a BLP violation, so 3RR prevents me from reverting, but WTF? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have this section entitled: "Early life, education, and employment"? This seems to have nothing to do with this incident. This article is about the incident and not this person imho. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
According to this article in Newsweek [2] he was not shot in the back of the head. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This NBC source [3] states that "Rich was shot multiple times" - but does not mention the head. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
According to another source [4] it states that "Police have released little about their investigation, other than to say that Rich was fatally shot in the early hours of July 10" --- Let's discuss. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I would like to change the name of the article to something less gruesome. I mean like tone it down. Any suggestions are welcome, then we see what consensus prevails if any.--- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I am the editor who reported the edit warring and got the page protected. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war at Murder of Seth Rich. I am giving everyone involved fair warning: if the edit war continues after the protection expires, I will start reporting individuals at WP:ANEW.
I strongly suggest that those who have recently been edit warring instead use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, starting at WP:DRR. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
These 3 sources [5] [6] [7] say something different. I know The Daily Wire can't be used as a source, what about the other two? -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 10:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The sentence in this Wikipedia article states, "The bar manager stated that Rich was not drunk or even tipsy" and is using this source [8] (the material is near the end of this Newsweek article). But if you look at the Newsweek source, the general manager (Joe C.), is not speaking specifically about that night, he is making a generalization. It reads, "That was just not Seth. I never saw him drunk or even tipsy." Using the phrasing "just not Seth" and "I never saw him..." implies a history between the two. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I note some arguments above supported by appealing to Wikipedia fundamentals. Can we all pause for a moment to lighten up? I didn't realize that Wikipedia encouraged fundamentalism. WP:5P5 "Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; . . . . And do not agonize . . . . " Is there agonizing going on over this article? Has anyone other than myself noticed some similarity between a religion debate with proof texts like PS 5:55 and WikiLawyer debates citing rules like WP:5P5? LOL ( PeacePeace ( talk) 17:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC))
The article currently says that Mr. Rich was the Deputy Director of "Data-for-Voter Protection/Expansion" which is an odd-sounding title with what appear to be random hyphens. According to Rollcall, he was the voter expansion data director which is also the job title he used on his LinkedIn page (I know - primary source). Some of the sources and all of the unreliable ones seem to think that he was involved in the programming, i.e., coding, but his education and work experience is researching and processing data for employers' customers and probably also for use in the DNC database. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to get some feedback before adding anything to the page. When you do a quick search for Seth Rich on google, the majority of articles direct to the controversy surrounding Jullian Assange and his bounty for information on what happened. Consiparcy theories aside, this is an open homeicide investigation, would't it be worth adding the actual information to the local police for people to provide any information they might have? From NBC Washington:
Let me know what you think. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The conspiracy info was toned down quite a bit with the last round of edits. Wouldn't removing "Murder of" from the title help tone it down as well? It seems like there's enough RS's for him to qualify for a BLP. Let me know what you think. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
To refer to eliminating "conspiracy theory" is obviously a democrat talking point, and a violation of NPOV. The correct term is "reasonable suspicion, common to normal police work in investigating a murder. If someone too conveniently dies, Wikileaks guru says "NO," to the question about it being a simple robbery, then there is a reasonable suspicion for police to investigate. There is no wacko conspiracy theory, like landing on the moon was a fake. That this murder is quite notable is proven by the abundance of google hits that it gets and YouTube hits. The purpose of the article should be objective presentation of facts, not promulgation of any theory or talking points. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 15:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC))
|}
Seth Rich's Family Shoots Down Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Murder After Wikileaks Offer
WikiLeaks Is Fanning a Conspiracy Theory
Right-Wing Media Run With Conspiracy
DNC Staffer's Murder Unleashed a Perfect Storm of Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories
SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
collapsing WP:SOAPBOX | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||
I don't see a need to have the Hilary Clinton blurb in this article. She made her comments over a month ago, probably as part of her political campaign, and I am not sure it is relevant [10]. She mentions Rich in passing along with a "list of mass" shootings:
The rest of this article has the same info that other media outlets have - so there is nothing remarkable there. I think having this blurb is WP:UNDUE. As an aside the first cited reference for this blurb is not the correct one. If you look it has nothing about Clinton's comment. The one at the end of the blurb appears to be the correct reference - if anyone wants to correct this. Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Here is what we currently say about Clinton:
References
The entire second reference is about Clinton's discussion of Rich, so this is highly noteworthy. And the first cited reference certainly does discuss Clinton too: "Hillary Clinton, before she became the Democratic presidential nominee, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns". So I think our very brief material is okay. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Does "Apparently not a robbery" seem like an appropriate title for the only subsection in the article? Seems somewhat tabloid-y to me. I can't think of a better one off the top of my head, but if it apparently isn't a robbery, why is that the title of the largest subsection in the article? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Now that consensus appears to favor removal of all the WP:COATRACK nonsense, it's likely the article will be deleted soon enough. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Geogene, does the following really look PROFRINGE to you?
I removed trivia per UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and had to revert due to UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and WP:OWN [11], [12]. Please discuss Steve Quinn ( talk) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I disagree but your argument is clear.
D.Creish (
talk)
05:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I just placed the DS alert on this talk page and probably will eventually put them on people's talk pages. The relevant arbcom case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons. We have these DS for situations like this - where folks are told repeatedly that there are BLP issues and will not listen. Jytdog ( talk) 02:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Jytdog you have made unfounded statements as to editor motivations on this talk page. That doesn't give you the right to apply DS because you have disagreements with the content. Mr Ernie ( talk) 03:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it will be helpful to make a list of things that several editors would like this article to omit: 1. The time and location where Rich was last seen alive. [13] 2. A witness statement that Rich was sober when last seen alive. [14] 3. That nothing was stolen from Rich. [15] 4. How the police found out about the shooting. [16] 5. That the police offered a reward for information. [17] 6. That WikiLeaks offered an additional reward for information. [18] 7. That the victim's father expressed hope that the WikiLeaks reward would help find the perpetrators, but felt WikiLeaks was playing a game. [19] 8. That WikiLeaks put out a statement saying that it was not implying Rich was a source of leaks. [20] Apparently, the plan is to strip this article of information like this, and then take another crack at AfD. [21] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@
Anythingyouwant:
Please stop. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SPECIFICO (
talk •
contribs)
In lieu of deleting this article entirely, a clear effort exists to sanitize it by minimizing its content, thereby frustrating contributing editors. That's a lot of effort for a supposedly 'non-notable' article and is inconsistent with the spirit of collaboration. - JGabbard
So we have 4 days of page protection left. How about we just start with a list, with no commentary yet. Then maybe we can prioritize and tackle them one by one. What are the key issues to resolve? I'll kick it off... Jytdog ( talk) 03:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPNOTE, the subject of this article is not notable. Specifically, WP:VICTIM states: For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime
Let's break it down. First, before this man was killed there wasn't an article on him (which makes sense because he wasn't a notable figure). Then, according to sources used in the present article, he is killed, around 4 AM about a block from his house. Now shifting back to the guideline presented above, a non-notable man getting killed in DC at 4 AM is not considered a historic event; as stated above, the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage. Is this event receiving persistent coverage? According to Google it's not substantial [23] -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 19:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there a need for three separate informal AfDs on this talk page? D.Creish ( talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed (obviously unsourced) Category:Living people per WP:BLPCAT. I understand the logic behind adding it, but it is just improper to categorize Rich as a living person. As a side note, I have edited multiple controversial Death_of_* articles and I don't ever remember seeing edit notices there. Politrukki ( talk) 07:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The !vote discussion is about excluding or including the purported reward offer in the article. How is mentioning that said reward offer is not a bonafide reward offer but a publicity stunt not discussing an improvement to the article, i.e., keep garbage out? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been following all the drama that has been going on here that much, but I just read this Fox 5 DC article which kind of follows up on the original "WikiLeaks offers reward" story. Of particular note is the following quote from Assange:
If the reward is mentioned then I think this quote could also be added. Falling Gravity 07:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC) And so can this Aug 25 broadcast on eminently reliable Fox News (which I normally don’t consider a reliable source but going with the flow here) when the famous and notable one slithered and slimed hisssss way through another interview; they thoughtfully provided a full transcript. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
This stuff should not be published here on the talk page, per BLP. I'd like to ask an editor who agrees to collapse or archive this section.
SPECIFICO
talk
23:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Anyone know how to do this? I request a Discretionary sanctions template be affixed in this article for when people open it to edit. Then they can see that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions and what type of editing is permitted [24] Steve Quinn ( talk) 15:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I apologize for being unclear. I should have specified that I was talking about WP:ARBAP2 and I should have made it clear that this page is already under WP:NEWBLPBAN. I sort of assumed that we all knew this already. My fault entirely for not being clear. Sorry about that. And yes, I understand DS quite well. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
|
This should be merged to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Back to the discussion on the merge to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, which I'm against. This article has enough content for a standalone article. Redirecting it to the email leak article would suggest that Wikipedia believes that the murder of Seth Rich is strongly connected to the leak, which presumably we want to avoid. TradingJihadist ( talk) 02:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor just came adding random citation needed tags. The reference for those claims are in the next source, as can be easily seen. I suspect that person did not bother to check the source. TradingJihadist ( talk) 01:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Can someone post how to get to the discussion of the nomination for deletion, if such still exists -- or remove that boiler plate? I spent quite a bit of time trying to find the discussion, but today could not find a trace of it. A few days ago I found the discussion without too much trouble. Thanks ( PeacePeace ( talk) 16:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC))
What the heck do these Seealso entries have to do with this article? I guess it's not a BLP violation, so 3RR prevents me from reverting, but WTF? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have this section entitled: "Early life, education, and employment"? This seems to have nothing to do with this incident. This article is about the incident and not this person imho. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
According to this article in Newsweek [2] he was not shot in the back of the head. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This NBC source [3] states that "Rich was shot multiple times" - but does not mention the head. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
According to another source [4] it states that "Police have released little about their investigation, other than to say that Rich was fatally shot in the early hours of July 10" --- Let's discuss. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I would like to change the name of the article to something less gruesome. I mean like tone it down. Any suggestions are welcome, then we see what consensus prevails if any.--- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I am the editor who reported the edit warring and got the page protected. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war at Murder of Seth Rich. I am giving everyone involved fair warning: if the edit war continues after the protection expires, I will start reporting individuals at WP:ANEW.
I strongly suggest that those who have recently been edit warring instead use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, starting at WP:DRR. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
These 3 sources [5] [6] [7] say something different. I know The Daily Wire can't be used as a source, what about the other two? -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 10:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The sentence in this Wikipedia article states, "The bar manager stated that Rich was not drunk or even tipsy" and is using this source [8] (the material is near the end of this Newsweek article). But if you look at the Newsweek source, the general manager (Joe C.), is not speaking specifically about that night, he is making a generalization. It reads, "That was just not Seth. I never saw him drunk or even tipsy." Using the phrasing "just not Seth" and "I never saw him..." implies a history between the two. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I note some arguments above supported by appealing to Wikipedia fundamentals. Can we all pause for a moment to lighten up? I didn't realize that Wikipedia encouraged fundamentalism. WP:5P5 "Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; . . . . And do not agonize . . . . " Is there agonizing going on over this article? Has anyone other than myself noticed some similarity between a religion debate with proof texts like PS 5:55 and WikiLawyer debates citing rules like WP:5P5? LOL ( PeacePeace ( talk) 17:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC))
The article currently says that Mr. Rich was the Deputy Director of "Data-for-Voter Protection/Expansion" which is an odd-sounding title with what appear to be random hyphens. According to Rollcall, he was the voter expansion data director which is also the job title he used on his LinkedIn page (I know - primary source). Some of the sources and all of the unreliable ones seem to think that he was involved in the programming, i.e., coding, but his education and work experience is researching and processing data for employers' customers and probably also for use in the DNC database. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 06:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to get some feedback before adding anything to the page. When you do a quick search for Seth Rich on google, the majority of articles direct to the controversy surrounding Jullian Assange and his bounty for information on what happened. Consiparcy theories aside, this is an open homeicide investigation, would't it be worth adding the actual information to the local police for people to provide any information they might have? From NBC Washington:
Let me know what you think. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The conspiracy info was toned down quite a bit with the last round of edits. Wouldn't removing "Murder of" from the title help tone it down as well? It seems like there's enough RS's for him to qualify for a BLP. Let me know what you think. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
To refer to eliminating "conspiracy theory" is obviously a democrat talking point, and a violation of NPOV. The correct term is "reasonable suspicion, common to normal police work in investigating a murder. If someone too conveniently dies, Wikileaks guru says "NO," to the question about it being a simple robbery, then there is a reasonable suspicion for police to investigate. There is no wacko conspiracy theory, like landing on the moon was a fake. That this murder is quite notable is proven by the abundance of google hits that it gets and YouTube hits. The purpose of the article should be objective presentation of facts, not promulgation of any theory or talking points. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 15:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC))
|}
Seth Rich's Family Shoots Down Conspiracy Theories About DNC Staffer's Murder After Wikileaks Offer
WikiLeaks Is Fanning a Conspiracy Theory
Right-Wing Media Run With Conspiracy
DNC Staffer's Murder Unleashed a Perfect Storm of Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories
SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
collapsing WP:SOAPBOX | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||
I don't see a need to have the Hilary Clinton blurb in this article. She made her comments over a month ago, probably as part of her political campaign, and I am not sure it is relevant [10]. She mentions Rich in passing along with a "list of mass" shootings:
The rest of this article has the same info that other media outlets have - so there is nothing remarkable there. I think having this blurb is WP:UNDUE. As an aside the first cited reference for this blurb is not the correct one. If you look it has nothing about Clinton's comment. The one at the end of the blurb appears to be the correct reference - if anyone wants to correct this. Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Here is what we currently say about Clinton:
References
The entire second reference is about Clinton's discussion of Rich, so this is highly noteworthy. And the first cited reference certainly does discuss Clinton too: "Hillary Clinton, before she became the Democratic presidential nominee, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns". So I think our very brief material is okay. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Does "Apparently not a robbery" seem like an appropriate title for the only subsection in the article? Seems somewhat tabloid-y to me. I can't think of a better one off the top of my head, but if it apparently isn't a robbery, why is that the title of the largest subsection in the article? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Now that consensus appears to favor removal of all the WP:COATRACK nonsense, it's likely the article will be deleted soon enough. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Geogene, does the following really look PROFRINGE to you?
I removed trivia per UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and had to revert due to UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and WP:OWN [11], [12]. Please discuss Steve Quinn ( talk) 08:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I disagree but your argument is clear.
D.Creish (
talk)
05:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I just placed the DS alert on this talk page and probably will eventually put them on people's talk pages. The relevant arbcom case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons. We have these DS for situations like this - where folks are told repeatedly that there are BLP issues and will not listen. Jytdog ( talk) 02:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Jytdog you have made unfounded statements as to editor motivations on this talk page. That doesn't give you the right to apply DS because you have disagreements with the content. Mr Ernie ( talk) 03:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it will be helpful to make a list of things that several editors would like this article to omit: 1. The time and location where Rich was last seen alive. [13] 2. A witness statement that Rich was sober when last seen alive. [14] 3. That nothing was stolen from Rich. [15] 4. How the police found out about the shooting. [16] 5. That the police offered a reward for information. [17] 6. That WikiLeaks offered an additional reward for information. [18] 7. That the victim's father expressed hope that the WikiLeaks reward would help find the perpetrators, but felt WikiLeaks was playing a game. [19] 8. That WikiLeaks put out a statement saying that it was not implying Rich was a source of leaks. [20] Apparently, the plan is to strip this article of information like this, and then take another crack at AfD. [21] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@
Anythingyouwant:
Please stop. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SPECIFICO (
talk •
contribs)
In lieu of deleting this article entirely, a clear effort exists to sanitize it by minimizing its content, thereby frustrating contributing editors. That's a lot of effort for a supposedly 'non-notable' article and is inconsistent with the spirit of collaboration. - JGabbard
So we have 4 days of page protection left. How about we just start with a list, with no commentary yet. Then maybe we can prioritize and tackle them one by one. What are the key issues to resolve? I'll kick it off... Jytdog ( talk) 03:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPNOTE, the subject of this article is not notable. Specifically, WP:VICTIM states: For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime
Let's break it down. First, before this man was killed there wasn't an article on him (which makes sense because he wasn't a notable figure). Then, according to sources used in the present article, he is killed, around 4 AM about a block from his house. Now shifting back to the guideline presented above, a non-notable man getting killed in DC at 4 AM is not considered a historic event; as stated above, the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage. Is this event receiving persistent coverage? According to Google it's not substantial [23] -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 19:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there a need for three separate informal AfDs on this talk page? D.Creish ( talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed (obviously unsourced) Category:Living people per WP:BLPCAT. I understand the logic behind adding it, but it is just improper to categorize Rich as a living person. As a side note, I have edited multiple controversial Death_of_* articles and I don't ever remember seeing edit notices there. Politrukki ( talk) 07:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The !vote discussion is about excluding or including the purported reward offer in the article. How is mentioning that said reward offer is not a bonafide reward offer but a publicity stunt not discussing an improvement to the article, i.e., keep garbage out? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been following all the drama that has been going on here that much, but I just read this Fox 5 DC article which kind of follows up on the original "WikiLeaks offers reward" story. Of particular note is the following quote from Assange:
If the reward is mentioned then I think this quote could also be added. Falling Gravity 07:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC) And so can this Aug 25 broadcast on eminently reliable Fox News (which I normally don’t consider a reliable source but going with the flow here) when the famous and notable one slithered and slimed hisssss way through another interview; they thoughtfully provided a full transcript. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
This stuff should not be published here on the talk page, per BLP. I'd like to ask an editor who agrees to collapse or archive this section.
SPECIFICO
talk
23:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Anyone know how to do this? I request a Discretionary sanctions template be affixed in this article for when people open it to edit. Then they can see that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions and what type of editing is permitted [24] Steve Quinn ( talk) 15:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, I apologize for being unclear. I should have specified that I was talking about WP:ARBAP2 and I should have made it clear that this page is already under WP:NEWBLPBAN. I sort of assumed that we all knew this already. My fault entirely for not being clear. Sorry about that. And yes, I understand DS quite well. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
|