User:Snarevox/sandbox

The left-wing bias in the first paragraph of this page is absolutely ridiculous. Why is this allowed? 2001:56A:6FE9:B6C0:C4F2:258F:8540:2B58 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by IP/new users frequently complain that Wikipedia is "biased" when it doesn't fit their personal worldview. The only thing this generates is eyerolls from experienced users, because they never actually address the sourcing regarding the claims in the first place. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

To speak to this, I would not accuse Wikipedia as biased. But the beginning of this particular article is surprisingly negative and one-sided. Wikipedia is better than this. 136.32.100.222 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Alex Jones is pretty negative too, and I think the negativity is well earned in both cases. Kennedy's anti-vax advocacy has really eclipsed his signficance as an environmental lawyer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"eclipsed his signficance as an environmental lawyer" He was not that significant as a lawyer anyway. If he was not famous for his support for pseudoscience, I doubt if he would qualify for a Wikipedia article. Dimadick (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Quite the exaggeration. His work on environmental issues was enough to get him almost named to Obama's cabinet as head of the EPA. The Waterkeeper Alliance is a very notable organization. It's fine not to like his vaccine activism, but it's totally wrong to say he would not otherwise be notable. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

His work quite arguably wasn't sufficient to warrant cabinet consideration. His name as a Kennedy family scion greatly helped that rumored consideration. Just like Hunter Biden wouldn't have likely been appointed VP of Amtrak if his dad was not a senator. SecretName101 (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Read the published articles he references. Stop getting upset with people’s opinions 67.213.245.74 (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Alex Jones has charges against him for spreading fake news. His is deserved; he broke the law. Buddyfire917 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

you might assume wikipedia would be better than this, but in doing so, you would unfortunately be about the same level of incorrect as if you were to refer to water as “dry”.. you are better off just not even bothering, because only those with approved opinions are allowed to force them upon others around here. Snarevox (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. It reads like it was written by the DNC as part of their campaign to discredit RFK Jr. This borders on election tampering. Mitchelloverton2020 (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"Election tampering"? That's Trump's framing. It is nonsense. We reflect what WP:RS reflect. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. Shouldn't there be a "this article may not be neutral" tag added to the top of the article? Opok2021 (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. This article clearly violates NPOV. Instead presenting facts in an unbiased way and letting readers come to their own conclusion, the article heavy handily pushes readers to have a negative view of Mr. Kennedy from the first sentence. It reads like it is a hit piece published by a MSNBC or the Biden campaign. Allowing such bias really hurts the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source. Using negative opinion pieces from biased sources as a way to create a facade of "accurate reporting" is a very Orwellian level of deceit.

It's sad that the Admins here seem to prefer biased hit pieces just because they are in writing over a person's actual words. For example, Mr. Kennedy states here (as he has done in dozen of interviews) that he is fully vaccinated and not against vaccines, he just believes in science and vaccine safety (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odOtmYpjnDc). NewEditor101101001 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

If you read the article Kennedy is literally quoted as saying he's pro vaccine and had his children vaccinated. Cool, that still doesn't negate the fact he has gained notability for promoting unscientific and bullshit conspiracy theories about vaccines causing autism and that he's been named as one of the main players in the anti-vaccination movement. The fact we're not trying to stifle this information and provide some sort of false sense of balance doesn't mean we as editors are "biased" or whatever other labels you may throw about. His conspiracy theorist activities have received way more coverage and far outweigh anything else he has done and there is very little else to add to that sad state of affairs. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your first sentence admits that RFK Jr. isn't antivaxx, but you're negating the facts based on slanderous opinions since they occur in writing? That's insanity!

So what a person actually says and promotes doesn't matter to wikipedia? All that matters is the "popular narrative" even if it is factually incorrect and slanderous? So if NBC, ABC, and the AP all print articles quoting BLM calling Gandhi a racist for not fighting hard enough for black rights in South Africa, you're say that's all that is needed to change the opening line of Gandhi's wikipedia page to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948) was a racist and convicted criminal"? It's clear that some of you have an irrational dislike for RFK Jr., but you're clearly risking the credibility of wikipedia as a whole by continuing to push political propaganda. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Nah, my first statement says that this article actually includes RFK's denial, but when you constantly go around screaming from the rooftops about how vaccines are bad, you're going to be (rightfully) called an anti-vaccination activist regardless of whether you say "I'm not one of those guys!" If it's your word vs 20 reliable source's words, you're not going to win that battle. There's no "slanderous opinions" or "irrational dislike for RFK Jr." (I'm not even a resident of the U.S. so I have zero skin in the game), just statements backed up by a litany of reliable sources about what he has promoted. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So it's RFK Jr.'s fault that people can't listen to what he's actually saying, so the slander is more important than his actual words? He's literally written books about what his goal is (vaccine safety), yet you prefer to rely on unscientific opinion pieces from far left sources?

It's sad to see wikipedia drift so far from it's original intent and devolve into a meaningless propaganda tool. I wonder if you guys will wake up one day and realize that you're repeating the same mistake the catholic church made by arresting Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's RFK Jr's fault that he's gone around spreading anti-vaccine conspiracy theories for the guts of 20 years, and as a result reliable sources have noted that he has done this. As for "unscientific" or "far left" or whatever else, if you're really going to turn around and describe NBC News and AP News (both of which are acknowledged by community consensus as reliable sources), let ALONE Scientific American, and a LITANY of medical journals sourced in the article as "unscientific" and "far left", then I fear this may be a waste of both of our time. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Of the sources used in the article, which ones would you characterize as far left? Squeakachu (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Squeakachu

Scientific American has a left bias. (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/scientific-american)

NBC News has a left bias. They are also owned by the same parent company that owns MSNBC that is far, far left and often pushes misinformation and DNC propaganda. (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/nbc-news-media-bias)

Center for Countering Digital Hate has a leftist bias. (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/center-countering-digital-hate-media-bias) (What is this source???)

AP has a leftist bias. (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias)

Notice a pattern?

How are "reliable sources" determined and is it ever updated to take into account changes and new biases? CNN today is very different than CNN 20 years ago. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem in this case is not the sources, it is the editors. Opok2021 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) (Attack on editors stricken. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC))

This is inappropriate and off-topic. Focus on content, not on contributors. This is also not the place to discuss what sources are reliable and which are not. That is covered by WP:RSP. This is completely unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting AllSides describes it's Scientific American and Center for Counter Digital Hate ratings as "low or initial confidence." If your source says they have low confidence in their ratings it's not a good sign. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't a single center or right leaning source allowed to be used? Why are all the sources left to far left? Do you not realize how much you're damaging the credibility of wikipedia by being openly biased? NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

When you say "far-left" are you really suggesting that there are media sources in the United States that are biased towards putting the means of production in the ownership of workers? Communist news outlets? Scientific American and AP seem perhaps centrist. Maybe slightly left of the U.S. spectrum, but "far left" seems like not a credible claim. CT55555(talk) 17:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

To answer your questions: 1) Sources are discussed by editors at WP:RSN and frequently discussed sources are listed at WP:RSP. There are plenty of "center or right leaning sources" that can be cited in articles and frequently are. 2) Not all the sources are left, Associated Press is a reliable source and hardly a leftist newspaper. It's borderline absurd to object to it as a leftist paper. But if you're convinced it is a leftist paper, then I can only point you to RSP and RSN. 3) Have you stopped and considered that the one with the open bias here is the one calling every source they don't like "left to far left?" TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your case hinges on Allsides, and per community consensus (WP:ALLSIDES), it is not deemed as a reliable source. To answer your question on how reliable sources are determined: they're reviewed by the community periodically (some every year or more frequently if my memory serves me correctly?) to ensure that they haven't slipped as a reliable source and to take into account changes. For what it's worth, CNN is also deemed as a reliable source by community consensus. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ad Fonte, Media Bias Fact Check, and other sites have a similar rating for the sources listed above, which are the first 4 sources used in the article.

How are the sources "deemed" reliable? The fact that MSNBC and CNN are considered reliable and "Occupy Democrats" is allowed as a source but NY Post and Fox News aren't useable seems to to indicate that the left leaning to far left bias is one of the requirements for being deemed "reliable". How can wikipedia even a remote level of NPOV when only leftist biased sources are allowed?? NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

We do not deem sources reliable by virtue of offwiki websites deciding on them. "Occupy Democrats" is allowed as a source - this is not correct. Occupy Democrats is listed as a deprecated source and you'll literally get a warning pop up on your screen if you try to add them. As I said earlier, sources are deemed reliable by community requests for comment, as demonstrated at WP:RSP. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ser!, perhaps your need to read the WP:RSP more closely -

"Occupy Democrats: In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la the Daily Mail. This does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts. It can still be used as a primary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like."

The far left "MSNBC: There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable."

The far left Atlantic (which seems to find a way to call everything from sleep to cleaning racist) "The Atlantic: The Atlantic is considered generally reliable."

Meanwhile:

"New York Post: There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics."

"Washington Examiner: Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source", but the left "Washington Post: Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable" with no mention of it's partisan bias.

Scanning the list, @TulsaPoliticsFan, name a few of these "acceptable" right wing sources?

This is absurd. The judgement of what's "reliable" seems to be based on political bias rather than an objective standard. Why even have a faux NPOV rule? If there really is no desire to have true neutrality, it seems like it would be better just to own up to the fact that Wikipedia is now a left wing media source. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous, it's funny:

"Encyclopædia Britannica: There is no consensus on the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available."

The original inspiration for Wikipedia and the go to encyclopedia for decades isn't considers as reliable as left wing opinion articles. Some of you have to be objective enough to see how ridiculous this is. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM and also WP:BLUDGEON. CT55555(talk) 19:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The only one of the sources you used as examples that is more than "leans left" is the Center for Countering Digital Hate, and their confidence in that rating is low. AP in particular, the only source with a "high" confidence rating, is only barely outside of the center rating. Squeakachu (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• I also believe the article is not neutral. I dont think the opinion is limited to drive by IP address editors as one editor alleged above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Opinions are no reason to change an article, no matter how many of them there are. See WP:!VOTE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Per @HappyWanderer15, there was an editor vote "Overall, I counted 17 votes for keeping the status quo and 19 votes advocating some sort of change, ranging from modest to substantial." Clearly a majority of eligible voters realize there's moderate to extreme bias which requires changes. Sorry if you don't like the vote, but that's how democracy works. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry if you don't like the vote, but that's how democracy works. Wikipedia is not a democracy. And this is WP:NOTAVOTE. Sorry if you don't like this, but that's how Wikipedia works. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  then why did 36 people vote? Snarevox (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  People opined. They did not "vote". CT55555(talk) 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly @Snarevox. Wikipedia isn't a dictatorship of @Ser!. It's supposed a collaboration. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please try reading the links that Ser! shared with you rather than making a ridiculous insinuation like this. This is not constructive at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, @Ser! Wikipedia is not a democracy. We aim for consensus. Clearly we are far from a a consensus as to how to proceed. That probably means it's time for those who are stonewalling to stop insisting on the status quo. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose it'll be up to the RfC closer to determine how we progress. As for the stonewalling, as someone who's voted against the status quo in this RfC, I've not seen any stonewalling so to speak, though I'm sure WP:ANI would be happy to deal with it in any case. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  @HappyWanderer15 is right. Despite a majority indicating the need for change, there seems to be a filibuster going on by people who were able to make biased changes early and then locked down the page in what seems to be a desperate attempt to help Biden. It's appalling and is directly destructive to Wikipedia's medium and long-term relevance. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  NewEditor101101001, you are the third editor in this thread I'm giving the same warning to: cut out the bad faith assumptions and focus on content, not contributors. Otherwise, we're going to discuss your behavior on the noticeboards. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Muboshgu, the whole issue is the content, specifically the need to change it. However, as @HappyWanderer15 highlighted, there is stonewalling. How do you address that by ignoring stonewalling/stonewallers? NewEditor101101001 (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  You cannot say that I have not warned you sufficiently. We'll continue this on AN/I. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is interesting that some of the people arguing most adamantly against any change like @Ser!, @Hob Gadling, @M.boli, and @Valjean are the same ones who have been actively editing the article to be more negative over the last 45 days regardless of consensus views. In fact, some of those edits have been as recent as today! NewEditor101101001 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, now you're just flat-out lying. The only changes I've ever made to the article have been minor copyedits. I strongly advise you start heeding what Muboshgu has just told you just above your message. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• As long as any bias is from reliable sources, we are on solid ground, and they brand him as an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist. He is not the only one of that ilk who personally is vaccinated yet pushes views that cause his followers to oppose all vaccines.

It is only editorial bias that we worry about. If anyone can point to biased wordings that are from editors and not based on RS, then point it out. (Editors are supposed to document the biases in RS, so the content will reflect those biases.) Otherwise, good riddance with misusing the term "bias" around here. Such comments are nearly always unconstructive and will usually be deleted on sight, without comment. We DNFT. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is clearly biased to present a negative view of RFK. Although apparently reliable sources have been used, the information should be rewritten to be neutral. I assume if I rewrite the lead section and add a non NPOV tag at the top of the article, it will be reverted. Why? What are the reasons for the article being like this? We cannot be having political bias this bad, especially on an article that has had 2 million views in the past month. Opok2021 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Opok2021, I'm going to give you one chance, and then similar comments by you will be deleted on sight. Read my comment right above yours. We do not censor or whitewash articles or people here. We document what RS say. "Neutral" at Wikipedia does not mean "no point of view". It means remaing neutral to what RS say, and if they say one thing, no matter how biased, we are not supposed to neuter or neutralize what they say. RS universally document that RFK Jr is an anti-vaccinationist and conspiracy theorist, so we write that. We do not interpose our opinions and non-neutral POV on the subject. We faithfully report what RS say. If you can't live by those rules, then leave Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe there is editor bias. The negative information about RFK, relating to vaccines and conspiracy theories should be in the article, but not in the first part of the lead section. Within the first sentence of this article, the impression a reader gets is overly negative. In other major political articles, including Biden, Trump and Boris Johnson, the reader does not receive this impression. The first bias here is to do with a high concentration of negative information about RFK being in the lead section (and the first sentence). The second bias is the placement of the information being very early on in the article. What are the reasons for this? Opok2021 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Opok2021, the placement is already being discussed in the RfC in the next section. These are the types of things we can work with, and it can be done without attacking other editors or implying bad faith on their part. Such accusations are blockable offenses. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Valjean, no one is being attacked here. However, I cannot assume good faith for some of this article as it is clearly bias as stated above. Accusations of paid and bias editors cannot just be swept under the rug. Opok2021 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Opok2021, if you cannot assume good faith, then you should not be posting here. Unspecified accusations of paid editing are attacks on all editors. This is my final warning for everyone to cut out that nonsense before we go to the drama boards. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. If an article is bias, when/when not is it bad faith? If the bias was deliberate, surely you can assume bad faith? If the bias isn't, you assume good faith. Opok2021 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The question of bias is irrelevant unless you can prove an editor biased the content based on their own opinion, not on what the RS say. There are myriad innocent ways that can happen, so accusations are not allowed without clear evidence they did it on purpose. RS provide the bias in this article. Absent evidence that will stand up, beyond the shadow of a doubt, on a drama board (our version of a court of law), you must always AGF and not even allow your mind to go anywhere near assuming bad faith. Such thinking makes it impossible for you to edit and discuss in a collaborative manner. That's a basic requirement here. Your accusations poison the well. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, just the article for being bias. I cannot confirm or prove there is political bias, but there is definitely a negative view on RFK. The bias here is where the negative information occurs (in the first sentence), and not RS. It's serious as it would affect the presidential campaign. I was asking how AGF worked as I didn't fully understand it. Hopefully this article gets sorted soon as it is taking a long time. Opok2021 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Above, you said The problem in this case is not the sources, it is the editors. Valjean struck your comment, you have not retracted it. You did not accuse an individual editor of anything, you accused all of us. In light of RFK Jrs newly published comments about COVID being "targeted" and designed to not impact Jews and the Chinese, I think it's clear that we're describing RFK Jr accurately and in line with RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The placement of the negative comments about RFK make the lead section overly negative to the reader. That's the bias the comment was referring to, as well as the editors who potentially made that bias. I wasn't saying it for certain, and not accusing everyone. It was a mistake, I was basically saying the article is bias and there is a potential political bias in the article. The sources are not the problem, it's the content, and editors add the content. I'm not sure I want to delete the comment I made as it was simply wrongly worded, so my bad. Again, I was not trying to accuse anyone, I was just pointing out editor bias. Opok2021 (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The question of placement is being discussed in the next section. Your comments belong there and must be sanitized of any allegations of bias. Wikipedia articles document facts and opinions found in RS, and they are often biased. That's okay. We are not supposed to get rid of or neuter that bias. Bias, when accurate, is a good thing. A bias that approves of bad behavior is not a good bias. Those who support Kennedy are trying to get Wikipedia to accept their own bad biases and use them here. We do not do that. We follow the biases found in RS and document them. You need to get that through your head and stop bitching about bias. You're really complaining about facts you don't like, not a bias, and just how much prominence those facts deserve in the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. RS are bias, and that's fine. In this case, though, I meant deliberate editor bias (unconfirmed), not RS bias. Opok2021 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You are again alleging deliberate editor bias without any evidence thereof. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're describing him accurately, but it is too negative. The first sentence especially needs to change. Opok2021 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

In what way is it too negative? That's how RS describe him. What change would you suggest that does not become censorship or whitewashing? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It's too negative as it leaves the reader with a negative impression from the beginning of the article. My solution to this would be delete the part of the first sentence with the vaccines and conspiracy theories, keep it the same, and move it below to another paragraph in the lead section. Opok2021 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean, hiding behind "a biased source is considered a RS, so therefore any extreme bias they push is absolutely okay because I agree with it" is a cowardly cop out. Is Wikipedia supposed to be a unbiased information source or an extension of the DNC? as @Jtbobwaysf and others have said, it's sadly starting to look like the latter. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There is indeed increasing editor bias over the last decade or so which seems to increase every year. Many of us long term editors have left or are on the verge of leaving. Wikipedia is starting to be an echo-chamber of a certain type of editors, many of which I think are paid editors (either state operatives or paid through organizations). Even on this article we have a disclosed COI working for the Kennedy campaign, as we can see the importance of these articles to PR. For every one disclosed editor I guess there are ten undisclosed editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, this can be discussed without attacking other editors or implying bad faith on their part. Such accusations are blockable offenses. You know better. Research also shows that Wikipedia's credibility immediately increases when editors like you leave the project, so I'm not too worried. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I almost raised this section at BLP/N this morning. Now I think it may need to go to AN/I instead. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need the editors who won't AGF and keep on insinuating that editors are biased and or paid. Read that link I just posted. Research shows that a loss of such editors immediately increases Wikipedia's credibility, so the sooner they leave, the better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This is no attack on any specific editor in my statement. I am making a generalized statement about the average of editors in general and the way that has changed across all articles over a decade or more. The only specific editor I mentioned has disclosed his/her COI and is listed on this article page above, and that is obviously the correct approach, I laud that editors disclosure of their COI. That specific editor, my comments would actually be laudatory of that editor rather than derogatory. Your suggestion that I cannot make generalized comments about editing in general is curious. Is there a specific policy that you think bans me from making comments about the change in editors in general over ten years? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, yes, the behavioral guideline is WP:AGF. Suggesting there's COI or undisclosed paid editing is assuming bad faith. Like my previous edit, consider this my final warning to cut out this behavior before this discussion is escalated. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Any objections to closing this section?

30 days of yes-it-is, no-it-isn't does not seem to be a productive discussion. Is there anything left to actually discuss here? Zaathras (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy, this thread needs to be hatted by someone uninvolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

None at all, and an involved editor can do it. Heck, I'll do it. We're just going in circles, and some editors are very fortunate they haven't been blocked yet as they've been repeatedly warned and given enough rope to hang themselves several times, and in spite of warnings they've done it. Sheesh! After this has been hatted, let's hope they leave their sins buried there and not repeat them elsewhere. If they do, block on sight. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Any interested editor can chime in at WP:ANI#Editor behavior at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)