Talk:David Duke/Archive 8

Convicted Felon
A debate has ensued on several talk pages as well as the page of Fred Hampton. The debate addresses the appropriateness of using the phrase "convicted felon" in the very first sentence of a Wikipedia article. I think it's inappropriate to apply inconsistent standards here. Some pages, like this one, have "convicted felon" in the opening sentence, while the pages of other convicted felons do not. The opening sentence provides a framework for the reader that colors how they read the rest of the article. To mention one individual's convicted felon status, but not another's, is editorializing, and I don't think I need to explain to anyone why this is a flagrant rejection of the principle of neutrality.

I suggest one of the two following courses of action: 1) I will go to the page of every convicted felon with a Wikipedia article, and add "convicted felon" to the opening sentence if it is not there already. 2) I will remove the statement "convicted felon" from David Duke's opening sentence, as his felon status is addressed at length in the body of the article. I will also remove the statement "convicted felon" from the opening sentence of all other Wikipedia biographies, with the exception of individuals who are primarily notable *because* of their convicted felon status - Jeffrey Epstein, for example.

I strongly recommend that we proceed with the 2nd option.

I therefore recommend that the following principle be applied, whether or not this is official Wikipedia policy yet: An individual's convicted felon status should be discussed in the body of the text, not in the opening sentence, unless the individual is notable only or primarily because of their felonious behavior.

Obviously, this is not true of Duke, as he's primarily notable as an anti-Semite and white nationalist. His felony convictions for tax related matters are tangential to his relevance as a public figure.

So - I have removed the "convicted felon" portion from the opening sentence. I think I've articulated my reasons for doing so very clearly, both here and on other talk pages, and none of my arguments have received anything resembling a coherent rebuttal, which I would welcome. If you're going to revert my edit, you should come with facts and arguments rooted in reason, common sense, and policy. Otherwise, I'll assume you're a troll and will correct your edit. If my argument here doesn't make sense, please engage with it and explain why you think I'm wrong, don't just start an edit war and make snarky remarks or state misinformation, as others have done, which is very disappointing to see, especially from admins - I expect better from them. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Please read the behavioral guideline Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and read it and study it until you truly understand it. Then comply with it. The humorous essay No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man is also applicable. If you take disruptive editing to multiple articles, you will be blocked. So, build consensus on this article first and do not demand 100% consistency on an encyclopedia with over 6.5 million articles because that is literally impossible. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not disrupting Wikipedia, I'm suggesting narrow, specific, concrete improvements. There is no policy surrounding the phrase "convicted felon" in the opening sentence of a biographical article. You could just as easily argue that reverting my edit and citing outright fake misinformation as justification for doing so (as was done previously on this page) amounts to disruptive behavior. Threatening to block me while failing to engage with or rebut my serious and sincere arguments isn't a good look. I'm also not demanding consistency - I'm stating that it is an ideal to strive for, and expressing my desire to work towards this end. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * adding "convicted felon" to the lead of Fred Hampton while removing it from David Duke is pretty much the definition of disruptive, pointy editing. So, stop it now or get blocked. It is that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, let's set aside the personal attacks and threats and get to substance - what's your opinion? Why should "convicted felon" be included on one article, but not the other? The fact that "100% consistency" is impossible is not an excuse to not address glaring, obvious inconsistencies that can easily be addressed. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And I'll agree - I shouldn't have edited the Hampton page a second time, because I don't actually think "convicted felon" should be in the lead of his or any other individual's page - unless the individual's felonious conduct is the primary reason for their notability. Point taken. I won't revert the Hampton page again unless a consensus is built that "convicted felon" is an appropriate lead. However, it would be nice to hear an argument that is more substantive than "me no like that!" or worse, sharing completely false information, like Doug's claim that Hampton's felony charges were dropped. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am here as an administrator to put a stop to your disruptive editing here and elsewhere. I am not here to adjudicate your content disputes, and have no obligation to express any opinion on the content. As a matter of fact, I have no opinion on the content dispute. My first and only goal is to stop the disruption and that is my job here as an administrator. Part of my duties here is to give warnings (what you call threats) to editors who are grinding axes and engaging in pointy edits. So, just stop it, or be prepared to accept the consequences. I hope that you will stop, because that is in your own best interest, as well as the best interest of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "In my own best interest"...that's a downright weird and creepy statement to make, buddy. Your tone and language are excessively hostile. If you have no opinion on the discussion, I don't understand why you're still here. If you're concerned about me personally, we can discuss it on my talk page, this obviously isn't the place. I acknowledged that my 2nd edit on the Hampton article could be perceived as disruptive, and expressed that I won't be editing the page further until a consensus is established. So you're late to the party, the "disruption" was done long before you ever showed up. It's over. Now you're just being rude for no apparent reason. I read your link, conceded your point, and I'm here articulating my opinion on the talk page and expressing a desire to build consensus by presenting logical arguments and actively seeking rebuttals or refutations. Not sure what else you want, but at this point you're just derailing the thread.
 * Moving on...does anyone disagree with the points made in my initial post? Any arguments in favor of keeping "convicted felon" in the lead? I'm totally open to the possibility that I've overlooked something and that I'm in the wrong here, on either a logic or policy basis. Really would welcome a constructive response or rebuttal, for once. Philomathes2357 (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No one has made a personal attack on you. Warnings and statements of consequences are not personal attacks. This is disputed and you have no consensus. You've got two good options, one to go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and try to get this added to policy, but probably better for you to start a Requests for comment carefully following the instructions. If you do the last one you're more likely to be successful for this page, although I don't know how it would go. Doug Weller  talk 10:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll look into those channels once a more thorough discussion has been had here. I see you reverted my edit - again. Even though you didn't engage with any of my arguments. Your argument seems to be "me no like that!"...maybe because you personally think David Duke is loathsome, and the more negative statements about him in his article, the better? If were to have done that to your edits, you and I both know that I'd be "warned" about edit-warring and threatened with a ban, but whatever, I don't want to argue.
 * You said it "seems reasonable" for "convicted felon" to be in the lead. Would you then agree that it also seems reasonable to include "convicted felon" in the lead of Fred Hampton's page and other pages of convicted felons? If not, why not? If anything, I think the argument can be made that Hampton's felony is more significant, because 1) it was a violent felony, unlike Duke's, 2) the situation surrounding his felony conviction was directly relevant to his later assassination. Can you explain why you think it's reasonable (or essential) to include "convicted felon" here, and only here, while you've removed the same phrase from other leads? Also, I'd point out that while there's no "consensus" to remove the phrase, there's also no consensus to keep it, because you're the only one reverting my edits, so since there's an equal amount of consensus for both positions, it seems like I'd be more than justified in reverting your edit again, although I won't until this is discussed further. Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I posted a thread to the Biographies of living persons discussion about this topic. So far, several voices have chimed in with thoughtful points. There is an overwhelming unanimous consensus that the use of the phrase "convicted felon" is not appropriate unless the individual's felonious activities are the central reason why they are a notable individual. This is clearly not the case for Duke. There was also a discussion of a similar issue in April 2020, which is linked here: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 46#Applying controversial labels to people
 * Given the overwhelming unanimous consensus that the tone that this phrase strikes is inappropriate in this context, and the fact that every point you have made in defense of your position has been objectively false, I did go ahead and remove the inappropriate language once again. Since a consensus on this issue has clearly been established, and you are literally the only dissenting voice so far, you will clearly and unambiguously be guilty of edit-warring and disruptive conduct if you continue to revert my edits without even providing coherent reasons for doing so. Thanks for pointing me in the proper direction to establish consensus on this issue, and if you disagree with the consensus, I invite you to continue posting here or on the thread I created at "biographies of living persons". Although I'm open to having my mind changed, you'll have to change quite a few other minds to establish a consensus for your position at this point. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And...my edit was reverted, again. Even though consensus has been established. What's up with this? Just because you disagree with the consensus, Valjean, doesn't mean you get to just revert the edit. Or move the goalposts and say that the consensus has to be written on this specific page. Look at the link in my above message and you will see that this has been thoroughly discussed and consensus has been established. You're in the wrong here, and while I'm not jumping to conclusions and assuming bad faith, your edit was clearly inappropriate. Your feelings about me personally should not be reflected in your editing behavior. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

My warning stands, so keep it in mind. I am here as an administrator, to discuss conduct not content. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That's fine, and I take your point in good faith. I'm wondering, will you also be reprimanding others, like Valjean, who reverted my edit with a snarky comment, even though consensus on this issue has been clearly established at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#"Convicted Felon" in the lead and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_46#Applying_controversial_labels_to_people ? It's beyond dispute that there is an overwhelming, nearly unanimous consensus on this issue. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course I will not reprimand Valjean who made a single revert with an entirely reasonable edit summary of which is not at all snarky and was entirely proper. The fact that you are calling for a reprimand is just more evidence that you are grinding an axe and trying to provoke confrontation. That rarely ends well.  Cullen328 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, Valjean's edit was not only contrary to broad, widespread consensus on Wikipedia, his claim that consensus needs to be built on this talk page *specifically* is false, and in violation of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus. Explain to me why I'm wrong. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because,, you are continuing to loudly grind your axe, trying to ram through instant "consensus", disrespecting your fellow editors and failing to let other editors have a reasonable amount of time to evaluate and think about your big campaign push here. Perhaps you are right on the content issue. I have expressed no opinion one way or the other. But you are conducting yourself in an aggressive and dogmatic fashion and are far too quick to accuse other editors of bad behavior. This is a collaborative project and building consensus takes time. I again appeal to you to back off and tone it down. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite Valjean's assertion, consensus here is not needed. Indeed, a local consensus (or in this case, an absence of consensus) on the change cannot override wider consensus (WP:CONLEVEL), which a noticeboard discussion would qualify as. DFlhb (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC) ; edit: just noticed that wasn't the BLP noticeboard, but the policy talk page. Oops. I'd still count it as wider consensus. 20:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, I had a feeling that this was the case, but didn't want to revert Valjean's edit until someone else could confirm my suspicion. So I will go ahead and revert the edit, not to fuel an edit-war, but because Valjean's edit is in violation of the broad consensus on the issue. Hopefully if Valjean disagrees with the consensus, they will come to the talk page to convince others, because they're obviously a respected editor and they might have something valuable to say if they're willing to engage in the process in good faith. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I urge you to self-revert, and I say this in a friendly way; edit warring is a bannable offence, and your contributions seem otherwise good, apart from the excessive reverts. Please don't let them earn you a ban. It sometimes happens that the matter of what the consensus is is in dispute, and while it's tedious, it usually gets resolved through an RFC, not through further reverts by people who are already involved. DFlhb (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I really do appreciate it. I put some thought into what you said. I would self-revert here, but I'm confident that none of the people reverting my edits would do the same, so why would I put myself in such a position? It's clear that my edit is supported by consensus and by policy. I was told to stop edit-warring and establish a consensus, which I did. And my edits are still being undone, in flagrant violation of policy and consensus. Simply put, my edit reflects consensus, the previous edit does not. So I will not self-revert, unless the consensus shifts. If the consensus becomes that the phrase is appropriate, then I will honor that, but currently, the overwhelming consensus is that the phrase is not appropriate, so the admin in question was wrong to revert my edit. If changing an article to better reflect consensus and established policy gets me banned - fine. I'd rather have that happen than self-revert/self-censor in a way that makes the article objectively worse. It's true that sometimes the matter of "what the consensus is" is in dispute, but it is not in dispute here: it is overwhelmingly clear and obvious to everyone except for one or two loud but isolated voices. Thank you again for your comment, you're one of the few people I've encountered in these editing circles who appears sincere and down-to-earth. If you still think I'm in the wrong here by not self-reverting, I'm all ears. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the relevant essay (which is so widely-applied, it might as well be a guideline) is WP:STATUSQUO (keep the established version until the dispute is resolved, unless it's poorly sourced or unsourced, which this isn't). And the relevant policy is this one, which states that editors who participated in edit wars should not implement a consensus, or decide when a dispute is resolved; they should leave it to an uninvolved editor.
 * Trust me, you'll have a far better chance to get your views heard (and implemented) through patient and collaborative editing; zero risk, with the same end-result. I suggest you take a look at WP:EW, WP:DE, WP:BLUDGEON, and all the other content guidelines (again, not as an accusation, but to make sure you steer clear of ban-worthy behaviours).
 * WP:ANI and WP:AN3, where such bans are decided, care about an editors' attitude and behavior, not about the righteousness of edits. IMO, ANI is not quite as forgiving as it should be, and in my short time here, I've already seen one or two indefinite blocks after nonsubstantive-but-gishgalloped pile-ons, (edit: not referring to the former admin; that one was substantive)  where accused editors failed to defend themselves convincingly due to an excessively defiant or headstrong attitude.
 * Keep in mind, when an admin accuses you of disruptive editing and warns you to stop, you are on thin ice. Again if I were you, I'd self-revert. DFlhb (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC) ; updated 03:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of good substantive information in this post. I won't be self-reverting, because doing so would actually change the article from being in-line with consensus to being out-of-line with consensus - but I will take a step back from editing the page and let things play out on the talk pages and the RFC. If someone wants to thumb their nose at the established consensus and revert my edit, I won't edit-war with them (even though such an edit would probably qualify as disruptive at this point given the overwhelming and essentially unanimous nature of the consensus) - I'll continue to pursue this through the appropriate channels and allow others to do what needs to be done, rather than implementing the consensus myself. Your points are well taken and I will definitely keep them in mind going forward, and will closely review the relevant policies that you linked. Cheers. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Let it be noted that I had not commented on the issue of whether "convicted felon" should be in the first sentence (until just now in the RfC below). I do think it should be in the lead and have no firm opinion on the exact location. I will follow consensus when it is established for the David Duke article. I know we treat people differently, and in some cases it is proper to mention "convicted felon" in the first sentence. That's why one editor doesn't get to decide the issue, especially by edit warring, abuse of other editors, and battlefield behavior.

When I discovered the edit warring here, I saw an edit warrior furiously engaged in fighting against administrators and hurling abuse at them, so I restored the longstanding status quo version in the hope that the issue would be settled through further discussion. Alas, Philomathes2357 continued their edit war and reverted me. When encouraged to self-revert by other editors they refused, all because they felt they were right, and THAT is the crux of the issue here.

Edit warring is wrong, even when the editor might be right about all the issues involved. Philomathes may be right about the placement of the "convicted felon" language. They may also be right about some consensus at BLP/N or other dramaboard that can apply at this article. They may be right about every single atom in the universe, but that would not justify their edit warring, hence my SINGLE revert back to the longstanding status quo version, and my edit summary was not "snarky." Nothing justifies edit warring. When an editor is so self-righteous that they feel their edit warring is justified and their hurling of abuse, accusations of bad faith, and personal attacks is okay because "they are right", we've got a problem. We don't need battlefield behavior here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)