Talk:Fani Willis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RFC: alleged misuse of funds

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Copied above from KiharaNoukan[1] The federal funds issue is: Willis employee Amanda Timpson reports potential misuse of federal grant funds in 2021 from colleague Michael Cuffee, saying Cuffee was proposing to spend it on Macbooks, travel, and "swag." The grant funds were intended for youth programs and gang-prevention measures. She ends up fired in 2022, sues the same year over whistleblower retaliation and racial bias. In 2023, House Judiciary investigates Willis for this and other issues, particularly whether the funding was used to prosecute Trump. In 2024, Audio of Timpson discussing misuse of funds with Willis comes out, and the House Judiciary Cmte subpoenas Willis. Willis says that this is interference from federal committees into a state case and that Timpson was fired for cause. Per AJC and above Forbes article.

Should allegations from Amanda Timpson be included in this article? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

Why shouldnt this information be included? Friedbyrd (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You didn't let me vote yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• No - This allegation lacks WP:WEIGHT, especially for a WP:BLP rather than the article about the prosecution. All that is reported on it at this point comes from the one AJC article in 2022 and a rehashing now bubbling up through House Republicans efforts to investigate her investigation federally, though it is a state matter. AJC says there is one lawsuit pending, while another one was thrown out. That's all we know about Timpson's allegations as of now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Incorrect, updates of this whole ordeal have been published since 2022. The issue here is the misuse of funds, while the lawsuit for discrimination was "thrown out." But this was done due to the way the lawsuit was filed, not do to there being no merit to it. The judge dismissed a Federally filed case against Willis personally with prejudice, but without prejudice regarding the DAs office. "Judge Ray ruled that this specific case should be litigated in state court as opposed to federal court" (SOURCE) and the case alleging misuse of funds still stands without issue. There also has been updated reported on this issue, so the claim that it all comes from one 2022 article doesnt make sense.

  Friedbyrd (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  That is not accurate that it is "one AJC article", there are plenty more sources and there is an audio recording that make the allegations very clear.

  https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/who-is-amanda-timpson-fani-willis-whistleblower-federal-funds-scandal-explained-as-da-subpoenaed-in-disqualification-hearing/ar-BB1hBXRb

  https://www.npr.org/2024/02/02/1224275208/fani-willis-misconduct-nathan-wade-trump-case (see end of the source)

  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/fani-willis-da-charged-trump-georgia-subpoenaed-house-gop-rcna136683 Helpingtoclarify (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  NPR makes no mention of an alleged whistleblower. NBC News reports on a subpoena issued by the House Republicans on it, which like I said, is irrelevant as this is a state issue, not federal. Judge Ray's ruling confirms this. Court documents are not WP:RS. MSN aggregated a source from "SK Pop" which is not RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, the NBC article reports on a subpoena issued by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan to see if she used "federal funds in conducting her more-than-two-year investigation into former President Donald Trump." Alleged misuse of Federal Funding would indeed fall under the federal government.

  Judge William Ray ruled that Amanda Timpsons lawsuit against Fani for discrimination is a state issue. He did NOT say or rule that the HJC cannot subpoena Fani or anything like that.

  Friedbyrd (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Read better. Second to last paragraph of NPR story:

  "On Friday, Jordan subpoenaed Willis for documents related to a firing of a staffer after it was alleged that she misused federal grant money. Willis on Friday said those allegations are "false."" Helpingtoclarify (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding WP:WEIGHT; earlier in the previous discussion you had said that "We weigh whether or not to include items based on their merit" and has had been pointed out to you, this is not what WEIGHT says. There is no mention of "merit" but that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." I didnt see you reply to this so could you please update your justification by appealing to this rule?

  Friedbyrd (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is no merit to include these allegations, which could come down to a disgruntled former employee fired with cause. The lack of prevalence in RS discussing Timpson's allegations at all leads to a conclusion that this should be excluded for the time being. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  "which could come down to a disgruntled former employee fired with cause." As has been posted, we have confirmed audio of the employee in question confronting Fani about misuse of funds a couple months before she was fired. The idea that she just made this up after being fired is verifiably not possible.

  Friedbyrd (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Muboshgu, using your logic there's no reason to provide any details on anything related to the Trump investigation until everything has been adjudicated and a final result has been determined. After all, by this brand new "merit" standard, the Supreme Court may find that he shouldn't have been removed from the Colorado and Maine ballot. He may be found not guilty of the RICO charges. He may be cleared of any wrongdoing regarding inflating the value of his properties to obtain construction loans. The point is that there are reliable resources that verify the accusation of fraud, a lawsuit of wrongful termination, and a Congressional investigation for fraud. There's even a reliable source that says her original lawsuit wasn't rejected on the merits of the case, but rather because she filed it in the wrong venue. Furthermore, editors have listed several reliable sources to back up this issue. Your suggestion that it may amount to nothing is very close to original research.

  "...[O]riginal research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."

  Even if you were to find a reliable source expressing your opinion that these accusations have "no merit," it wouldn't negate the reasons for acknowledging the accusation in Fani Willis' article. Note that an article where the accused says the accusation has no merit is not dispositive. For example, Trump has said that all the charges against him have no merit. Surely you wouldn't suggest that nothing should be posted about his charges merely because he has that opinion. Editors need to be consistent in their reasoning. This is major news that's been covered by almost every news outlet. How you can say there is a "lack of prevalence in [reliable sources]" concerning the whistleblower's accusation is honestly rather shocking. Here's one of many major news outlets covering the accusations and Congressional investigation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wifJRw0GWtw). Note that MSNBC is a reliable source and the video is valid because it is published by a verified news organization (see WP:RSPYT, "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability.") Mkstokes (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comparing Amanda Timpson to the Trump investigation (and indictments) is such an apples to oranges fallacy that I stopped reading once I got to "Trump investigation". Timpson's allegation has not been reported widespread to the point that it belongs on a BLP. Trump's indictments have. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Muboshgu You say it's an "apples to oranges fallacy" and yet you were able to make a comparison saying that "Timpson's allegation has not been reported widespread to the point that it belongs on a BLP. Trump's indictments have." I think that fallacy is "used with reference to two things that are fundamentally different and therefore not suited to comparison" and yet you were able to do the comparison. Here's the funny thing. I made no reference specifically to Amanda Timpson whatsoever. I would suggest going forward that you read posts before responding to them. Just a thought.

  Biographies of living persons says "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Multiple typically means more than 3. So let's say 4. Here are 4 references from reliable sources regarding the whistleblower:

  Atlanta Journal Constitution: U.S. House committee subpoenas Fani Willis over federal grant funds

  MSNBC: Donald Trump is the only reason Jim Jordan is subpoenaing Fani Willis

  CBS: Rep. Jim Jordan subpoenas Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis

  The Guardian: Trump ally Jim Jordan subpoenas Fani Willis for potential grant money misuse

  There are several more if you'd like me to also list them. On a different note, there is a very clear consensus forming. Will you acknowledge it so the edits can be made? Mkstokes (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, the consensus of the Yes vote has been made in the most concrete way possible. These no votes are just blatant wikilawyering.

  Friedbyrd (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• No Wikipedia is not a tabloid, we don't rush to print every accusation that trickles out of the news cycle. There's a reason why the few outlets even providing brief mention of this puts "whistleblowers" in air-quotes - there's nothing there yet, just an accusation. Zaathras (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  NBC, NPR, and The Hill are not "tabloids" but legitimate news publications. Cases have been filed and Fani has been subpoenaed over this issue. As per NOTNEWS: ""Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."

  Friedbyrd (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi there! I don't care. You bludgeoned the previous discussion already with your replies, your point has been made. We're now holding a request for comment in order to see where a consensus, or lack thereof, may lie, so there is no need for you to reiterate your opinion again. And again. And again, to every editor that weighs in. Also, I did not call the sources "tabloids", I said that the Wikipedia should not be tabloid-like, in that it quickly prints the news of the moment. Please do not place other editor's comments in a false light, and comment on what you (mis)construed them as saying. That is bad form. Zaathras (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Zaathras, please be civil and not taint this discussion with accusations of bad behavior. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  The bludgeoning is clear based on this section and the above sections. It would be nice for it to stop. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Don't address me, Magnolia. If you have a complaint, go make it. Zaathras (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Zaathras There are two lawsuits, a federal Congressional subpoena and investigation, a state Congressional investigation, a review board for the D.A.'s office, and coverage in almost every major news source in the world. However, at Wikipedia, we need to ignore what the rest of the world is talking about? That's an interesting position especially given the WP:NOTNEWS policy that says,

  "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."

  The so-call "few" outlets include every major news organization in the United States! Name a U.S. news source and I can guarantee there is coverage of this issue. Everywhere except Wikipedia. 🤦🏾‍♂️ Mkstokes (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - This is information regarding a public official who is accused by a whistleblower of misuse of federal funds. This is beyond mere speculations or unsubstantiated rumors since the whistleblower has filed a lawsuit over this issue which is set for pre trial. This should be included in the article specifically mentioning that these are all just allegations at the time until proven otherwise. We also have a verified audio recording of Timpson, the whistle blower, confronting Fani about the misuse of funds (SOURCE) This has been reported on by multiple credible news sources and it meets the requirements for NOTNEWS, BLP, and WEIGHT
  Friedbyrd (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - Even MSNBC has reported on this. Much of the reporting (even by leftie sources) refers back to this article. Willis is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and this widely reported allegation goes well beyond mere gossip. --Magnolia677 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• No - "Timpson was fired for cause" - allegations about a motivation for Willis' administrative decision have no significance to her Wikipedia biography. The news stories about it are WP:UNDUE, WP:RUMOR, and WP:RECENTISM. Zefr (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - "Firing for cause" is a common retaliation against whistleblowers. The combination of a record of the whistleblowing before the firing and the recording make it clear that "fired for cause" is just part of the story (which should be included in any discussion of this) Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Suggesting that Timpson was fired as retaliation by Willis is a WP:BLP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Timpson is a whistleblower, a common retalliation for whistleblowing is firing. This is right out of the Wikipedia article on whistleblowing. (See second paragraph). I didn't assert that is what happened here. Might want to reread my comment. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  She says she's a whistleblower. This has not been adjudicated yet and we aren't the ones to do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  The issue here isnt arguing in favor of adjudicating, but that this has been alleged by a former employee of Fanis and this she has filed a lawsuit against. To make it perfectly clear, we shouldnt write that Fani did this, but that a former employee has filed a lawsuit against her alleging such.

  Friedbyrd (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well the whole issue here revolves around that Timpson reported misuse of federal funds and was fired a few months later, these are the objective facts. She then filed a lawsuit against Fani alleging that her firing was retaliation for calling out misuse of funds which is the core of the whole point of this conversation. It would not violate any MLP rule to include in the article that Fani has been accused of this ALLEGED crime.

  There is no precedent whatsoever on Wikipedia that says you can only write about trials or lawsuits concerning living people only until after the court case has concluded and the person is found to be either innocent or guilty/liabel or not liabel.

  Friedbyrd (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, concerning BLPPUBLIC: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

  This meets case meets all of those requirements.

  Friedbyrd (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think so. "Noteworthy" and "relevant", possibly, but it depends on factors that we don't know and it is not if Timpson was fired for cause rather than as a whistleblower. It's certainly not that "well documented". There's a lot we don't know about her allegation, and this is why we need to tread more carefully than just throwing this in somewhere because there's a source for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  You arent grasping this. Amanda Timpson brought up what she believed to be misuse of funds to her boss Fani Willis and several months later she was fired. She then filed a lawsuit against Fani over this citing alleged retaliation against her as a whistleblower. Also attached to this issue, Chair of the HJC Jim Jordan subpoenaed Fani regarding the allegation of misuse of federal funds. All of this is objective fact that is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented in multiple verifiable news sources all relating to a public figure. The allegation of all of this should be included in this article because it meets every standard of BLP.

  We do indeed not know if these allegations are true or not as of now and will only find out after this has been investigated, but that does not mean that we do not include the coverage of the allegation only until after the court has ruled that these allegations are true or not. There is no precedent for this at all for wikipedia and in fact that parameters of BLP clearly state that allegations like this "belong in the article." After the conclusion of the case we can update the article with the findings. We do not need to wait until then to include any coverage of this.

  Friedbyrd (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  You aren't grasping what I'm putting forth. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. In a WP:BLP, we act conservatively so as not to do harm to the subject, such as with allegations of this sort which have not been "widespread". Not all allegations belong on Wikipedia, true or not. With this, I have said all that I can here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Completely untrue, I have responded directly to each objection you have made so far and have illustrated exactly why you have been incorrect by quoting directly from the citied Wikipedia rules you have brought up. I have also directly pointed out instances where you were incorrect about facts of the case, its reporting, and what should be included in the article concerning these allegations. And as I have carefully laid, we are indeed being conservative with all of this. There is no actual reason not to include this information in the article and you have shown that you are not familiar with the various rules you have cited throughout this discussion.

  And concerning your statement "Not all allegations belong on Wikipedia, true or not." I will refer to BLPPUBLIC again; "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

  Friedbyrd (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes (ish) - Timpson's relevance/importance comes pretty much entirely from the judiciary investigation using her recorded conversation to justify a subpoena, inclusion should probably focus around the House Judiciary investigation. Focusing on the Feb '24 subpoena is also a bit of missing the forest for the trees, but there is a bevy of RS reporting on the investigation itself dating back to its inception. While the probe initially investigated whether Willis coordinated with Jack Smith and/or misused federal funding, recent RS reporting appears to have narrowed it to the latter in scope or at least significance.[2] [3] Add right after: Willis's office indicted Trump and 18 others on 41 charges on August 14, 2023
  Shortly after, the Republican controlled House Judiciary Committee launched an inquiry into whether Willis used federal funding in her investigation of election fraud.[4] This line of inquiry mirrored a similar House Judiciary probe into Alvin Bragg's investigation of Trump's business records.[5] [6] Willis has described the inquiry as unconstitutional interference into a state case.[7] [8] KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - This is a major issue for Fani Willis that has been extensively covered by numerous reliable sources. In addition, there is a very disturbing trend of editors citing Wikipedia policies/guidelines that, when read, simply don't apply. I've been very clear about the actual meaning of WP:WEIGHT and have obtained no contradictory response.
  I see a citation of WP:RUMOR that is incorrect. The policy states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
  Are the accuations verifiable? Of course! Is someone actually suggesting that the potential misuse of federal funds by the D.A. office prosecuting the leading candidate for what's arguably the highest political office in the world wouldn't merit a change to the article after the House hearing?!?
  As to WP:RECENTISM the policy states "Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view." The vast majority of content in the [Fani Willis] article are old events. Specifically, the misuse of federal funds would be a tiny fraction of the article (i.e., not "overburdened). Furthermore, the policy cites both positives and negatives of using recent information.
  Finally, as to WP:UNDUE, it's identical to my comments about WP:WEIGHT. I'll repeat.
  "The 'viewpoint' discussed in regard to potential misuse of federal grant funds is not a "minority viewpoint" by reliable resources. As other editors have clearly shown [], this viewpoint has been noted prominently by almost all reliable sources.... The editors on this thread have cleared the following hurdle;
  If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts.
  The golden rule is "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." (see WP:WEIGHT)
  We really need to stop citing policy without citing why the policy applies. It doesn't help discussions at all. Mkstokes (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - One person should not have control over facts which are added with reliable sources. 2603:8080:3EF0:68F0:ED3D:32ED:A60C:C87D (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC) sock strike TarnishedPath^talk 10:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - There now exists an overwhelming amount of coverage on this topic. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - Reliable sources have covered this issue to the extent it warrants inclusion.3Kingdoms (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Yes - Many of the people you listed have already commented on this/made their stance clear, no need to @ them again.
  As for my view: I have concerns about how it's presented. That a complaint exists? That's well cited and could go in, along with its procedural history. Perhaps even a single sentence saying what the complaint is related to. But leave details and specific accusations for the court unless it's been otherwise corroborated by an independent source. So that's a... I don't know, Weak Yes? Paris1127 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's a fair point, but I've been admonished in the past for WP:CANVASSING when I targeted only users that haven't voted, so out of an abundance of caution I pinged everyone I thought was relevant regardless of past contributions. Mkstokes (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes These accusations have enough sourcing to warrant a mention. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes This seems to me to be related to the topic of the article and a relevant consideration. I'd say include it as long as the information presented is accurate and impartial. --Coalcity58 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Yes There's enough coverage to warrant a brief mention in the article. However, unless there's some new information that comes to light there's not much to cover here other than there's an allegation and the House wants her to talk. Nemov (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• No per WP:BLP. AFAIK these are mere allegations. No conviction has been obtained (ping me if I'm incorrect about this). We need to be careful with what we put in BLPs especially when allegations concern what would be criminal behaviour, where no conviction has been recorded and especially where allegations may have political motivations or may come from a disgruntled former employees. TarnishedPath^talk 01:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This is yet one more misreading of Wikipedia policies. For closure purposes, please take note. Biographies of living persons very clearly states:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

But, is Fani Willis a public figure? Well, what does the controlling precedent in the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan say? It says, in part, that a public figure is, a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs. Is the duly elected public official for the District Attorney for Fulton County involved in public affairs? That is a resounding YES! Thus we need to look at what WP:BLP says about public figures. It says, in part:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Is the allegation noteworthy (i.e., interesting, significant, or unusual)? Yes, it's so noteworthy that both federal and local governments are investigating it and the vast majority of news sources are covering it. Is the allegation relevant? Yes, it's a very significant life event for anyone to be subpoenaed by a congressional committee. Is it well documented? Yes, this allegation, as noted by multiple editors, is covered in almost every major news source in the U.S. and some overseas as well. Thus, contrary to previously mentioned references to WP:BLP as a reason to reject this allegation, Wikipedia policy actually insists that this allegation BELONGS in the article. Furthermore, this Wikipedia policy makes absolutely no reference to "political motivations" or "disgruntled former employees" and expressly rejects the need for a conviction as it pertains to a public figure. If anyone disagrees with my interpretation of these policies, you are welcome to publicly refute them while using the appropriate citations to those policies, just as I have done. Mkstokes (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

There really is no point in replying to my !vote with personal attacks, on others and myself, just because you don't like that there are people voting No. It doesn't make your position look any stronger. Stick to the argument, not attacking editors. TarnishedPath^talk 07:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

A personal attack is "An abusive remark about a person, without supporting evidence." For additional references to what a personal attack is, please see WP:NPA#WHATIS. What is suggested as a "personal attack" is a refutation of the argument that WP:BLP necessitates exclusion of the allegation. In short, it's not even about you. I've provided evidence to back up my refutation of the reference. You are more than welcome to counter my argument with your own evidence. However, my reply has nothing to do with whether I "don't like that there are people voting No." Rather, I'm refuting the policy references that have been used to justify a no !vote. Thus, I am indeed sticking to the argument and ironically you are not. If you feel I'm in violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, please submit a complaint to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Otherwise, if you feel my refutation is inaccurate, then either refute it with evidence or move on. 🤷🏾‍♂️ Mkstokes (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"This is yet one more misreading of Wikipedia policies" and then you quoted a specific section of BLP (BLPCRIME to be precise) that I didn't quote. To put it in no uncertain terms you implied that other editors and myself don't know what a specific policy says when I didn't even quote that specific policy (also a CTRL-F on BLPCRIME indicates that although it is used in another thread in this page that it is not used once in this RFC). That is a personal attack. Please stick to the argument and not to attacking other editors by trying to belittle their knowledge of WP policies. TarnishedPath^talk 08:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If you say 2+2 = 5 and I say, no it equals 4 that is not a personal attack. Your understanding of the WP:BLP policy is wrong, period. I've provided you evidence that it's wrong. If you have evidence that I'm wrong then provide it. Otherwise, move on. I did the same thing in this talk page to an administrator regarding their reference to other Wikipedia policy (WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:IDHT), and they respectfully said "I was probably wrong to cite those two pages" and moved on. I'll give you the same challenge. If you can make a cogent argument that I'm wrong, then I will leave this talk page permanently. All you've done is say "No per WP:BLP" and then expressed a personal opinion about what "we" need to be careful about that isn't reflected in the policy regarding public figures. So, either take your complaint to the proper location (which I'm sure will be rejected) or move it. I am not the topic! Mkstokes (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Doubling down on personal attacks doesn't make you right. Please stop and back away form the edge. TarnishedPath^talk 11:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I thought. Thanks for making it clear for everyone on the talk page to see. No complaint to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and no cogent argument that I'm wrong. Guess I'll be staying. Mkstokes (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This argument for "no" has already been dissected. There is NOTHING in any wikipedia rule for BLP or NOTNEWS that says you cannot include information about ongoing legal cases for people until after they have been resolved in court. The very obvious work around it to mention that they are facing allegations of wrong doing/criminal activity and then we simply include if they were found innocent or guilty after the court case has concluded. The fact that including this is still being debated, after a clear consensus has been reached, is an example of the egregious and politically biased motivated wikilawyering that unfortunately holds back Wikipedia.

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This RfC started on 10 February. Today is 25 February. The RfC has therefore been going for 15 days. Your statement "The fact that including this is still being debated, after a clear consensus has been reached, is an example of the egregious and politically biased motivated wikilawyering that unfortunately holds back Wikipedia" is therefore premature given that RfCs generally go for 30 days and this RfC has not been concluded. Please keep your arguments on the topic and not on other editors. TarnishedPath^talk 02:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It's good to know "...there is no restriction on participation in this RfC" as it pertains to extended-confirmed protected articles. It means the RfC votes will likely stand as is. Furthermore, given the lack of a cogent argument for all the WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENTISM, WP:RUMOR, and WP:NOTNEWS policy references, this item will likely close in the affirmative. I haven't seen a single editor directly and effectively refute arguments against each policy reason to reject this addition. It seems like an obvious case of Wikilawyering, the most blatant being citing WP:BLP but ignoring the subsection for public figures. Fani Willis is obviously a public figure, so there's no reason to ignore that subsection other than:

Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm.

Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem Mkstokes (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - This is being covered by literally every major news outlet. Exzachary (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Rephrase but yes There arise more than enough sources reporting on this matter but the exact reporting of this in Wikipedia will matter. The summary paragraph is unclear and badly written with an unclear and misleading timeline. I don't want this to be taken as a criticism because I know I need a lot of tools and time to get the phrasing right Jorahm (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - Echoing many previous comments about how coverage is good enough to justify inclusion and weight. It should be included. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - On Feb 10, probably no, but given all the additional coverage since then, we should include it, with the proper phrasing and attribution per Jorahm. Cheers! BBQboffin^{grill me} 03:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment This probably should have been done sooner, but I'm pinging @JoergenB, @Muboshgu, @Thriley, @Helpingtoclarify, @3Kingdoms, @DarrellWinkler, @Zefr, @Paris1127, @Soibangla, @KiharaNoukan, @Zaathras, @Magnolia677, @Exzachary, @Esowteric, @Friedbyrd, @Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång, @Dclemens1971 as editors who as far as I can tell have been involved in editing the most recent content for this page or discussions regarding it. In order to time box this, I'll be requesting closure for this WP:RfC on 10 March 2024 from a neutral party. @Ivanvector I hope you can help out here when we request closure as I've found you to be a fair, honest, and capable administrator. Apologies if I've missed anyone. Mkstokes (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Mkstokes: No need to wait so long. There seems to be a rough consensus emerging. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Mkstokes: I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I have a personal rule about not getting involved in American politics. If the discussion reaches a natural conclusion or you get to the end date and it isn't closed in a timely manner, you can request a neutral closer at WP:ANRFC. You also don't necessarily need to wait for a formal close if the result is obvious, but if it's a contentious issue then don't rely on that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Magnolia677 your point is noted. Per Closure requests, "Typically 7 days is a minimum...." Therefore, if "...there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result" I will request a closure on 19 February 2024. I feel I need to make a request as this has been a very contentious issue and I expect some very vocal editors will insist upon it. Mkstokes (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's where we seem to stand. Absolutely nothing is going to be modified in this article without one specific editor's/administrator's approval. Thus the article is under protection ad infinitum. This is not casting aspersions, rather it is merely stating an assumption about the current trend of edits to this article. Thank goodness the topic of this article is being widely covered in numerous other sources because it's clear it's not going to get covered here anytime soon. I think this is a learning experience in that the 5 pillars of Wikipedia are a farce in many instances, especially WP:5P5:

Wikipedia has no firm rules

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: they can be corrected easily because (almost) every past version of each article is saved.

I'm invested though in this Request for Comment and can't wait to see how this gets incorporated into the article in late March. No doubt it will be entertaining to see how a massive consensus gets interpreted into Wikispeak. 😉 Mkstokes (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The "alleged misuse of funds" WP:RfC can now be closed. You can see the closure request at Wikipedia:Closure requests at Talk:Fani_Willis#RFC:_alleged_misuse_of_funds. Thank you @TarnishedPath for clarifying the "500 edits and an account age of 30 days" restriction does not apply as "there is no restriction on participation in this RfC" and also removing the sockpuppet vote. Can an admin please close this RfC? Mkstokes (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to uninvolved admin concerning effects of the active arbitration remedies on this RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would an uninvolved administrator please clarify the effects of the active arbitration remedies that this article has on this RfC. The notice at the top of this article states that "the following rules apply when editing this article ... You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days". Does that extend to participation in this RfC? I know that when it comes to the WP:ARBPIA4 topic area it does have the meaning that editors who have less than 500 edits or an account age less than 30 days are prohibited from participating in RfCs in those topic areas. Is that the same with this article given the active arbitration remedies on this article? TarnishedPath^talk 07:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, there is no restriction on participation in this RfC. The notice is saying that the article is extended-confirmed protected, which is not the same as having a whole topic area under the extended-confirmed restriction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, I'm not talking about the extended-confirmed protection on the article. I'm talking about the active arbitration remedies notice at the top of this article which states that:

"The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

• You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days"

TarnishedPath^talk 05:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

When we apply extended-confirmed protection to articles as an arbitration enforcement action, we are encourage to add a templated notice at the talk page. That's what you're seeing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. TarnishedPath^talk 05:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of Jim Jordan's name as HJC chair

Friedbyrd removed "chaired by Jim Jordan" from In 2024, the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Jim Jordan, subpoenaed Willis regarding the former employee's whistleblower complaint after a taped conversation of the employee discussing the alleged misuse of federal funds with Willis was released publicly.

I reverted this, as I think this provides important context, since Jim Jordan spearheaded this action, but I was reverted.

Should this detail be included or omitted? Thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll say this: one more revert and it's an edit war. I don't see why Jordan's name should be removed, the second article is clearly titled "Jordan threatens Fani Willis with contempt over subpoena on federal grants". Paris1127 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I looked into other examples of prominent individuals subpoenaed by House committees, notably the January 6 Select Committee. I typically don't find mentions of "chaired by Bennie Thompson" when their subpoenas are mentioned. Examples where chair is not mentioned at all: Jim Jordan himself, Peter Navarro, Alex Jones, Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, Kevin McCarthy, Amy Kremer, Rudy Giuliani, Pat Cipollone, Mo Brooks, Doug Mastriano, Andy Biggs, John Eastman, Enrique Tarrio, Stephen Miller, Sidney Powell, Michael Flynn, Kenneth Chesebro, Jeffrey Clark, Cassidy Hutchinson.

I was able to find 2 cases where Thompson was mentioned, but only because he happened to do something outside of the subpoena, and he is not mentioned when the subpoena is described in the lead. For Steve Bannon, Chair Thompson is mentioned in body because he and co-chair Cheney gave a statement praising Bannon's conviction. For Scott Perry, Thompson is mentioned in body as part of investigatory process rather than subpoena.

It seems pretty clear that the norm is that chairs are not mentioned as part of House committee subpoenas. Given that inclusion is dependent on consensus, can you explain what makes this context particularly valuable for this subpoena? KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Nathan Wade relationship

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to trim to exactly two sentences, but there was generally a consensus that this section can be trimmed. I recommend that editors try to hash this out through the normal course of editing (for example, trimming can involve non-contentious copy editing) or start a new talk page section with concrete proposals for discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Currently the material on the relationship between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade takes up two paragraphs of the Fani Willis#2020 election influence investigation subsection. Refer to Special:Diff/1214511508 for current size of the section at time of writing this RfC.
Should the material on the relationship be trimmed so that it takes up no more than two sentences? TarnishedPath^talk 12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes per WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP. Notably BLP says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". Minimal material that notes that during the trial it was revealed that Willis was engaged in a relationship with a prosecution lawyer, that she was criticised by the judge for the relationship and that the lawyer resigned as a consequence should be sufficient. TarnishedPath^talk 12:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)*
• Yes agree with above per WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP.Slacker13 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to being more concise, Meh to exactly two sentences. (Summoned by bot) - Whereas I would expect more details in the main article, this should be a summary. Something like this seems like it would work, just to offer possible wording: "In January 2024, a past relationship between Willis and lead prosecutor Nathan Wade came to light which the defense argued constituted a conflict of interest. Judge McAfee did not find a conflict of interest under Georgia law but ruled that either Willis or Wade must leave the case to avoid the "appearance of impropriety", leading Wade to resign from his role." Last sentence is a little run-on to squeeze into two sentences, which is why I went back and added my "meh" above. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• No, maybe it should be trimmed but I'm not sure 2 sentences is enough, especially due to the huge amount of justified coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• No - per WP:BALANCE. At least four sentences. Internet searches for "Fani Willis" yield a tsunami of results regarding her dalliance with Wade. This heap of coverage should be reflected in her Wikipedia biography. Seriously, what is Willis most notable for? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  She is most notable for prosecuting Trump, not dating Nathan Wade. Your argument is WP:GHITS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:GHITS applies to deletion discussions, which this ain't. Moving on from that awkwardness...Google, Bing, Ask Jeeves...they're all indicating her romantic entanglement is big news. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

At the top of WP:GHITS it reads: While this page is tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or redirects, these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as about deleting article content, moving pages, etc.. Paris1127 (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The Google test specifically refers to deletions. Read it. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I have. I think it should be applied to all discussions. Especially since Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in Requests for Comment doesn't exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's avoid "I think it should" personal opinions, per WP:PPOV. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll rephrase to say that the "heap of coverage" is WP:RECENTISM that will be reduced in importance when the trial itself starts. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

"If" the trial starts. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• No Consider putting a suggestion as to how you would trim it to two sentences? Content here is pretty concise as is, hitting on the most basic and notable aspects of this story while maintaining NPOV between the differing perspectives reported by RS in this controversy. It looks fine right now. The only suggestion for a change I would have is refocusing the first paragraph to firstly note that Willis appointed Nathan Wade as the lead prosecutor for the case, which in turn leads into the relationship and allegation of impropriety later on in the paragraph. Wade's appointment and role as lead prosecutor is probably notable enough to be a paragraph topic sentence. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• No to two sentences, but sure let's trim I don't know how much more could be trimmed. Maybe a little in c/e, but I don't see how to get it down to two sentences. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• No. Seems fine as is. I'm not necessarily against trimming, per se, but no shorter than a paragraph seems right. _signed, SpringProof ^talk 04:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• No. What is summarized is already concise, but also complete and objective. I do think it can be summarized in two sentences (or much less than it is now) Helpingtoclarify (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• No: Their relationship is a significant piece of information regarding her and her most famous case. I believe the amount of coverage in media is reflected evenly with the amount of coverage on this article

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• No, that relationship with Wade is a major point in the news story that is pretty much the only reason she's notable and we're discussing her. Mention of it should not be minimized. And frankly, if WP:RECENTISM is justification for minimizing coverage of the relationship with Wade, then it's ALSO a reason to AfD this whole Fani Willis. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• No, The length of the paragraph is needed to convey the information. It would be impossible to trim without removing key information about the relation ship between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade. User73663828 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• No Two sentences is too short. Especially since it's one of the first things that comes to mind when people think about her. It doesn't have to be two paragraphs, but two sentences would be just trying to squash the controversy in laconic silence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benevolent Prawn (talk • contribs)
• Yes, it should be shortened; No, probably not to two sentences, it's currently too long but two sentences might be a bit too short. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• No It should be shortened, but placing a "two sentence" requirement is just overkill. Nemov (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• No: It's unsurprising that there is a near-unanimous rejection of this RfC as it doesn't follow the suggested process. The process clearly states "Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC." Basically, someone posted a concern about the text being too long, and with absolutely no discussion an editor immediately changed the text, and an RfC was subsequently created. In addition, there's no related Wikipedia policy detailing a valid reason for shortening this information. The proposed reasons for limiting to two sentences - including WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:UNDUE,WP:RECENTISM, and WP:BLP - were near-unanimously rejected in the previous RfC, so using them again for similar content is pointless. Mkstokes (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I see the above section that nobody responded to a few days ago... shouldn't we have engaged in a discussion before this RfC? Shouldn't the RfC have a proposal for what text to change it to? I could see trimming as useful, but I don't think we can trim it to two sentences. We could cut A hearing under McAfee was convened to decide whether to remove Willis from the racketeering case and lead the next sentence with After a hearing convened by McAfee, to trim a little bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed and summarized most of the quotes from that initial passage referenced in the section. There really isn't much left to take out. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to die on a hill of two sentences. If three is what is required to say what is required then I'd accept that, but one way or another the material needs a trim.

@Rhododendrites for example suggested "In January 2024, a past relationship between Willis and lead prosecutor Nathan Wade came to light which the defense argued constituted a conflict of interest. Judge McAfee did not find a conflict of interest under Georgia law but ruled that either Willis or Wade must leave the case to avoid the "appearance of impropriety".

As an alternative "During the trial it was revealed that Willis and lead prosecutor Nathan Wade had a prior personal relationship. Wade subsequently resigned from the case" TarnishedPath^talk 00:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @Muboshgu there should have been a detailed discussion before this RfC and a proposal for what text to change it to. The two suggestions in this discussion are inaccurate on the facts and obscure what really happened. I think the following details need to be provided:

1. On January 8, 2024, a defendant filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment and disqualify Fani Willis for a conflict of interest.
2. On February 15, 2024, Judge Scott McAfee held an evidentiary hearing where he subsequently ruled on March 15, 2024, that either Willis (along with her office) or Wade must leave the case, because their relationship brought about a "significant appearance of impropriety" that impacted the structure of the prosecution. However, he found that there was no "actual" conflict of interest under Georgia law and there was insufficient evidence to prove that Willis had benefited financially.
3. Based on the Judge's findings, Nathan Wade resigned from the case.

In my opinion, these are the important details and thus make it clear why two sentences cannot possibly provide enough context to accurately describe the situation to a reader. The first suggestion above leaves out too much detail and the second one is inaccurate within the first 3 words (i.e., all of this happened pre-trial), provides zero details about the judge's findings, and glosses over the fact that Wade was forced to resign. Mkstokes (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on the Survey responses so far, the two-sentence RfC is going to be rejected. Unfortunately, this RfC gives very little guidance regarding what should be posted as none of the suggested modifications include essential details of what happened. Therefore, I'm suggesting the following based on the cited articles:

On January 8, 2024, Michael Roman filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment and disqualify Fani Willis and her office from prosecuting the RICO case against him due to Willis having a financial conflict of interest related to her personal relationship with lead prosecutor Nathan Wade. On February 15, 2024, Judge Scott F. McAfee started an evidentiary hearing where he subsequently ruled on March 15, 2024, that either Willis - along with her office - or Wade must leave the case, because their relationship brought about a "significant appearance of impropriety." He also found no actual conflict of interest as there was insufficient evidence Willis had benefited financially. Based on the Judge's ruling, Nathan Wade resigned from the case a few hours later "...to move this case forward as quickly as possible."

That's 3 sentences with a healthy portion of the relevant details included. Honestly, several facts are missing and I had no problem with the extended paragraph. But in the spirit of gaining consensus I think this will work. Mkstokes (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional Discussion on text for Nathan Wade relationship

Since there was a consensus that this section can be trimmed, it was recommended that editors try to hash this out through the normal course of editing or start a new talk page section with concrete proposals for discussion. Here's my concrete proposal:

On January 8, 2024, Michael Roman filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment and disqualify Fani Willis and her office from prosecuting the RICO case against him due to Willis having a financial conflict of interest related to her personal relationship with lead prosecutor Nathan Wade. On February 15, 2024, Judge Scott F. McAfee started an evidentiary hearing where he subsequently ruled on March 15, 2024, that either Willis - along with her office - or Wade must leave the case, because their relationship brought about a "significant appearance of impropriety." He also found no actual conflict of interest as there was insufficient evidence Willis had benefited financially. Based on the Judge's ruling, Nathan Wade resigned from the case a few hours later "...to move this case forward as quickly as possible."

That's 3 sentences. Thoughts? Mkstokes (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'd already edited the section to except I'd substituted "Michael Roman" for "a defendant" purely because Mr Ruman had not been mentioned at all in the article and I felt it odd to drop his name all of a sudden unless there was prospect of his name being used again. I don't really mind if it stays as "a defendant" or is changed to "Michael Roman". TarnishedPath^talk 12:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)