Talk:Andrew McCabe/Archive 1

Urgent fixes

It seems that a Trump crony is publishing Fake News on the Mr. McCabe's profile.

2601:C0:8100:BB04:75EB:1AF5:5EF:140C (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to have this undocumented statement in the second paragraph of McCabe's bio.

McCabe is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C0:8100:BB04:75EB:1AF5:5EF:140C (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You're saying it's undocumented, but even in your copy-pasted quote, the inline citation number is visible. This claim does seem to be supported by the sourcing, though I can add some more. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

IP user, I am not a Trump crony. There is no Fake News in the content of this BLP.--FeralOink (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Subject of multiple investigations

I just made this edit. I would be grateful if someone with more subject matter knowledge could review it. The source is a primary one, straight to grassley.senate.gov but I am uncertain whether I fully understand what is going on. It seems like everyone is under investigation at the moment.--FeralOink (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added some information about why he's under investigation, as well as a Newsweek article to support it. The sourcing is definitely sufficient to include it in the article; the bigger question is whether it should be placed so prominently in the lead. I'm inclined to say no, given that it does not seem to be something that has been heavily discussed in external sources (although there have been some more mentions now that he's become the acting Director of the FBI), but those things change minute-to-minute. I've left it where it is for now, but would be curious for more input. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for adding more sources, GorillaWarfare. I noticed someone moved that sentence out of the lead. That seems reasonable to me at this point in time.--FeralOink (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah crud, the sentence was entirely removed from the article, not just from the lead. I will put it back in the lead where we had it before. Any changes to placing it elsewhere should be discussed here first.--FeralOink (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Wife topic reemerges July 25 2017

Trump tweet; Problem is that the acting head of the FBI & the person in charge of the Hillary investigation, Andrew McCabe, got $700,000 from H for wife! Wikipietime (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately we're under no obligation to add everything Trump says about a person (or a person's spouse) to that person's article. If this most recent outburst gets any actual attention in reliable sources, come back with them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The person in charge of the Hillary investigation, Andrew McCabe What Hillary investigation? According to James Comey, that investigation was shut down last year. Twice in fact. It was definitely dead and buried by November. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm not seeing an actual BLP problem with the stuff being editwarred over? .ca anyone explain what is wrong with the content please. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The stuff about his wife is just political smears and attacks and is irrelevant to his bio. Likewise the "Republicans have criticized..." stuff is undo. If we put "Democrats have criticized..." into every single Republican article, or hey, just the article on Trump and friends, we'd run out of space on this here Wikipedia. One politician said something negative about another. So what? We're not a venue for far-right conspiracy theories or a platform for bullshit that gets retweeted across the alt-right tweetosphere.

The stuff about Horowitz MAY be more pertinent... except nothing happened with it AFAICT. At best it's outdated recentism. At worst it's just another BLP attack. Volunteer Marek 23:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is part of the material that Mr./Ms. Marek says is a BLP violation:

[His wife’s] campaign received donations amounting to more than $675,000 from former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe's political organization and from the Democratic Party of Virginia.

References

If this is proper sourcing that mentions the husband, then it seems appropriate for inclusion in this BLP. I will revert the disputed material back into the BLP since the justification for exclusion is obviously flawed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

And what, exactly, is the fucking relevance here? This is basically WP:OR, adding 2 + 2 as to imply 5. So no, it's not "obviously flawed" and it's NOT a decision you get to make unilaterally. Do you understand how BLP policy actually works? --Calton | Talk 07:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed WP:SYNTH and the rest of the material isn't much better. Volunteer Marek 08:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It can't be SYNTH when the titles of both sources mention him: "Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official's [McCabe] Wife", "FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe is also under review for the Clinton email investigation." You're just throwing out acronyms and hoping no one looks too closely. You still haven't explained what text violates BLP (another acronym) and how it's a violation. Without a clear, coherent argument editors will just ignore your comments. This isn't a vote. TeddyToons (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Gee, must be why they refer to him as "FBI Official" rather than "Andrew McCabe", he's so central to that article. And you're right, this isn't a vote. One way that this isn't a vote is that usually comments by newly created WP:SPIs tend to get discounted in these discussions, even if the said WP:SPIs have an uncanny ex-nihilo but in depth knowledge of Wikipedia policies and esoteric essays like WP:CRYBLP. Volunteer Marek 08:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not an argument. TeddyToons (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Leave it out. It's not relevant biographical material about the article subject and is plainly intended to discredit him by association.- MrX 13:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Leave the material out -- I'm referring to this diff: inappropriate synthesis. Should stay out. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I urge User:Jimbo Wales to delete all political articles about current events, and remove all sections of political articles that discuss current events. Wikipedia continues to be used in no small part as a partisan platform, accomplished by both biased adminning and biased editing, with very few checks on the majority’s political philosophy. The question is whether you want Wikipedia to be a wonderful encyclopedia, or to be a wonderful encyclopedia that also includes the most powerful and dangerous propaganda operation in human history (operating on tax-free gifts because Wikipedia purports to be non-political). Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Moving to Jimbo's talk page.19:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its problems but let's not get hysterical. Also the above comment qualifies under WP:SOAPBOX. And, yes, some users try to use Wikipedia "as a partisan platform". For example, by smearing or attacking the Deputy Director of the FBI, who's name is Andrew McCabe and who happens to be the subject of this BLP article. So... are you saying that you favor removing the defamatory material? Cuz that's the conclusion that follows from your comment. Volunteer Marek 19:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you've ever actually ready WP:SOAPBOX, you must know that it lists five specific varieties of soapboxing. Next time you complain about it, you ought to say which of those five you're talking about, because otherwise it looks like throwing poo around nonsense. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Striking a word since I don’t want to descend to the level of [too scared to finish this sentence]. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, remind me of what you were doing here on Wikipedia in the first place. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Wasting a hell of a lot of time User:Drmies. For example, in this instance, we have widely-reported information about a BLP subject that discusses campaign funding for his wife. Since the people involved are Democrats rather than Republicans, heaven and Earth would have to be moved to include that info in this BLP. This BLP mentions (to its credit), “a potential conflict of interest caused by donations to his wife's Virginia State Senate campaign“ but doesn’t say who the donations were from or how much they were, which would be fine if the matter were barely mentioned in reliable sources (though the rationale would be undue weight rather than an absurd accusation of smearing and violating BLP to suggest that any corruption or impropriety or mistake might be outside the GOP). Anyway, if you’d like to discuss what you and I are “doing here on Wikipedia in the first place”, please click here.

• Lovegrove, Jamie. “Virginia governor, a Clinton ally, donated to campaign of FBI official's wife”, Dallas Morning News (October 25, 2016).
• Hartmann, Margaret. “Terry McAuliffe Aided Wife of FBI Official Later Tasked With Clinton Email Probe”, New York (October 24, 2016).
• Pestano, Andrew. “Trump camp: Report Hillary Clinton ally donated to FBI official's wife 'deeply disturbing'”, UPI (October 24, 2016).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Edited.18:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• • Sorry, dude--if I want to hear political gossip, I turn on the TV. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    • As long as this sort of stuff is deemed appropriate for BLPs about Republicans, I'll be supporting it across the board. But Wikipedia would be better off without any current political coverage. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
• We need more up-to-date and analytical sources. The Trump regime is going all-out to discredit the FBI right now, for reasons I am sure are totally unrelated to the fact that two people associated with the Trump campaign are being indicted and convicted in connection with the totally fake Russian election hacking non-story ruse. Their tactics have always been: throw enough shit at the wall, and some of it has to stick. We'd need an in-depth piece by a major news organisation like the Washington Post that discusses specifically whether these claims are genuinely relevant or not - not some transient coverage from back in the days when people thought Clinton would win. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure about motivations, but I will note that www.grassley.senate.gov is not what I would consider a reliable source for a BLP, and it's not needed to establish what it's used for. I think the line in the article is fine, and it has a good source, but I think the www.grassley.senate.gov citation should be removed. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I hate to be forced to state the obvious, but Terry McAuliffe is neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton, and Andrew McCabe is not his own wife. I recall years ago when people were trying to insert negative content about Newt Gingrich's previous marriages into Callista Gingrich, and I opposed that quite forcefully. It seems that the same principle applies here. There is not a shred of credible evidence that McCabe (a federal employee) was involved with his wife's political campaign. Compartmentalism is a real thing. Arguing that other articles may possibly violate policy, so therefore it is OK for this article to violate policy is . . . childish? I am commenting on this article here on this talk page, and we protect and improve articles one at a time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia has a policy about conflict of interest: “Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity.” Is there a Wikipedia policy somewhere that says we are not supposed to write about similar COI issues of BLP subjects, when they are reported by reliable sources? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Your question sneakily assumes its answer - that such a COI actually existed or is relevant. Anyway, the relevant policies are obviously BLP, NPOV and UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 09:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There’s nothing sneaky about it, and I’m getting pretty damned tired of you going from one forum to another calling me sneaky. If you can’t be civil, then just be quiet. Your listing of the names of a bunch policies is totally unhelpful without referring to anything actually in those policies. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Does the FBI have a policy that says that agent's spouses are not allowed to run for political office, and are not allowed to accept legal campaign donations? Or even discouraged from doing so? I do not think so. Accordingly, there is zero evidence of any COI, except in the imaginations of partisans. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Calling me partisan and childish is very unconvincing. The sources cited (with highlighting above) say that the Inspector General of the Justice Department is investigating “allegations that the FBI deputy director should have been recused from participating in certain investigative matters”. I see that such things only go into Republican BLPs at Wikipedia. I’m not going to spend the remainder of 2017 squabbling about this, so feel free to have the last word, Cullen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I was not calling you partisan, Anythingyouwant, but rather the politicians and commentators who are so eager to smear McCabe without evidence. As for childish, I was characterizing your argument that I interpreted as, "if non-compliant content can be found in other articles, then we should be less concerned about non-compliant content in this article". I am sure that you are an adult in all other ways. I have no interest in having the last word. Instead, I simply want the articles I watch to be BLP compliant. That is all. I cannot monitor every BLP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a weaselly mess and insinuates broad BLP smear. It should not be in this article. And experienced editors can be expected to understand BLP, SYNTH, NOR, NPOV. So there should be zero tolerance for this kind of disruptive insistence on the preposterous. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Date format issue!

Greetings! My user name used to be: User:Cminard, and so check it out! I reported a few problems to the FBI and they shut down my account, so I thought I would edit Andrew McCabe's entry with an IP address to make a point. My work has been almost totally reverted, and my edit under this IP address was completely obliterated. Go check it out! Wikipedia itself in the 4 tilde date stamp uses the format of DD MMM YYYY, yet the person who reverted the edits uses the format MMM DD, YYYY, and it is not even what the Wikipedia Foundation advocates! Yet they still insist on doing this to me again and again! In any case, just thought I would point this out. 74.94.188.109 (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Actually the usual format for most American articles is "May 25, 2017". See MOS:DATETIES. It doesn't matter what the WMF does, because Wikipedia is not American or British or Australian or Canadian or Indian; Wikipedia is outside of national preferences. But per WP:STRONGNAT, individual articles should adopt the style standards related to the subject of that article, for example the spelling of words like defence/defense, honor/honour, etc. The national preference for American articles is "Month Day, Year". --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If I am reading this correctly you are suggesting that the FBI shut down your Wikipedia account? Do you have evidence? (This isn't the right place to post such evidence but if you do have evidence, we can discuss where it should be sent.)S Philbrick(Talk) 02:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2018

178.253.207.222 (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There were several reports that he will retire on March 18, and he can't retire before he turns 50. I don't think his birthday is on May 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.253.207.222 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the comment. His retirement date doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his birthdate. It more likely relates to how long he has worked for the FBI. However, I couldn't find any source for his birthdate, except "1968", so I have removed the rest of the date. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It is also possible it is triggered off a requirement to reach age 50, but that doesn't prove he was born in March. This article states " McCabe had planned to retire in March and use accrued vacation time to reach the date he becomes eligible for full pension benefits." That could include a May birthdate.S Philbrick(Talk) 01:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, in December, there were articles saying he will retire in March, than that was a month he becomes eligible for retirement.

This CBS report states that it is a requirement that he reach 50 years of age, but the statement that his birthday is in March may be an error, based upon the reasonable assumption that if he has to reach 50 and planned to retire 18 March, that his birthday must be 18 March. An understandable inference, but possibly missing that accrued vacation might be relevant.S Philbrick(Talk) 02:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but he didn't plan to go on vacation, he planed to stay until mid March and then retire. He is using his vacation time now to avoid being striped of his pension benefits.

No, he is staying on the payroll, as reported. I haven't seen any sources state he is using his vacation time now. Please provide one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The WP link above states "people close to the matter confirmed that McCabe’s plan is unchanged." --S Philbrick(Talk) 02:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This article says that he becomes eligible in mid March, and could "get there" by using vacation time, or go on terminal leave, which he did today.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to that article. The assumption I am making based on sources I have read is that he is eligible for retirement on 18 March, using accrued vacation time to make up the gap between 18 March and his 50th birthday. What has changed is his decision to go on leave rather than continuing in his post until 18 March. Does the New York Times article disagree with that? If so could you post the relevant excerpt?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, so we know who is saying what. How to do so is explained on your talk page S Philbrick(Talk) 02:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

New York Times says that he is not eligible for his full pension until mid March, and that he could use his remaining vacation days to "make it" until March. It was assumed that he will not need them, but now it appears that he had no choice. I read multiple news sources, both today, and a month ago, when news of retirement broke, and it was always "eligible for retirement in March". Only NY Times mentioned vacation days (until March, not after). Nobody mentioned May. Hollande97 Sorry! --Hollande97 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Hollande97

I asked for a quote. It is factually incorrect that "Only NY Times mentioned vacation days". I linked to a Washington Post article above. So I'd like to see a quote from the NYT, not your interpretation of it.S Philbrick(Talk) 02:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if we are quoting Washington Post... McCabe won't become eligible for his full pension until early March. People close to him say he plans to retire as soon as he hits that mark. “He's got about 90 days, and some of that will be holiday time. He can make it, one said. They were the ones who broke the story a month ago. --Hollande97 (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Hollande97

It is clear that Melanie made the right edit. Let's let the reporters work on this for a few days, and the exact circumstances, which aren't even the main aspect of the story, will get sorted out. (In the meantime, please reread the instructions on how to sign a post. --S Philbrick(Talk) 03:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Resignation Jan 29, 2018

Sources

To further include both point of views (POV), I suggest to add a 2nd source to McCabe stepped down. How about adding this source from The Hill?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/371216-deputy-fbi-director-mccabe-stepping-down-report

Wiki draft code:

Francewhoa (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

References

---

Some sources are reporting that it was not voluntary. CNN for example. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Hi @Mr Ernie: Thanks for your reply and contributions :) About that link you're suggesting, CNN's sources are anonymous. Thus can not be validated. In turn, there is a risk that could be propaganda. Not to confuse with information. As you know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda network.

Speaking of sources, today an identified source the White House stated that definitely both the White House and Trump did not play a role in McCabe resignation. Source at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk_PesEArAA&t=5m38s

With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that CNN is considered a reliable source, therefore if they're publishing something then we deem their editorial credibility strong enough to not be concerned about their sources. I'm happy to wait for stronger sources though. Thanks for the response. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Francewhoa: I hope you will follow up on Mr. Ernie's statement about reliable sources, including those who protect the identity of their sources, who are not "anonymous" to the journalist but whom the journalist protects for the purposes of publication. I also note that the White House press secretary's statements are not RS for anything but her own statements, and those are only suitable for WP content to the extent that their noteworthiness has been established by secondary and independent Reliable Sources. Please read the relevant WP policy and guideline pages for the details of our sourcing policies here. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Is the resignation effective immediately? GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on sources I've read, his resignation as deputy director is immediate, but his resignation (or retirement) from the FBI is still 18 March as previously planned. However, I read one source which suggested he offered to stay on with a different position but that was rejected so I don't know how to square that with what is actually happening. Hopefully, this will be cleared up in the next few days.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, and a source I read said that he was offered another position but it would have been a demotion so he refused it. The bottom line is that we really have no idea what happened here and it may be a few days before we get the real story. If we ever do.

In the article User:Athaenara placed a "clarification" tag with a good question: what exactly does "stepped down" mean? The answer is that we don't know that either. There is reporting that it was his choice; there is reporting that he was forced out; there is reporting that as recently as last week he was still planning to stay on till March. This is a very important question, but right now the sources are contradictory and we really don't know what happened. The majority of sources are saying he "stepped down" so that is the wording we are using. And we'll probably have to stay with that until sources agree on what actually happened. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree we should wait for stronger sourcing to give us a better direction of what's happening. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Reporting today says that 1) he chose to resign as Deputy Director after a discussion with Wray and 2) that discussion include talking about the forthcoming DOJ Inspector General's report. [1] Reportedly the issue is how he handled the Weiner emails.[2] [3] Too preliminary for the article, but we may be getting closer to some explanations of what happened here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the source for him being an attorney? Where is he admitted to practice? Not all law school graduates are attorneys.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:989:4200:BAA2:BD38:B7E2:1CE8:EE55 (talk • contribs) 10:48, January 31, 2018 (UTC)

Read the article. He was in private practice for three years before joining the FBI. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

---

@MelanieN: Thanks for your contributions :) There is an increasing amount of articles about the forthcoming DOJ Inspector General's report. About an in progress criminal investigation of Andrew McCabe. Because he allegedly deliberately slowed the FBI's Clinton email probe. Source at https://amp.businessinsider.com/doj-probing-andrew-mccabe-response-fbi-clinton-email-investigation-2018-1 Extract:

• The Department of Justice is examining whether FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe deliberately decelerated the Hillary Clinton email investigation so as not to sway the 2016 election.
• The DOJ inspector general is reportedly looking into why McCabe took three weeks to respond to a request to examine newly-uncovered emails that agents at the time believed could be relevant to the Clinton probe.
• McCabe was reportedly told Monday morning that he was being "removed" from the FBI, and FBI Director Christopher Wray indicated in a note to employees that the move was related to the OIG's investigation into McCabe's handling of the Clinton investigation.

The connection between those above and McCabe resignation/fired are speculations though. Before including those in the article I propose that we wait for an appropriate statement(s) from the appropriate source(s) which officially connect both.

Francewhoa (talk) 10:59, February 3, 2018‎ (UTC)

---

Francewhoa, this should be placed in the context of the anti-Clinton politicization of the FBI New York field office, which led to highly irregular and aggressive actions by that field office. Rudy Giuliani's role is also important. The Trump campaign had literally infiltrated that office. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of alleged copyrighted material

would someone explain why the edit deleted here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_McCabe&diff=0&oldid=828549463

...contains material that cannot be cited pursuant to the "fair use" doctrine, as thousands/millions of WP articles do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Diannaa as she's the administrator who deleted it. Corky 19:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The material was copied in its entirety from the sources. That's a copyright violation. Short quotations are permitted under our fair use rules, but not entire paragraphs from sources, especially without quotation marks. That's a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa, copyright violation would be large exact copies. Without quotation marks it becomes plagiarism. Both errors can be fixed through normal editing processes.

Please stop revdeleting these things as we have no way of verifying what happened and learning not to do this anymore. We also are denied the option of looking at the original and then paraphrasing properly. You are thus denying editors the option to edit properly. That makes your edit a punitive and unconstructive action. Revdel should not be abused and should be reserved for gross BLP violations, and by that I don't mean naughty words (no reason to revdel), but outing and libel. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: The revision deletion policy calls for revision deletion of copyright violations; see Wikipedia:Revision deletion#1: "Blatant copyright violations" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, Corkythehornetfan, and Soibangla: Listen and learn: Diannaa is absolutely in the right and is carrying out Wikipedia policy, laid down by the WMF: We do not host copyright violations on the Wikipedia servers or allow them to remain visible, not even in the history. This is for legal reasons. If someone posts copyrighted material without attribution, it will be deleted and revdel'ed, period. And any intervening edits that included the copyvio material will also be revdel'ed. If we want to restore the information, portions of the material could later be included if enclosed in quotes and cited to the source, but not otherwise. Or the information can be restored without quotes if it is reworded into your own words and cited. Everyone please get this clear in your minds: we DO NOT copy-paste material that has been published somewhere else. We just don't. Not unless we enclose it in quotes and provide attribution. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"...copyrighted material without attribution..."

don't refs constitute attribution? I also contend there is a "materiality" consideration here. a fully verbatim copy of content (which it wasn't,

BTW) is not necessarily a copyright violation. a wholesale "lift" of content would be. if all "fair use" is aggressively enforced as copyvio on ::WP, I submit that the vast bulk of WP content would need to be taken down, as it is essentially an aggregation of third-party content without ::original content. in any event, I will endeavor to edit the post to make it less verbatim.soibangla (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but she does this for small amounts as well, and we can't learn where "her" limits are. Revdel is not required in every instance, as made plain below in my comment from policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

ec Yes, that is an option, but not always required. More here:

• If infringement is not blatant or the speedy deletion criteria do not apply:

• Remove the infringing text or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can.

The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it (unless it is tagged for {{copyvio-revdel}}. (My bold.)

I'm just requesting that less radical options be used when possible. Revdel does have its place for copyvio, but isn't always required. If the content is visible in the history, editors can learn and also improve content. Your approach creates paralysis and fear, with no lessons learned. When I have seen some of this done by you, I have approached the area as if it were a radioactive wasteland after a war, IOW I fear to enter. I don't know what happened, and cannot learn what happened. There is literally "nothing left" to improve. It's just "all gone".

I really feel for the editors whose good faith efforts have been treated this way. WP:PRESERVE is completely ignored. You are the only admin I've met who consistently does this when softer options are allowed. Revdel should be the last option, after all else has been tried. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa is our premier authority on copyright. She is not making up rules; she is enforcing what is enjoined on us by the legal department of the Wikimedia Foundation. You may not like this approach, but it is what we do; you will notice that two other admins have strongly endorsed her actions. "The last option after all else has been tried"? During that "try everything else" time, you are suggesting we should we continue to be in violation? And eventually have to revdel everything that anyone posted while we dithered? Strong and immediate action is what we are supposed to take when we see a copyright violation, to purge it from our records as soon as possible and without collateral damage. It's not that hard to reconstruct the material; her edit summary lists the sources, you can look at them and use them in a permitted way. The bottom line is, don't copy-paste without quotation marks and proper attribution, because this is what will happen if you do. --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree, but policy does NOT "require" revdel every time. I fear you didn't read my response very carefully. Also see my response to Diannaa below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The removed material was an entire paragraph of copyvio, 202 words in total, copied from the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times. My edit summary shows gazetawarszawska.net instead of the Wall Street Journal, because the Wall Street Journal is invisible to Earwig's tool and the copy at gazetawarszawska.net is identical, so it was the page I compared with when checking the edit, which was flagged by a bot as being a potential copyright violation. What's the threshold for copyvio? Content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material at all, other than short pertinent quotations that can't or shouldn't be paraphrased. Our fair use policy calls for non-free content to be avoided where freely licensed material is available. In cases like this one, the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"The removed material was an entire paragraph of copyvio, 202 words in total, copied from the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times."

I dispute the accuracy of your assertion, but I am unable to challenge it because the edit has been made unavailable in its entirety. soibangla (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I just re-read the WSJ and NYT articles and I am confident from my memory of what I posted on WP that your characterization is woefully inaccurate. Alas, I am in the peculiar predicament of being unable to prove this because you nuked the post. How am I supposed to challenge this decision? soibangla (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"What's the threshold for copyvio?...not inclusive of the source material at all"

So, two contiguous words copied from the source is unacceptable? Is that what ""at all" means? My WSJ edit contained a few, or several, contiguous words from a few separate paragraphs of a very lengthy article, not an "entire paragraph," as you describe. The NYT edit was entirely my own paraphrasing.soibangla (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. (The value to the public good is also a factor for "fair use". In such cases quite large - multiple paragraphs - of exact quotes are allowed. That may not have been a factor here.) I just wish to see a normal reversion and edit summary used when possible. That IS allowed, per what I bolded above. I'm not requesting that copyright material be left visible. Not at all. Just perform a normal revert. Save revdel for gross violations of BLP, etc., and only revdel copyvios when requested by the copyright holder, per what policy says above. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• That bit you quote is under the qualifier of "if the infringement is not blatant, or csd does not apply...". The edits to the article were picked up by an automated tool that ignores lesser violations. I this case, it flagged 90-131 words copied, and in context failed the copyright test of transformation (law) so would qualify as blatant. There are only a few of us who patrol that tool, and violations found there are routinely tagged for revdel. (The section you referenced above also says that anyone tagging it for revdel would qualify it for such, not just the copyright holder). Crow^Caw 22:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Okay. Learning more all the time. That tool seems to be a very valuable one. That's good. We want to catch these things quickly.

So it's optional if someone tags it that way? The wording seems to make that clear. That indicates we have room for effective alternatives. Is there any middle road to address my concerns? The first serious case that alerted me to a problem was where about six months of edits from dozens of people were revdeleted, losing massive amounts of good work that were not copyvios. That's six months of good faith work by editors that was gone. That it was visible to some admins meant nothing.

I'd like to see some way whereby editors can benefit from this situation. No one wants to accidentally step in front of the scope of a loaded gun. It's better if editors have a chance to improve the edit, but if it's gone from the history, they have no idea what it was. The only one who might know is the editor who did it.

BTW, to make sure we don't misunderstand each other, the copyvio was not my edit. I'm discussing this just on grounds of principle and to learn more. I appreciate the thoughtful and patient responses. This is good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely understood, and learning is always good, especially in this area which is rather complicated. Usually if an older copyvio is revdel'ed, only the copyrighted stuff is actually deleted from the article. The edit histories intervening may get revdel'ed, but the adds and edits made in those is typically preserved. If it wasn't in another case, that bears some investigation. Just looking at the history and all those strike-thrus can make it look like the edits were deleted, when in reality they're just hidden from view while the content exists in the versions following the revdel. As far as properly paraphrasing, in this particular case Diannaa linked to the source of the copyvio in the removal edit summary. It's not visible in context anymore of course, but the source is given so it can be re-constructed that way.
• Incidentally, the reason we have to be so absolute about this sort of thing is because of how we license all content for anyone else to re-use as they see fit. With copyrighted text, we don't have the right to release it like that, so it has to get pruned as soon as it is noted to hopefully prevent it from being mirrored. Crow^Caw 22:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Great, now I've been accused of plagiarism, with no way to defend myself. This could have been handled a lot better, folks. Sometimes it seems like it just ain't worth the trouble. @$&%*! soibangla (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Results of double check. Overlapping prose is highlighted in bold.

From the Wall Street Journal:

New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in that probe...Such internal tensions are common, and it isn’t unusual for field agents to favor a more aggressive approach than supervisors and prosecutors think is merited...Early this year, 'four FBI field offices—New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Ark.—were collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to see if there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling...About a week later, the FBI sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe, with Mr. McCabe deciding the FBI’s New York office would take the lead with assistance from Little Rock ... on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe, despite the department’s refusal to allow more aggressive investigative methods in the case..."Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?" Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied, "Of course not," these people said.

Your addition:

The Wall Street Journal published on October 20, 2016 an account of Justice Department and FBI internal deliberations regarding an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism about the strength of the evidence in the investigation, while field agents were said to favor a more aggressive approach than supervisors and prosecutors thought was merited. To that point, four FBI field offices — New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock — were collecting information about the Clinton Foundation. In July 2016, the FBI sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe, with McCabe deciding the FBI’s New York office would take the lead, with assistance from Little Rock. The Wall Street Journal reported that a senior Justice Department official called McCabe to voice his displeasure that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe. “Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied, “Of course not,” these people said.

From the NY Times:

The inspector general has concluded that Mr. McCabe authorized F.B.I. officials to provide information for that article, according to the four people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the report before it is published.

Your addition:

The New York Times reported on March 1, 2018 that a forthcoming report from the Justice Department's inspector general has concluded that McCabe improperly authorized FBI officials to provide information to the Journal for this article.

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Were the excerpts you just posted from ONE WSJ paragraph to one WP paragraph, as you make it appear? No, they were not. They are excerpts from SEVEN WSJ paragraphs to one WP paragraph! See how you just falsely made it appear that I simply lifted an entire WSJ paragraph and pasted it into WP? That's seriously not cool of you.

your reflexive characterizations of my edits were false

"The material was copied in its entirety from the sources" is a flatly false statement. "Short quotations are permitted," and that's what I did.

Approximate statistics:

WSJ article: 2134 words, 46 paragraphs

My WP edit: 138 words, 6 passages, from 7 paragraphs

Passage word lengths: 36, 26, 24, 20, 20, 20 (36 because it contains two direct quotes)

my NYT edit was fully a paraphrasing

I think you owe me an apology

Soibangla (talk • contribs) 01:08, March 4, 2018 (UTC)

It looks like we're dealing with a plagiarism problem. No doubt unintended, but still... The quoted parts should be in quotation marks. The amount of text may not be a problem, seen from a copyvio POV. I'm assuming that this was all sourced. Better paraphrasing would have been a good idea.

A simple reversion and edit summary, possibly with a note on the talk page, could have created an environment where this could have been resolved more constructively, with actual article improvement. Instead the revdel looks like the MRI images I see everyday, where any metal object in the image leaves a black hole, literally no image, and one wonders what was there. It has no diagnostic value. All that is known is that there is a metallic object in the field of view.

What we need with these situations is a result that has "diagnostic value", IOW something to work with other than "there was metal in the image" ("copyvio revdeleted").

My questions:

• Can we move in this direction?
• Is there any willingness to do so?

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not plagiarism, because the source is referenced. Diannaa said "Short quotations are permitted under our fair use rules, but not entire paragraphs from sources," but I did not lift entire paragraphs, I posted short snippets across seven paragraphs of a 46 paragraph article. She later said "Content has to be written in your own words and not inclusive of the source material at all" So which is it? "Some" tolerance, as she said at first, subject to (her) arbitrary subjectivity, or "zero" tolerance at all? If there was a grey area in my edits, the response was disproportionate to the infraction. Diannaa grossly misrepresented my edits and if an apology is not forthcoming I'm gonna start cussin'. Really, this is %€#@?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations are a serious problem with legal considerations, and must be dealt with promptly, not hashed out on talk pages like ordinary edits. It's not an occasional problem: there's anywhere from 75 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en. Today I assessed 50 reports, which took five hours. Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical; it would at least double or triple the time it takes to resolve each case. Nor is it necessary, not for clear-cut cases like this one. More complex cases are handled at WP:CP. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is belittling your work. It is very important. When an edit has been reverted, with a "copyvio" edit summary, that has removed it from Wikipedia, which is no longer "hosting" it, so there is no legal issue. That gives editors an opportunity to then work with the source and reword it better, either shortening the quote, adding quotation marks, and/or paraphrasing. They just need to know what they're working with, and ALL editors should have that opportunity, not just the one who added the content, if they can remember what it was, because this often happens at a later point in time.

We could even have a policy, like the BLP policy, which deals strongly with the restoration of edits which have been deleted with a "copyvio" edit summary. Reverts would not count toward 3RR, etc. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Soibangla: No one is accusing you of anything. We tend to assume that such things were done in good faith, and we don't warn anyone or threaten them with sanctions unless they make it a habit. Stop being so defensive, and just figure out a way to say what you wanted to say in your own words, and put it in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. Diannaa's initial characterizations of my edits were borderline defamatory. She effectively accused me of wholesale lifting of content. My response is wholly proportionate to her insult. She clearly could've handled this better, as others have noted, and I see absolutely no evidence of acknowledgement, let alone contrition, of that from her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: This isn't really up for discussion. Here's the deal: Most of our rules and guidelines here at enwiki were created by the users themselves. Deletion or inclusion of articles, protecting pages, blocking or banning users, these were worked out by the early users here and are still subject to discussion and change. For the most part the WMF leaves the users at each language pedia to work out their own systems. And even the settled rules are considerably subject to admin discretion. BUT - there are a few rules and guidelines that are given to us by the WMF for legal reasons and we are bound to follow, not subject to much admin discretion. One such rule is BLP - being careful what we say about living people. Another is copyright. It has been determined that we must not retain on the WikiMedia servers any material that is copied verbatim from another source without proper attribution. That includes the article history as well as the visible article. Look, you know me; you know that I am not generally hardnosed about things. This happens to be something that Wikipedia is hardnosed about. Let it go. --MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"we must not retain on the WikiMedia servers any material that is copied verbatim from another source without proper attribution"

my edits were neither verbatim nor unattributed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 02:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, you know how much I admire and trust your judgment, but I'm not a machine. I like to understand. I'm just trying to figure out what seems to be a variance in "interpretation" of two policy wordings about copyvios. The current interpretation I'm see above makes them conflict with each other. I think my interpretation respects both and sees no conflict, ergo Occam's razor rules.

One wording expressly allows the history to show the deleted content, and the other is not a demand that revdel must "always" happen. Revdel is an option, but not always required:

More here:

• If infringement is not blatant or the speedy deletion criteria do not apply:

• Remove the infringing text or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can.

The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it (unless it is tagged for {{copyvio-revdel}}. (My bold.)

Will we follow Occam's razor or force an "interpretation" of two wordings that makes them disagree, when they don't have to? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, you’ve quoted that several times, and it’s a fair question. I think it is possible those guidelines haven’t been updated in a long time. I have the impression that the “revdel everything” rule is fairly new; I think it may have been introduced sometime in the past three years (i.e., new in the time I have been an admin). @Diannaa, Hut 8.5, and Crow: Can you give us any history on this? Do you think there is a need to update or clarify the guidelines at WP:Copyright problems? I’m sorry to take up so much of your time on this, but there does appear to be a conflict between the written guidelines and current practice. --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, where is the revdel "everything" rule found? Unlike that wording, the page I quote above has multiple indications that revdel isn't required all the time. "Softer" options are allowed, except in "blatant" (IOW large) cases. There are even special instructions for the copyrightholder to request removal, which obviously assumes that we don't do it in all cases. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Diannaa and MelanieN. Where is the revdel "everything" rule found? The above says otherwise. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Blatant" doesn't mean "large". It means "obvious". The revision deletion I did is in line with the current practice. The policy page may need updating, but here is not the place to have that discussion. I suggest the talk page of the policy page or WP:VPP. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about being so nitpicky. Parsing wordings is a pet thing of mine, and good enough for my wordings to be used to get a court case against over 30 people thrown out, without my presenting any kind of evidence. I was able to show, from the wordings in the accusation, that it was a bogus case. The judge used my exact wordings. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think there is a rule of using revdel on all copyright violations in all cases. If you're dealing with a busy page where a large number of revisions would need to be hidden to remove the copyvio, for example, then revision deletion isn't generally used. This is covered in the revision deletion policy though. What we're dealing with here is a small number of recent edits which have been reverted, and revdel is used in the vast majority of these cases. There isn't, AFAIK, any copyright-specific guidance on using revdel, but I think it would largely duplicate what is in the revision deletion policy anyway. Hut 8.5 12:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

ec...

• I think a major part of the problem is an extreme interpretation of copyright violation taken in isolation from "fair use", which is very elastic. The two must be interpreted in relation to each other, and we should follow the same practices as major newspapers and magazines.

The policy (quoted above) clearly allows for simple reversion without revdel: "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it..." As to the interpretation of some rule elsewhere that we should revdel "everything"? I'm still waiting. I strongly suspect that a misinterpretation of policy is occurring.

Fair use must be allowed here, but not to the extreme degree allowed by courts in society. There courts have sometimes supported the exact reproduction of entire documents (long ones!), without permission, if the public good justifies so doing. I don't think we should go that far.

For us, inconsequential matters allow very short quoting, and often just paraphrasing. With more important matters (and more important people and sources), longer exact quotes are justified, sometimes entire paragraphs. That's how fair use works in the real world, i.e. major newspapers and magazines. We should follow their practices. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

There's quite a few red herrings here. The question of whether we should revdel all copyright violations is not relevant to this example. The question is whether we should revdel this example. Yes, it is true that revision deletion should not be used in all cases, and the revision deletion policy supports this, but that does not mean revision deletion is inappropriate here. On the contrary revision deletion is permissible in this case and it is usual practice in response to this type of copyright violation.

Fair use is another red herring here. We're not interested in what courts say about fair use, because Wikipedia has chosen to set its own standards on what constitutes acceptable fair use which are stricter than the legal minimum. Fair use on Wikipedia has to be compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free content. A brief quotation of copyrighted material for the purpose of indicating the views of the author is typically fine. Lifting a paragraph from a copyrighted source as part of normal article text is definitely not fine. I don't see how you can possibly justify the inclusion of this text under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and if you disagree then you should be able to explain how this usage is compliant with the two I referenced earlier. Hut 8.5 17:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hut 8.5, you make excellent points. Many of my comments are on the subject in general, IOW in principle, and not about this specific content. I didn't add the disputed content. My concerns were more related to what I see as an extreme interpretation of policy. It has resulted in the mass deletion of the non copyvio work of many editors, about six months from one article.

Also that there is no opportunity to learn from the situation. If a teacher marks an answer wrong, and their only response to the student is "That was wrong", but then won't explain "in what way" it was wrong, the student learns nothing but to fear that teacher and see them as unfair. We must avoid punitive actions here.

I have no problem with Wikipedia having a stricter interpretation than society. We just need to hash this out so that revdel isn't abused and interpreted as revdel "everything". -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This discussion really doesn't belong here but rather on a policy talk or village pump page. BullRangifer, will you choose a better location? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. NeilN, I do want to wait for one question to be cleared up, and I have pinged two admins above, but you might be able to enlighten me. I want to know the location of this revdel "everything" rule. Correct parsing depends on exact wordings and their context, both locally and in other parts of Wikipedia, such as the parts I've quoted above, which clearly allows for "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons...".

I don't want to start a policy discussion if I'm misunderstanding something. Due diligence is important, especially when dealing with policy. We've both been here a long time, and, for me, a sign of good editing is when "my" content is still there many years later. Even now I can look back in our most important policies and see my fingerprints. That's good. I must have done something right! I don't want to start something that won't result in any real and long-lasting improvement. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: If I've got the location of your quote right, it's prefaced by, "If infringement is not blatant..." I suppose each admin has slightly varying definitions for "blatant" to be balanced with the inconvenience a revdel will cause. Recent copyvios will almost always be revdeleted by me if a sentence has been copied from somewhere else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the context indicates that is for larger violations, especially new articles where newbies will build content on other sources, without attribution. I'm not denying that much smaller exact quotes, without attribution and sourcing, could also be revdeleted, but I see no reason for its use in ordinary situations when other approaches are indeed allowed. Again, I just want this practice to be modified in a manner which allows for learning and improvement. How can that be done? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Be aware that you'll have to address posts like "Admins are following WMF policy". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. All rules can be interpreted, and we need interpretations that don't harm the editing environment, while still ensuring we don't violate the law. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be glad to see this discussed, and formalized in writing so there is no confusion. The information I have, and the "rules" I have expounded here, have been given to me verbally by other admins who are experts in this field and to whom I defer. It would be good to have it clarified. --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Article Needs to Include the Findings of the Inspector General, and Decision of the Attorney General

Somehow it looks like we Wikipedia editors have tied ourselves into knots (partisan wrangling, again) and that this article is, as a result, far behind current events. The now established fact is that the Inspector General's office has recommended firing McCabe. And now AG Sessions has to decide whether to or not, putting him in the hot seat. This has all been reported on in reliable sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-disciplinary-office-recommends-firing-former-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe/2018/03/14/c1d0dc1a-208a-11e8-86f6-54bfff693d2b_story.html?utm_term=.7bd08471c5d1

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/14/us/politics/andrew-mccabe-fbi-firing-recommendation-justice-department.html

You would not know any of this reading the article, though. This paragraph:

"The Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating McCabe for concerns that he should have recused himself from the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server because of a potential conflict of interest caused by donations to his wife's Virginia State Senate campaign.[20][21] FBI documents released in January 2018 showed that McCabe had in 2015, before his wife ran for political office in Virginia, notified the FBI about his wife's plans and consulted with the FBI about how he would avoid a conflict of interest.[22] The documents showed that McCabe followed FBI protocol regarding potential conflicts of interest.[23] McCabe did not oversee the Clinton email server probe while his wife was running for office and he was excluded from FBI investigations into public corruption cases in Virginia.[22] According to USA Today, "the internal documents, published on the FBI's website, support what the bureau has asserted previously: that McCabe had no conflicts when he assumed oversight of the Clinton investigation. His role began in February 2016, following his appointment as deputy director and three months after his wife, Jill McCabe, lost her bid for a state Senate seat."[22]"

... is a mess, and doesn't include the accurate information, while including all this stuff about his wife's run for Senate. Did the IG even investigate that? Not according to either of the articles above.

Per the Times article above: "Mr. McCabe is ensnared in an internal review that includes an examination of his decision in 2016 to allow F.B.I. officials to speak with reporters about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The Justice Department’s inspector general concluded that Mr. McCabe was not forthcoming during the review, according to the people briefed on the matter. That yet-to-be-released report triggered an F.B.I. disciplinary process that recommended his termination — leaving Mr. Sessions to either accept or reverse that decision."

So could we break out the interesting (has a former Deputy Dir. of the FBI even been sanctioned like this? He was acting director for a time, too.) and factual news about his problems with the IG, and put it into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"The now established fact is that the Inspector General's office has recommended firing McCabe"

actually, the IG didn't do that, the Office of Professional Responsibility did soibangla (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added a brief note about this recommendation - which was made on March 14 so we are not THAT out of date. Sessions is expected to make his decision today. --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

According to multiple officials

"The FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility had recommend that McCabe be fired after the inspector general's report determined that he had not been fully truthful in his answers to investigators' questions about the handling of the Clinton probe, according to officials familiar with the report." NBC News 3/17/18 @ 1:35 AM Xerton (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we have in the article. According to Sessions, the issue was specifically about giving the media information about the investigation into the Clinton Foundation. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably should mention that this info may have been damaging to Clinton, not Trump [4].Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

if you read the WSJ story (which this is about) it makes McCabe look good because he continued the CF investigation, despite being accused of being in the bag for Democrats soibangla (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions is United States Attorney General

At the beginning of the article, Jeff Sessions should be tagged and identified as Attorney General of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.223.109 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm? He already is. Has been for months. Third sentence of the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sessions breached recusal?

I’m not very happy with this recent addition to the article: Some argue that McCabe’s dismissal is a breach of Sessions’ promise at his confirmation hearings to recuse himself from such decisions.

Sources

A minor quibble: the awkward "Some argue that" structure cries out for a tag. More to the point, I doubt if the source - something called "justsecurity.org" - qualifies as either reliable or neutral. It says it is "based at" New York University School of Law; kind of looks like a blog masquerading as a news site. I don’t see any indication that it has editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - our definition of a Reliable Source. I would prefer to leave this out, unless we can find a source where somebody with some kind of qualification or credibility actually said this and it got reported by some actual news organization or equivalent. User:Enthusiast01 originally added this, and I removed it because it was unsourced. They re-added it with a reference, so I left it in. ButI think we should discuss here whether to include it or not. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Also this is about Sessions, not McCabe, even if it's true and well-cited. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No other comments? I'm going to give this another day here and then if no one objects I'm going to remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. This is probably going to be a matter of an educated opinion, barring some form of official censure. We should wait and include it if/when it is the opinion of someone important enough to warrant attributing. The "who" is being begged for because in this case, proper attribution to essentially some dude makes it obvious that this is currently undue. GMG^talk 18:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. And I see that you removed it from the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of Jill McCabe, McCauliffe, Grassley

Given McCabe's termination, I believe there is now good reason to include events regarding Jill McCabe et al. to give full context to Andrew McCabe's biography.

If there remains an objection to this edit containing Grassley's letters as sources, I will endeavor to supplement them with news stories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_McCabe&diff=830969463&oldid=830969083

soibangla (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

soibangla, see my suggestion above, in the "McCabe's wife" discussion, which includes proposed text to go into the article. There should be no need to use primary sources; in my suggested edit I provided only secondary Reliable Sources. Let's keep the discussion there rather than starting a new thread. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Strzok/Page texts

These edits by VolunteerMarek significantly alter the meaning of the cited WSJ story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_McCabe&diff=830970386&oldid=830970091

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_McCabe&diff=830970091&oldid=830969928

I suggest the original edits be restored soibangla (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Those changes seem harmless to me. This article is about McCabe, not about the other people. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read the WSJ article carefully and compare it to the alternative narrative that appeared previously, which purported a conspiracy in the FBI to which McCabe was a party. The edits made by VolunteerMarek support/perpetuate the alternative narrative rather than what the WSJ actually reports to debunk that narrative.

WSJ lede: "An FBI agent’s reference to “an insurance policy” in a much-debated text message was meant to convey that the bureau needed to aggressively investigate allegations of collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, according to people familiar with his account. The agent didn’t intend to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate but rather address a colleague who believed the Federal Bureau of Investigation could take its time because Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was certain to win the election, the people said."

soibangla (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This is what our article now says: The Nunes memo also asserts that a text message from Peter Strzok discusses "a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election." However, The Wall Street Journal reported on December 18, 2017, that Strzok associates said the "insurance policy" meant the FBI continuing its investigation into possible collusion between Trump and Russians, in case Trump won the election.[39][40] What is the problem? --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not getting it either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Reactions to firing

I think it's important to include some of these - whether positive or negative. We do have an article on Dismissal of James Comey and while this firing has not risen to the same level of controversy (at least not yet - McCabe says he has tapes, so we'll see what happens), like that instance, the reactions to this firing have received enough coverage to make them notable enough for a section or at least a few sentences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

===================

I think that no private or public responses to who fired him has any place in a historical document outlining a person's career and life. Any of the comments that are included in this article by others are simply dated and can be overturned and reversed and left out at any point in the future depending on the current political temperature or as to which side of the political spectrum holds the majority. Thusly any political or private person's response to his firing should be omitted from this article. At any rate it is a historical record of a person's career and influence and actions in one's life history. Whatever Jim or Sally thought about any of his actions or positions during his career are outside of the scope of this usual article. Their inclusion here lowers an historical document into a political posting. 47.42.151.212 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Appears purely political. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 11:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

McCabe's wife is named "Barbra Jill" [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.186.222 (talk • contribs)

Answer: It appears to be true that she practices medicine as "Barbara J. McCabe". Here is the Virginia licensing information: [6]. If we had an article about her we would include this. Since she does not have a separate article and is merely mentioned in this article, I think we should continue to refer to her in the way that she herself, her husband, and all Reliable Source reporting refer to her - as Jill McCabe. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"Resignation" & "Request to be excused from duty"

Please note, I have not had many previous Editing Talk exchanges.

Thanks to BullRangifer for his 06:47, 20 March 2018 "good faith" characterization and input. I believe BullRangifer's "Not an improvement" Revert to be inappropriate. The addition of a link to "Request to be excused from duty" and its associated 02/12/18WSJ footnote (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbis-andrew-mccabe-retired-he-didnt-resign-1517602682) do add substantial, missing, and previously ambiguous information to the current "Resignation"-only link about Andrew McCabe's action on January 29, 2018.

For this reason, I must recommend that my 05:28, 20 March 2018 edit be reinstated immediately. Thank you. Prevenient (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Party Affiliation

He doesn't belong to the GOP. He is a Democrat. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-what-if-trump-is-right-and-there-is-no-collusion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.14.208 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"Editor's note: An earlier version of this column misidentified Andrew McCabe as a Democrat. It is not known whether he is registered to a political party." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ther eis no party registration in Virginia, but McCabe's political activities have been on the Democrat side. He is definitely NOT a Republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.151.177 (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Stuff about McCabe's wife

Please stop restoring text about McCabe's wife which violates WP:BLP, as User:Soibangla did here. This text has been challenged and cannot be restored without consensus. Restoring it violates one of the discretionary sanctions on this article.

Now, while Soibangla might not have been aware that this text had been previously challenged, User:FloridaArmy has no such excuse - they restored it twice [7], [8], violating both the "Consensus required" provision and the 1RR restriction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That was only one part of my edit. His wife's role is discussed in reliable sources and has been a point of contention as noted in the text you removed discussing Chuck Grassley's concerns. You also added NPOV violating quotes. And made other changes I objected to with an edit summary explaining. You've now made these changes twice Marek instead of discussing after you were reverted with an explanation. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The Grassley stuff was based on a primary source. You can discuss other issues in a separate section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

if I cited the Grassley stuff from a news article, would you restore the material? soibangla (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Rather UNDUE SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

how so, specifically?soibangla (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly not a BLP violation so let's put that to bed. But let's talk about whether we need anything at all about Grassley. It looks as if the link you gave here is only part of more extended information about Grassley that was already in the article, but none of it appears to be in the article now? We do already have a paragraph about the DOJ internal investigation into his wife's campaign. IMO Grassley as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee deserves a mention, and his complaints appear to have triggered at least some of the internal investigations. However, the proposed information is too detailed. I suggest it be restored but in much briefer form and incorporated into the existing material. Something like this: (obviously if we decide to use it we should expand the references)

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017 and again in June, asking if McCabe had a conflict of interest because of his wife's 2015 campaign as a Democrat for the Virginia state legislature and a possible political relationship with Democratic Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. (then put in the stuff already in the article about the IG investigation) In December 2017 Grassley wrote again to Rosenstein, asking for an inquiry into whether McCabe had violated the Hatch Act by sending two emails from his official FBI email account in which he boosted her candidacy. That letter prompted a review by the Justice Department's Office of Special Counsel. In December Grassley called for McCabe to be removed.

Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: change "a possible political relationship" to "his political relationship" (in quotes), as those are Grassley's precise words and he presents it as an established fact when extensive evidence indicates it is not. Also, "he boosted her candidacy" is arguable; we should wait for the OSC ruling. I also suggest that the FBI statement about McCabe's non-involvement be included. soibangla (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the "other stuff" already in the article - which I proposed keeping right after Grassley's first letter - explains the FBI's report about his lack of a conflict of interest. And I'd rather keep "possible" than say "his", even in quotes. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm ...The WSJ piece is an excellent source, but it is from October 24, 2016, and obviously does not mention Grassley or Rosenstein. Politrukki (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Potential source

And did he have an axe to grind against General Michael Flynn? Inquiring minds want to know...

• https://spectator.org/the-real-andrew-mccabe/

Xerton (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic that you're posting unreliable fringe sources like American Spectator which "have an axe to grind against" McCabe. Try finding RS and propose an actual edit, rather than misusing this talk page as a soapbox for your POV. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Another potential source

Read this:

• http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/25/fbi-agent-says-andrew-mccabe-targeted-her-over-sexual-harassment-suit

Xerton (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This talk page isn't a place for you to call someone a "bad person" or to make speculative claims about people based upon opinion columns. I have refactored the headings accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic that you're posting unreliable fringe sources like Fox News which "have an axe to grind against" McCabe. Try finding RS and propose an actual edit, rather than misusing this talk page as a soapbox for your POV. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_237#Is_Fox_News_a_WP:RS anyone. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a memorable discussion. We aren't there yet, but a formal labeling as "use with care" for political subjects would be good, and it's already a good way to treat Fox News. It has never been a normal "news" channel, being created by Roger Ailes as an unofficial voice for the RNC, IOW a genuine right-wing propaganda channel. When it became part of the Fox Entertainment Group, that kind of made it official that it isn't a genuine news channel. Shep Smith is the exception. I saved some of that discussion here for further development. I need to get back to that project. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh, the sources in the articles called McCabe a bad person - all I did make clear the point they were making. Xerton (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be your point, but it would be more credible if you used RS. That's the currency we deal with here. Unreliable sources either get it totally wrong, or they even take something that has some element of truth, and then spin it so much one can't trust what they are saying. That happens with both right- and left-wing sources. So start trafficking in RS and we're more likely to listen.

Start using this chart by patent attorney Vanessa Otero. It's quite good. Then only use sources that are fairly close to both sides of middle and higher up, IOW the yellow and green rectangles. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)