User talk:Dumuzid

Consensus?

Hello, long time no talk! You had recently posted the last consensus of which I was aware was to not name the suspect. Please go to talk before making this change. I just wanted to point out that this is incorrect; no consensus was found for naming which would be WP:NOCON. While still preventing the name from being included due to no agreement, it is different than the 'we all agreed not to name' that comes with consensus :)

I had pointed this out to another user recently, so it has happened before and you aren't alone. And the RfC was almost a year ago so it's understandable to be foggy on it lol.

Take care Awshort (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Awshort -- that sounds right to me now that you say it, and I apologize for misstating the procedural status, if not the result! You can consider me duly chastened and I will certainly be more specific (and correct!) should it happen again. I am basically resigned to the idea that consensus will soon be against me not only as to this article in particular, but as to the whole concept as well. So it goes! Have a great day. Dumuzid (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries! I had to go back the first time and double check we actually had a consensus before posting to the other user.

I did want to ask one thing regarding BLPCrime issues since I know you are usually in favor of not naming, in both this instance and most. When, if applicable, do you feel a subject/suspect should be named prior to conviction? I know you were active in the Jordan Neely RfC and I think the suspect in that case was named based on his willingness to be interviewed etc. I'm just curious your thoughts on it and haven't ever wanted to sidetrack a ongoing discussion by asking you directly when you are involved.

If I remember correctly, you are not located in the United States (the Cheers in your posts lol), but I am curious to know how the media treats suspects in other countries, and at what point the media devotes attention to said suspects where they become household names. I only recently learned that it wasn't commonplace in the UK to name suspects prior to court proceedings and was honestly astounded. And that was only possible through Wikipedia and learning from other editors what is and is not common in their countries. This is more of a big picture question than specifically about your country since I believe all editors deserve their privacy (with regards to where they edit from, etc).

Take care!

Awshort (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

So, without going too far into my background, I was in fact born and raised in the U.S., did a fairly long stint living in the U.K., and now reside in Canada. That means my views are basically terribly confused, but also, those places have a lot more in common than one might think. You are correct that historically that other countries have been more reticent to name suspects--largely I think a result of the First Amendment's very broad (for good or ill) protections. While that is still the case, I think the various common law jurisdictions of the world are converging to some degree. I feel like the U.S. is becoming slightly more defamation-friendly, if you will, and Canada and the U.K. becoming a bit more protective of free speech. I have a lot less expertise in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, but suffice it to say my gut (for whatever that is worth!) is much the same there.

And you have essentially correctly summarized my position! Unless a suspect is wildly notable, I don't think they should be named in Wikipedia. If the headline were "King Charles arrested for theft of PlayStation in Milwaukee," then yes, we'd have to name the subject. But in general, I do not think it's helpful either to society as a whole or to the encyclopedia. But, as you say, I do think we have to make an exception for cases where the suspect in question actually courts and desires press coverage--as in Jordan Neely. This is definitely informed by defamation law (though I am not saying it should be directly imported). The concept basically boils down to the idea that you cannot use privacy as both a sword and a shield--saying both "I am private so you cannot talk about me," but also "I am private so you cannot respond to what I say publicly." Moreover, in cases like that of Neely, it is clear that the suspect actually wants some level of coverage. In my ideal world, we would still keep the actual usage of a name down to the minimum, but as I say, I think I am on the losing end of this Wikipedia battle, which is fine. I just have two opinions that lead me to try to be very careful around here: (1) I am very skeptical about things I or anyone else "know" for certain; and (2) Wikipedia, despite the jokes, has a very outsized influence on what might be termed "common knowledge." So I will keep fighting against naming most suspects, but am also happy to trust in the wisdom of consensus when overruled. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your background; I wanted to point out I wasn't trying to pry but appreciate you sharing. You make valid arguments, and the only time I have seen it be an issue with regards to including naming of a suspect or including any information on them is the removal of citations including their name that you had suggested quite some time ago in a revert (on the above mentioned article). I think the issue with that becomes more or less a POV issue in the end by limiting access to references that do not include the name which can unintentionally cause some rather weak, but arguably still reliable, sources to be used.

For example, if you have 20 high quality sources that routinely have a subjects name in the title and the url of their article (for arguments sake we will say New York Times, CNN, etc) and two that do not include it which are more on the local news variety (The Gotham Gazette, The Texas Lonestar, etc) that would cause people to only be allowed to use the two later ones. I don't disagree with your logic in the protection, however. Looking over the history of BLP there have been I believe no less than 3 other discussions I ran across on BLPN or BLP Talk which discussed wanting to remove names in references or citations. In one instance a user stated that people would try to sneak in accusations and such that were removed on BLP grounds by including references which had that very accusation in the title and some extra tidbit that the article needed which would prevent removal. I think we are at a time where we will see it a lot more, due mainly to the fact that having keywords and descriptive titles containing your main keywords/discussion topic are both considered best practices by search engines now. As a glaring example of the opposite side of the coin that can be used since the suspect in the url is deceased, look no further than this url. It is a url meant for both shock value (thereby failing WP:BLPGOSSIP if the person was alive still) as well as labeling someone a killer through a citation and failing WP:BLPCRIME. I feel like it is a balancing act now to try to have an article an outside reader can look at which summarizes all published facts and opinions with their respected weights, while still trying to be respectful of the accused suspect. Being completely honest, it is the main reason I haven't updated the Abigail Williams & Liberty German page in over a year, since almost every single URL has the name of the suspect in it and I feel like it would get reverted on a BLP issue, even though I firmly believe the article needs a much needed refresh.

Anyways, always great to hear your thoughts and apologies for the rambling.

Awshort (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries as to rambling--it's basically my only form of communication. I think you have a completely reasonable position, but I will note a couple of things. I don't think this rises to an NPOV issue; as we know, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. It's not as though we're advancing a theory that someone else did it, or some such, merely exercising editorial discretion as to one piece of information. That's not to say that consensus might choose to exercise that discretion differently at some point! Also, whatever the merits of the argument, mentioning the suspect's name is most decidedly not a BLP violation. As you say, it has been widely reported. At this point, it's nothing more than a standard question of how best to write the article. As far as I am concerned, at least, you can mention the name as much as you want on the talk page or in edit summaries; I will still argue it should be left out of the article itself, though. But as I say, my guess is consensus will shift against me soon (indeed, if it hasn't already tacitly done so). But so it goes! Have a wonderful day. Dumuzid (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick note - re reading my earlier post, it seemed like it could be interpreted as I was accusing you of a POV issue. This was neither my intent or how I meant it to come across so I apologize. Regarding the name in URLs, I know there was a general consensus for inclusion on BLPN with regards to the Delphi suspect. Oddly enough, no one ever updated the article though once the consensus was met with updated references for new information which struck me as odd.

If I could ask for clarification on two things :

1) The URL thing; do you still feel references should avoid the name at all costs, or is it more or less avoid until it hinders an article improving? I only ask because you had stated in a different RfC a while back (I believe the Neely one, but I am old and forgetful so I could be wrong lol) that we didn't need to police URLs, and I wondered what had changed or if it was something about that case in particular?

2) With regards to arguments on BLP issues as a whole, do you think that foreign policy should weigh on an argument for differing countries suspects and their names inclusion? Example: a suspect arrested in the UK has their name withheld in UK based newspapers, but US based newspapers share the name. Or vice versa, with a US based suspect being widely reported on by US, and overseas editors arguing against inclusion based on privacy laws in different countries. I ask this one because it has become more common for both arguments, and the general Wiki legal standpoint has been based on 'an editor is responsible for their edits based on their local place of resident and it's applicable laws.' A recent example was a crime article from I believe Germany that had a suspect kill someone, and the Courts ruled against releasing their information. US based editors kept trying to add it based on it somehow getting published in the US. In that instance, I 100% agree that the name should have been withheld.

Take care, and have a great rest of your day.

Awshort (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

So, number one is a bit hard to answer, and I may well have (or at least seemed to) taken contradictory stances. Where there is enough support in sources to include the name, but we don't based on editorial discretion, then I don't think we need to suppress it to that length. My argument is just that we don't need it in the article. As to number 2, I will always lean towards non-disclosure, but it is again a case-by-case basis. I can imagine instances where we would go either way: following a country's lead in avoiding a certain name or, on the other hand, deciding that either a country is being too protective or that the sourcing allows us to go beyond it. Obviously, it all depends on context, but I think you can sum up my position as this: where a suspect is utterly non-notable, we should lean against inclusion unless there's some compelling argument the other way. After that, it all comes down to specifics. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Lack of possible consensus about 3 words....

thx for blocking this minor change, because a talk about it was going, but i have to inform you, that a consensus is not possible, due to 2 certain individuals inability to accept, that an already used Reliable source since early March is still a reliable source, and that to add the actual full factual statement of this source would not add to the verifiability of the source used by Wikipedia but would make the whole article more undue, than these random quotes from some articles in the article for example. I had to tell them 2-3 times, that the source is already use din the article, they didnt even got this info and just slammed the unreliable source card without informing themself properly.

This is in my honest view simply a WP:DISRUPTIVE case of WP:STEWARDSHIP with the excuse of not fixing the not broken stuff. This is easily highlighted with actual statements of the individuals in the past, that imply even the necessary to add these parts of the controversy, if a reliable source would mention it.

So now one side wants to apparently declare an alread yused and never called unreliable source no longer reliable, because it would mean to add 3 neutral and factual words about this.....crazy. --2003:DF:A72F:9F00:75A5:F75A:BAA2:BBA9 (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Hello Dumuzid, I just a few minutes ago changed a few small yet important details in the opening sentences of Noah's Ark. I did those changes as I just read Genesis 6 and 7, and wanted to improve the accuracy and add some bible quotations so that others can reference and understand the topic more easily. Why did you revert my changes? I don't see anything wrong with what I added. They are correct per the bible. Looking forward to hearing back from you. AnotherEditor46 (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello AnotherEditor46, and thank you for stopping by. As I said in my edit summary, while I am not entirely opposed to your changes, I think it might be a bit much detail for the lead, and I don't like introducing the "two animals trope" without accounting for the tension inherent with Genesis 7:2. All that said, if you can establish a consensus (and if it is just me complaining, one other person will do), then I obviously won't revert again and I will cease my complaining! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)