Talk:Fani Willis

Is the motion against Willis sustained, dismissed, moot, or pending?

One paragraph in the wp article Georgia election racketeering prosecution present version states:

In May 2023, Georgia Republicans enacted a law that created a commission empowered to discipline or remove state prosecutors who were alleged to have violated their duties. As he signed the bill creating the commission, Governor Kemp said it would curb "far-left prosecutors" who are "making our communities less safe". Days after the Willis indictments, state senator Chad Dixon announced he would file a complaint against Willis when the commission commenced in October, alleging she had weaponized the justice system against political opponents with an "unabashed goal to become some sort of leftist celebrity". Hours after the commission became effective on October 1, eight Republican Georgia senators filed a complaint seeking to have Willis sanctioned for her alleged "improperly cherry-picked cases to further her personal political agenda".

Now, I personnally think that this was more motivated by politics than juridics. (I cannot access the AJC; but the description in the AP source does not yield much legal support for charges at Willis for being too diligent. On the contrary, that source describes the alleged purpose of the new law and commission to reprimand or remove prosecuters who are deemed too lax, especially if they consistently dismiss certain kinds of charges, e. g., all charges concerning marihuana or abortions. The new law obligues the prosecuters to consider all cases where they believe that they could get a conviction in court; which rather would make Willis' charges against Trump et al. mandatory rather than worth reprimands.) However, I have no law education; so my guesses are not very relevant.

The relevance is that this is a rather public complaint filing against a presently rather public person. I think that this merits a mention in the biography article—whether or not the republicans got their motion sustained. If the filing was summarily dismissed, or the new commission has not yet even considered it, then this also could be mentioned. So could the fact that Willis was one of the strongest critics of (the suggestion for) this new law, according to the AP source. IMHO, on the other hand, the incidence could not be completely ignored, unless the law has been changed or found unconstitutional, or the filing retracted, or some similar circumstances have made the whole thing to a nothing. JoergenB (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Nathan Wade

Should a mention of Nathan Wade be added to this article? Source: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/politics/nathan-wade-fani-willis-da-georgia-election-subversion-case/index.html 76.190.213.189 (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I think not, because this is a WP:BLP, with significant protections for the subject of the article, and the allegations about Nathan Wade are so far just that, allegations. If it turns out to be valid, it's a B.F.D. If it's not, then it's just an attempted smear by one of the defendants. As the article says, Pallavi Bailey, a spokesperson for Willis, told CNN that the office will respond to the allegations “through appropriate court filings.” – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I started a draft for Wade just in case this turns out to be a BFD: Draft:Nathan Wade (prosecutor). Thriley (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

How is a motion to disqualify the special prosecutor on the case not newsworthy? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's "newsworthy", but we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Time to roll this one out and update Fani Willis "personal life" with the reporting on the trips with Nathan wade? Reputable source here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fani-willis-nathan-wade-fulton-county-district-attorney-flights-documents/ Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

And it's not "a smear of defendant" it's an allegation of conflcit of interest of a prosecutor. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say "a smear of defendant", I said it could be "an attempted smear by one of the defendants". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This court case is the most high profile event Fani Willis has been involved in and the accusation related to her hire of Nathan Wade is now central to this case, having been reported widely in the media. As long as it is clear it is an allefation, this is relevant to BLP. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned in reliable sources like Washington Post, NYT, and ABC. Should be included.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As the judge in the case recently set a hearing on the matter, Ive inlcuded it in the article. DarrellWinkler (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The alleged issues are only news until the judge hears the arguments and rules on whether the allegations have validity and pertinence to the case, WP:FUTURE. Zefr (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The judge has now asked for Willis to respond. So we will wait for a story on her responding and then include it. This is a biased ignoring of news. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not "biased", it is protecting a WP:BLP from unproven claims. And we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I see I told you that already. That means that we don't rush to update based on every news report, we wait to determine the long-term significance. Which in this case, might be zero, if the judge rules it's not a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

These allegations/unproven claims might have a better chance of staying up on the page about the trial, and then only as a reference to the motion (without going into too salacious detail and/or making clear that no proof was offered). As for Willis's page, until harder proof is offered, the most I'd feel comfortable with is saying that a defendant's lawyer made an [as of yet] unsupported allegation about one of her special investigators. With a citation of a reliable source.

But even that might be a stretch. It'll be too much for some, definitely won't be enough for others. Paris1127 (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve added it to the trial page. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

and I removed it because it has no real source soibangla (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Original source from Washington Post now included Helpingtoclarify (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That's the article about the investigation, not the trial. And as for the trial page, the issue is moot as it's already there. Paris1127 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There are receipts... Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit based on the revelations of bank records backing the allegations up, I see you brought up "unproven claims" before the evidence of the credit card reports came out, but as the multitude of sources I cited show, RS are reporting this as substantiating trips between Willis and Wade. KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu

Per your request to discuss here, and in response to your last point on your talk page.

Your entire edit is dripping with bias. They "pledged to pursue" an investigation of the allegations

I would suggest reading the cited sources before accusing of bias. This is exactly in line with how RS present this, unless "pledge" is now a loaded term somehow? I can replace it with "said he would" if that's really such a major issue.

Per cited CBS News article: A Fulton County commissioner says he is now pursuing an investigation ... he would pursue a “full investigation”

Per cited ABC News source: would be "pursuing as full of an investigation as is permitted by Fulton County government."

Willis "sought to quash" the subpoena and accused Wade's wife.

This is even more bizarre. "Quash" a subpoena is a term used all the time. How is this biased? And again, she is accusing Wade's wife. That's how RS report it.

Per cited PBS Newshour article: Fani Willis is accusing the estranged wife of a special prosecutor she hired of trying to obstruct her criminal election-interference case ... seeking to quash the subpoena.

Per cited Politico article: Willis moved to quash the subpoena KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're taking the words directly from sources, that's an issue of close paraphrasing too. As I have said here and on this talk page, as others have said as well, all that we have here are the unproven allegations in court filings and Willis hasn't responded to them yet. This is a WP:BLP in a sensitive area and we are waiting for her written response and the coming court hearing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So you agree that when she responds in the court filing then this discussion is able to included? Just trying to nail this jello down a bit. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that when she submits a filing, and when the judge rules on it, we'll have more information that we can use to decide whether or not to include it, and what specifically to say. If anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So it's gone from too biased to too closely related to the sources? The "close paraphrasing" essentially consists of individual words, ie. pursue, quash, and accuse, all in different sentences. If these three words are such major issues, then do make suggestions on how you would reword.

The characterization that this whole story is played out in "unproven" court filings is not true. Firstly, these are not just court filings. RS report on Wade's lack of prosecutorial experience while being assigned the lead role by Willis in this case - per Washington Post, Politico, Associated Press, based on their analysis of Wade's career and typical procedure. They note the >$650,000 he has been paid, larger than Willi's own salary, doing a job that normally is done by civil servants, per aforementioned WaPo article based on county records. Furthermore, dumping everything into the categorization of "unproven filings" only reflects RS reporting pre-bank records release. Modern RS reporting characterizes this as evidence of non-work related trips with Wade and Willis. Furthermore, NYT reporting backs up a relationship between Willis and Wade based on an independent witness. Characterizing this as "unproven court filings" seems to evoke a standard that would require wiping the page of even mentioning the ongoing, as-of-yet unconvicted/unproven charges of election interference against Trump and his associates in GA. Modern RS reporting treats this as a serious development in Willis and her case and have developed extensive coverage into it and surrounding details. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Fani Willis has already "responded" to the allegations according to RS Newsweek in this story. It's time to get on with updating this in her bio. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK is not reliable

just sayin' is all soibangla (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

"case by case". In this case Newsweek has quote Willis and pointed out the did respond at church to the allegation. Seems quote clear she made the comment and it is indeed a response. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

not good enough for a BLP soibangla (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well theee are plenty of other sources out there too but we can wait to evaluate until she addresses in court (or events progress further).

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/fulton-da-defends-special-prosecutor-during-church-speech/HLHFIKVP4FHIJH4ANZYV7HKHP4/

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/fulton-county-da-fani-willis-defends-special-prosecutor/story?id=106367044

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/fani-willis-trump-2020-election-case-prosecutor-nathan-wade/ Helpingtoclarify (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not merely a matter of "what sources say". This is a matter of the subject of a contentious BLP being accused of wrongdoing and our need to treat the article small "c" conservatively. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

But clearly, there isn't a strict line enforced on no final court ruling = no mention allowed. Just take a look at the mention of Donald Trump and others being prosecuted in this very article prior to them being convicted. RS have gathered and reported multiple pieces of evidence about this. We even have mention of Willis targeting Burt Jones, who a judge has already ruled against Willis on due to a political COI. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Clearly not. Trump has 91 indictments against him. Willis has none. A judge has yet to rule on any COI with Wade. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

(And others) How many indictments does Burt Jones have from Fani Willis? I brought up Jones as an obvious counterpoint to the arguments you raised here about waiting for a judge's ruling. The judge in this case ruled fully for Jones, blocking Willis from prosecuting him. Yet he is still due for mention here and in his own article, because we have extensive sourcing from RS about him and the alt electors plan. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The WP:NEWSWEEK article in part says She didn't explicitly talk about the allegations, or deny them. ... While Roman's case hasn't yet presented evidence to support the allegations, Willis called herself "flawed and imperfect" during an emotional speech, adding that she had faced death threats and experienced "loneliness." She didn't specifically address the allegations yet, and we haven't seen Roman's evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

So if RS are now reporting that evidence has been demonstrated, you would be in support of inclusion then? The Newsweek article is old reporting. Up to date RS reporting affirm that evidence is now publicly available (ex from CBS: Until Friday's filing, no evidence of the alleged relationship had been made public.), and have gone to gather their own as well, ie. with NYT interviewing others supporting Willis-Wade relationship. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You do know that an indictment is UNPROVEN ALEGATIONS until it IS proven in a court of law, right?

there are LOADS of people who are indicted that are proven not guilty. YET there it is all over this article about Trump and others. Why the double standard on putting things like she HAS BEEN SUMMOND TO APPEAR BEFORE CONGRESS ON CHARGES OF MISUSE/MISAPPROPRIATION of FEDERAL GRANT MONEY? That is not UNPROVEN, it is FACT that she will appear. Will it be allowed to be put in her article when she takes the 5th over and over if that occurs? Seeing this is a "special" article and all. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Being "SUMMOND" [sic] to appear before Congress is not mandatory, as Jim Jordan himself showed us a few years ago. So, no, there is really not much importance that needs to be placed on now-chair Jordan's political grandstanding. Zaathras (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I really don't see a reason to not include. The issue has been mentioned on AP, ABC, CNN, WP, NYT, and Politico. A judge has set up a hearing for this. Simply says the allegations, that they have not been proven, her response, and judge decision.3Kingdoms (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've explained it. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and none of this is yet verified. If any of you want to, go start a discussion about this at WP:BLPN, where I expect other editors will confirm that we are not going to allude to Willis committing any wrongdoing without a judge saying so. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The plan is to report on what reliable sources are saying. This happens a lot on Wikipedia. Fani is a public figure accused of impropriety. This is fair game. Your opposition to this matter-of-fact editing is awkward. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

As advised, your best recourse is to take the issue to WP:BLPN. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

As mention above CBS and NYT have done their own reporting/findings that give credibility to the claim. It feels like an unreasonably high bar has been set for including this information. For people opposed to including, what level of verifiably would like to see before inclusion? I can understand not wanting a massive section given the early stages of this development, but a blanket opposition to even mentioning does not seem to be warranted. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm no longer opposed to ANY mention, but we can't just copy the claims over wholesale. Boil it down to a couple sentences at most, general language that the accusation was made and noting that it is currently just an accusation (leave the discussion of any evidence for Judge McAfee's courtroom) to which Willis has not yet officially responded (a speech at a church is not an official court document). As for sources, perhaps stick to Atlanta area outlets that understand the nuances of Georgia better than national ones, like the AJC or one of the local news TV affiliates, as long as it isn't just reupping something from the networks/wire services. Paris1127 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This Muboshgu person is single-handedly preventing any changes to be made. This is absolutely ridiculous. When was a consensus made to remove all mention of Nathan Wade? Who decided it was Muboshgu's responsibility to determine if something is relevant or not? Exzachary (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You can address me directly. I'm not the only person here objecting to this content, just the loudest. There needs to be consensus to include Nathan Wade, per WP:ONUS. The BLPN thread has fizzled out. We need an uninvolved administrator. I can recommend some, or you can find your own if you don't trust who I'd reach out to. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

No one took you up on the offer to find an administrator, which seems like the correct course of action at this point. For now this topically is probably a better fit for the page about the trial (not the investigation), but this page could probably use at least a blurb about the motion to disqualify due to allegations of... well, that can be discussed. An allegation of ethical violations? Paris1127 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Why exactly would we need an administration to weigh in here when there is no dispute of this violating any sort of Wikipedia rule? As I already pointed out, she’s been accused of allegedly committing an ethical/legal violation and this should be put in the page as such. There is no a state board established to investigate this and articles of impeachment have also been introduced against her based on this. Again, this seems like censoring our information through Wikilawyering.

Friedbyrd (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The open BLP/N thread is here. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-senate-fani-willis-nathan-wade-misconduct-allegations-vote

The Georgia state senate has approved a special committee to investigate allegations. She is an elected public official who is now under investigation for alleged misconduct and this should be included in the article as so. This is just seeming like censoring negative press out of the article through wikilawyering

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

BLP concerns are not "wikilawyering". WP:BLPCRIME: Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Including this information does not violate any BLPCRIME rules though. Claiming that we need to reach consensus as per WP:ONUS about a public official who is now under investigation for alleged wrong doing is wikilawyering. Theres no rule that says you can only include information about a public figure under investigation of a crime until a trail has concluded, you simply included things like "alleged" to indicate that this person is innocent until proven otherwise. No one is saying that she is convicted of anything, you are simply misunderstanding whats going on here.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no standard that says there needs to be a conviction in order for this to be included. Many examples of that, Including up to a former president who was treated that way in Wikipedia. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Accusations of wrongdoing do not need to be criminal accusations to be a BLP issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no BLP rule that is violated by including this information. She’s now under a state legislature investigation and has had articles of impeachment introduced against her based on these allegations. There is no real excuse to censor this information from the article.

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Fani_Willis#Early_life

That long quote look unnecessary. Any objections to removing it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No, but maybe there's a piece or two of it we should keep incorporated. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"My name is actually Fani (fah-nee), Taifa is my middle name, and my last name is Willis. So, my father was a Black Panther," That is in the article already, the rest I'm fine with dropping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"NOTNEWS"/Conflict of Interest

As WP: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."

The things it list not to include are original or self reporting, routine updating of news topics, or fickle celebrity gossip. The issue concerning Fanis conflict of interest issue is none of these. Its cited sources, and its not routine news, but reporting concerning a public figure being investigated for alleged wrong doings, not just personal issues of hers. There is no reason not to include this information in the article.

As with any living public figure, the issues of this case should keep being reported as its updated while specifically mentioning that these are are alleged crimes or misconduct until proven otherwise.

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

And that's why it's covered at Georgia election racketeering prosecution. This article, though, is a BLP, and splitting off into a separate talk section isn't helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Still scratching my head how these multiple allegations are all over the press and the topic is totally absent on her bio. They no longer just relate to the Georgia racketeering case. This appears more widespread and worthy of inclusion in bio.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/fani-willis-da-charged-trump-georgia-subpoenaed-house-gop-rcna136683?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&taid=65bcfc19e0892a00018488f2&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Fired whistleblower allegation now as well.

https://gazette.com/news/wex/fani-willis-fired-employee-who-raised-misuse-of-funds-concerns-report/article_510686be-faf4-5d4f-940a-7052b7e9bdc2.html Helpingtoclarify (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

She’s now also been subpoenaed by a house judiciary committee over this.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/politics/gop-committee-subpoena-fani-willis/index.html

The fact that this is still being censored from her page is a pathetic farce.

Friedbyrd (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

More coverage / broad sourcing

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/fani-willis-stakes-too-high.html

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/politics/fani-willis-not-recuse-affair-allegations-trump-election-case-georgia/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/fani-willis-da-charged-trump-georgia-subpoenaed-house-gop-rcna136683

CNN calls her "embattled". The beeadth of allegations now go beyond the racketeering trial. I'm not sure how there isn't consensus here. I only seeoushback from @Muboshgu who is holding up edits, waiting for something... Helpingtoclarify (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Literally nothing has changed and you (plural) need to understand the difference between news and encyclopedic content. Again, take it to WP:BLP/N or find some uninvolved admins to come here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Helpingtoclarify. The consensus seems to be to include something on this. DarrellWinkler (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Only among the people commenting. I wish some of the people liking my comments here would chime in. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} Needed here. This topic has advanced significantly with wide reporting of various investigations and allegations underway around the subject. Some inclusion is warranted. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, we have to add something now. Willis's response to the motion to DQ confirms there's a relationship (but it began after Wade's hiring). Paris1127 (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Great. This is what I was waiting for. We need RS that cover it, which I assume will come shortly. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Take your pick. Local:

The AJC: https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-fulton-special-prosecutor-admits-personal-relationship-with-da-in-trump-case/YOPP3SAOJVHUDESW3RR6UWTB2E/

WSB-TV (ABC): https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/fulton-da-dani-willis-admits-relationship-with-special-prosecutor-court-response/6EO63J5IEBGQ7CIICWSEF5MH3A/

WXIA-TV (NBC): https://www.11alive.com/article/news/special-reports/ga-trump-investigation/fani-willis-nathan-wade-admit-to-personal-relationship-say-shouldnt-be-dismissed-from-trump-case/85-43e25054-3f8f-4df7-a7e6-98f68b07d83b

WABE-TV (PBS): https://www.wabe.org/fulton-d-a-fani-willis-calls-misconduct-allegations-meritless/

National:

ABC: https://abcnews.go.com/US/da-fani-willis-rebuts-accusations-misconduct-georgia-trump/story?id=106904657

CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fani-willis-filing-confirms-romantic-relationship-denies-conflict/

NBC: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/fulton-county-da-fani-willis-acknowledges-personal-relationship-specia-rcna136871

Paris1127 (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Great. I have no further objection to stating that she and Wade are in a relationship. I will object if anyone says she has an impermissible conflict of interest as that isn't determined. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Washington Post and CBS News have now reported that Willis admitted to a relationship with Nathan Wade in court filings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/02/fani-willis-response-accusations/, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fani-willis-filing-confirms-romantic-relationship-denies-conflict/ We have ample reliable sources on this. It's bizarre that a single admin is running WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the broad consensus of other editors to include relevant and germane biographical information from reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu has been the most particular about how this topic is treated. It's now clear it needs coverage. For efficiency it makes the most sense for them to uodate, to save them just reverting whatever another puts in. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added a neutrally written sentence to say that she is dating Nathan Wade. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No one cares that shes dating Nathan Wade in itself, the issue is that she potentially violated ethical and legal codes by doing so and this has resulted in a senate body being formed to investigate it, being subpoenaed by a house judiciary committee, and has had articles of impeachment introduced against her. This is way more than just gossip.

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be bizarre, if that was what was happening. You can read the whole talk page and see what the issues I cited were. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I did read the whole talk page (because I came here to find neutral information about the conflict of interest allegations and was surprised to find none, so I looked into the talk page), and it seems clear that you are being obstreperous about adding well-sourced material that is well within the standards of BLP. I won't speculate on motivations but the behavior is egregious enough that it seemed worth weighing in, and it's actively making this page non-informative to readers seeking neutral, factual information about a person in the public eye. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If you did not read the whole talk page, you do not have all the information to make a judgment on my behavior, let alone my motivations, which I have described at length. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I support Muboshgu's position to withhold further comment about the prosecution until the Superior Court judge for the case, Scott MacAfee, has the 15 February hearing, then later rules. Until the judicial ruling, the allegations of Willis' impropriety are WP:HEARSAY having no place in a BLP article. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or newspaper.

Muboshgu is an experienced admin with editing and oversight of hundreds of BLP articles. Trust the admin, the experience, and the BLP process. Zefr (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This isnt hearsay though, this is actual events that is being reported in multiple sources. Including this info would also not violate any BLP rule. No one is saying that she is guilty of anything, but she is being investigated and this is more than just "blog" posting. In either case, this info would be much more relevant than that. This looks like blatant "censor through wikilawyering" to me.

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

We know Willis fired a whistleblower for challenging her on her misappropriation of Federal Grant Funds [1]https://nypost.com/2024/01/31/news/trump-prosecutor-under-probe-for-misuse-of-taxpayer-funds-fired-worker-who-exposed-federal-grant-abuse-report/

We know she has been Subpoenaed by congress for refusing to supply unredacted records going back to 2020, [2]https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/politics/gop-committee-subpoena-fani-willis/index.html We know that there is audio recording of her being warned about misuse of Federal Grant money, [3]https://thehill.com/video/leaked-audio-shows-fani-willis-was-warned-about-misuse-of-campaign-funds-whistleblower-fired-rising/9389287/ 2603:8080:3E00:671:1D9B:A302:56D:E744 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

There are other allegations against her being investigate by everyone from a US house committee to the GA legislature. This is not hearsay. After re-reading hearsay guidelines, the major concern would be using opinion pieces as sources. The body of sources citing multiple investigations underway is broad and not dominated by opinion pieces. I don’t see how the argument @Zefr proposes makes any sense, especially with these multiple allegations (which all agree need to be described as “allegations”). Helpingtoclarify (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not hearsay that there are allegations, but the allegations at this point are hearsay. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu the allegations are not based on hearsay. As has already been pointed out, there are recordings and documents. You might call whistleblowers “hearsay” but since they are being investigated by credible parties, that is a stretch.

Part of the burden of requiring RS is to ensure allegations are credible enough that they are not based on hearsay. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Your focused on the wrong thing. Allegations of wrongdoing are hearsay. Documents that prove they've gone on vacation together are at this point irrelevant to us. We'll see what the judge says. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I've read the whole talk page, and I've done my bit in responding to the various points you've made. In return I've gotten mischaracterizations and misrepresentations of what I said/edited, along with pivoting to new ad hoc justifications. In the earlier talk section, One of the first points you raised was my edit "dripping with bias". I took the time to respond point by point to every single word you alleged indicated bias. You then 180'ed around to "close paraphrasing" of the sources I cited and never bothered to defend your claims of bias. I then addressed the "close paraphrasing" of those singular words and the other point you brought up alleging that there were only "court filings". I supplied multiple RS conducting their own analyses of the issue, such as reviewing county records and a witness interview. You ignored that and then went on the BLPN page to again misrepresent my edit as only talking about court filings. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

All of this pain in the ass could have been avoided if editors had more patience and develop a better understanding of BLP. What's past is past. Moving forwards, I think we're good at this point with what's in the article, what I added and then you revised. Is there anything else that should be here that isn't? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

No WE are not. There is so much factual information in the left wing "reliable sources" about her that is being refused to put in this article. Perhaps I should go to articles on conservatives that we KNOW are lies, like 3 years of Russia, Russia, Russia, that has been proved by special council to be false, but it was all over the article on Trump who is not even conservative but a moderate, but that is how far over the Overton Window has moved on this site.

The question is why does this site allow so much hijacking on it's articles? 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Again with this "hijacking" comment. You don't understand the most basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, like that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and BLP violations are a top example of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Look, your comments prove your bias, and since you will not allow any of her controversies to be added to the article, that would be what hijacking an article by those with enhanced editing and banning privileges would be, would it not? Again from YOUR comments, about Jim Jordan, and your stating you will not allow certain topics to be put into this article, there is a bias showing. PLEASE, AGAIN, bring in an unbiased arbitrator. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"Is there anything else that should be here that isnt?"

Yes, I would say that it should be mentioned that articles of impeachment have been introduced against her and that the house judiciary committee has subpoenaed her.

Friedbyrd (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it should be added, under a "Controversies" heading. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

A WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION would violate WP:NPOV here based on the BLP violations that would fill it up. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Source for articles of impeachment? I'm aware of Jim Jordan's subpoena (rich, considering he defied a Jan 6 committee subpoena), but my understanding is he has no jurisdiction here so it's just a stunt. I.e., WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"(rich, considering he defied a Jan 6 committee subpoena)" AND THERE IT IS! Now we all know why this article is being hijacked! Is that bias that you are displaying in your qualifying statement on Jim Jordan? Perhaps you should pull yourself away from this article because you are displaying POV in what you are allowing to be placed in it.

You had offered to bring an arbitrator into this discussion, I think this in where that arbitrator should be introduced, but should be a fair arbitrator. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Lol. Again with your personal attacks. I should be striking that. Jordan's subpoena is a political stunt, period. It is not WP:DUE. You are not listening and I'm growing bored of this. This has been discussed at BLPN. Go to WP:DR if you want. Or WP:AN/I. I've been vindicated in approaching this issue with patience, I wish the rest of you can get up to speed on policy and not try to push hearsay and unconfirmed allegations in a WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Your "understanding" of this or your personal feelings about Jim Jordan are irrelevant here, why would you bring either of those up?

Friedbyrd (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I am pointing out the hypocrisy in Jordan's actions regarding subpoenas and how little weight they can actually carry, outside of the headline of "Jordan issues subpoena". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, your opinion of Jordan doesnt really matter to the issue being discussed. In fact, thats the issue here.

Friedbyrd (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

My opinion doesn't matter, but the weight of a subpoena he issues is relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Everything I have suggested as an edit has always fallen well within the bounds of BLP, see one of the actual textbook examples given in WP:BLPPUBLIC: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.

WRT to the current edit, do the RS reporting on this frame this as just Fani Willis happening to be in a relationship, which just so happened to be revealed in some incidental court filing in February 2024? There should single line at least about the extensive RS reporting on A: The COI/improper relationship dispute that is at the heart of this whole issue and B: Willis's denial of them.

Suggested edit, which should be moved to prosecution section, replace in personal life with a single line to the effect of "Willis is in a relationship with Wade."

A February 2024 court filing for the Georgia election racketeering prosecution revealed that Willis was in a personal relationship with Nathan Wade – the lawyer whom Willis appointed in November 2021 to lead the prosecution – according to an affidavit by Wade. According to the filing, they began their relationship in 2022. The filing was made in response to an allegation of a conflict of interest and improper romantic relationship from a defendant in the racketeering case, which Willis has denied. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

When this was all based on Michael Roman's filing, it was mere unconfirmed allegation. Now that we have Willis' court filing, it's way easier to add something about this that's BLP compliant. This above proposed paragraph is fully compliant by my reading. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that Muboshgu said you were biased? I said that about them and they took my comment down as disparaging an editor. That is weird. So an administrator can call you what they refuse to be called. I can't remember what that is called but it is called something. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I said the edit they made was biased. You're accusing me of "hijacking" pages, which is a personal attack that you should strike. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack, it is an observation. Why don't you read through all of your posts in taking down factual information about Ms Willis that have reliable sourced articles quoted. Then ask yourself if you would be as diligent of taking down the same sourcing on say, Trump? You refuse to allow controversial info that is sourced into this article, what would you call that? AND why are you the arbiter of all things biased, and not come here to see what consensus is? 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a personal attack. WP:Focus on content, not on contributors. I object to violating WP:BLP. The same care is taken on Trump's article. The editors of WP:BLPN are the arbiters, not me, and they clearly agree with my position here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is my bringing up your biased actions a personal attack and your saying the same thing about another editor NOT a personal attack? Again, from your statement on Jordon, please bring an unbiased arbitrator into this and please step away from taking down edits. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

My bias is to WP:BLP. Personal attacks are removed as a matter of policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, if she investigates a conservative and the same reliable sources reports on that, those investigations can be added to the conservative's article, BUT, it there are reliable sources on investigations into her misdeeds, they cannot be added to her article? Is that what we have determined here? 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're trying to compare indictments under the RICO statute as well as other felonies relating to the alleged attempt to overturn a legal election to who paid for airfare and lodgings for a vacation between two consenting adults who are dating and working together, I think that illustrates the problem we're still having here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that is NOT what I am comparing, I am comparing her on tape being told that what she was doing with federal funds was misappropriation, and then firing that whistleblower, and NOW is subpoenaed to sit before congress to explain that misappropriation. Thanks for asking before you took my comment down. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, such allegations require WP:RS. That allegation comes from the Washington Free Beacon, which is not a RS. See WP:RSP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has subpoenaed District Attorney Fani Willis of Fulton County, Georgia, demanding documents from her office following allegations that Willis fired a whistleblower who tried to stop a top campaign aide from misusing federal funds." from first paragraph of NBC News article, is NBC News now not a RS? [4]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/fani-willis-da-charged-trump-georgia-subpoenaed-house-gop-rcna136683 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh it is. It is verifiable that he subpoenad Willis, but is it WP:DUE in this WP:BLP given the context? That's the question. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

YES it is. Please bring in an Unbiased Arbitrator. 4th request. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If I bring in an arbitrator, I fear you'll claim I colluded with them when they tell you I'm right. You find one. WP:ANI is one place you could go. Or WP:DR, or Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active.

Hypothetically, if the subpoena by Jordan belongs in this article, then Willis' response to it does as well per WP:BALANCE. Willis said "These false allegations are included in baseless litigation filed by a holdover employee from the prior administration who was terminated for cause. The courts that have ruled found no merit in these claims. We expect the same result in any pending litigation." If she is correct, then this false allegation is a BLP violation and UNDUE. If the allegation is correct, then it would likely belong in her article. But, we won't know for sure one way or the other for a little while. And so, in situations like this, we defer to the cautious approach, which is excluding the content for the time being. Any arbiter of this situation will tell you that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That's related to a way earlier thing from 2021, where a whistleblower told Willis that another employee was planning to splurge funding on "macbooks and swag" and got fired shortly after. That's not related to the edits in dispute here. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I read through that fairly quickly and conflated the two as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been an interesting conversation to watch. There seems to be a clear consensus but little action. The group keeps asking for a unbiased arbitrator, which of course you can do, but I think what's really needed here is an RfCand I'm surprised that an experienced editor and administrator like @Muboshgu has not suggested it. It would call out a potential consensus in the discussion. Of the signed in and unsigned users, @DarrellWinkler, @Dclemens1971, @Friedbyrd, @Helpingtoclarify, @KiharaNoukan, and an unknown user seem to be asking for significant changes (that's potentially 6). @Muboshgu, @Paris1127, and @Zefr seem to be in conflict with this (that's potentially 3). As for @Muboshgu's feedback, he's following the path set out by the Wikipedia community. Please remember, that despite it striving to be an online encyclopedia, there is good cause to understand why Wikipedia is not so great WP:NOTSOGREAT and editors need to lower their expectations about the need to place accurate, up-to-date, relevant, newsworthy, and verifiable information on Wikipedia pages, especially WP:BLP. This is not a personal attack. Rather it is a realization that Wikipedia's five pillars do not include presenting "the truth" or "the best view." So even if a court or legal document reaches a clear conclusion, it is only relevant if a reliable source says it's relevant. Thus, for example, if Congress issues a subpoena, it only matters if the subpoena was issued by a congressman that's a reliable source. A Jim Jordan subpoena does not carry the same weight of a Charles Schumer subpoena. This is not bias, it's good faith and a neutral point of view. 🤫

I cannot create the RfC but I'd like to suggest that someone else do it. Mkstokes (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You mean for Nathan Wade's COI/improper relationship allegation or for the House subpoena on misused federal funds? I think there is consensus already on including Willis/Wade, which I added into the article according to my above proposal. That issue is what this and prior sections are meant to be about.

If there is a dispute on inclusion of misused federal funds/Amanda Timpson's whistleblowing/firing, that belongs in another section, most if not all of the conversation here about that conflates it with Willis/Wade, which is completely unrelated. The whistleblowing and misuse of funds issue dates back to 2021, with Timpson's firing and lawsuit over firing in 2022. The House Judiciary investigation was started in 2023. Audio was released in 2024, prompting the latest House Subpoena. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"A Jim Jordan subpoena does not carry the same weight of a Charles Schumer subpoena." Huh? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that consensus isn't determined by a tally of support vs. oppose votes. It's determined by the strength of argument, and many have commented at WP:BLPN#Fani Willis and not here on this talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu is right. Even if everyone on this thread says the additional content needs to be added, just because the 8 editors want to make it so, if a single person has a better argument, that should be considered the consensus and not the 8 over the 1. That is the way Wikipedia determines consensus and you need to understand that. It's how Wikipedia makes sure that all are involved, even if only one person determines what gets published. Mkstokes (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"A Jim Jordan subpoena does not carry the same weight of a Charles Schumer subpoena"

Lol how is this not political bias? Friedbyrd (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

the inclusion by KiharaNoukan

This has already been fully addressed in the previous thread. SPECIFICO talk 12:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

does not address when they began a relationship and suggests it may have been a condition of employment KiharaNoukan soibangla (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Are we seeing the same edits? There's nothing about "condition of employment" and both my edits say appointed, ie. past tense. The "when" is listed as 2022, which was there prior to my edit. First diff: In 2022, Willis began dating Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor who she appointed to lead the Georgia election interference prosecution. Second diff, where I added another past participle: In 2022, Willis began dating Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor who she had appointed to lead the Georgia election interference prosecution Per cited CNN article: Willis appointed Wade special prosecutor in 2021. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC) I perceive insinuation by omission of context that does not belong in a BLP soibangla (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC) If someone was appointed already, that would insinuate that it would not be a "condition" of something that was beginning afterwards. Ex: "I began to pet my dog, who I had taken for a walk." I cannot condition the walk on my petting the dog, since I had already taken it for a walk. I put another edit to show the appointment year and attribute Willis's statement of when relationship started. If this isn't enough, I'm not sure how much more it can be clear the temporal relationship can be between a relationship beginning in 2022 and an appointment in 2021. If anything, the only omissions that were there were the ones that would otherwise insinuate what you claim. ie. the disputed start date of the relationship, which was represented in wikivoice. Per AJC: Her filing infers that Willis’ and Wade’s personal relationship began in 2019, two years before he was appointed special prosecutor. I attributed Willis's statement on start date to remedy this omission. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC) "I began to pet my dog" is quite a weird analogy that inclines me to stop reading right there. That's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Amanda Timpson/Misuse Federal Funds/House Judiciary Subpoena

Creating this because discussion in the prior section is conflating this with the Nathan Wade/Fani Willis relationship issue. @Magnolia677 I reverted your recent edit because it linked the House GOP subpoena to the COI/relationship issue based on a Forbes article that is talking about a seperate subpoena for the COI/relationship issue. This is the Forbes article you are looking for.

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. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

https://thehill.com/video/leaked-audio-shows-fani-willis-was-warned-about-misuse-of-campaign-funds-whistleblower-fired-rising/9389287/

Audio recording of Amanda Timpson confronting Willis about potential misuse of funds from Nov 19, 2021. After this, Amanda was fired. This is recent subpoena is not simply "political grandstanding" as clearly biased people are claiming.

Friedbyrd (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Careful there. WP:Focus on content, not on contributors. If you can't assume good faith, you shouldn't be here.

There is no indication that Willis has used federal funds, or that Jordan has any jurisdiction over a state court matter.[5] That would mean that he is grandstanding. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"That would mean that he is grandstanding" No it doesnt, youre just saying that because of your own personal bias against Jordan which is irrelevant.

We have audio of Amanda confronting Willis about this, shes fired 2 months later and then sues her for retaliation. This is then picked up by Jordan which is why Willis has recently been subpoenaed. Youre trying to imply this narrative that Jordan is just grandstanding, but there clearly is more to it than just that.

Again, no one is saying that we should say that she has done these things, but that she is being investigated and subpoenaed about ALLEGEDLY doing them, which would dont violate any BLP rule wikipedia has.

Friedbyrd (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I just read the reliable source that you cited and I don't see where it says that Jim Jordan is grandstanding. Is your designation of grandstanding original research? As for jurisdiction, the Congress absolutely have it because as you say so yourself, the use of federal funds are in question. The House of Representative is the starting point for all government spending, so the House has oversite in this case, period. Mkstokes (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

We weigh whether or not to include items based on their merit. That Congress has no jurisdiction over the Fulton County D.A. is a simple fact. The allegations that federal funds were misused is at best unclear. According to AJC, A federal judge dismissed one Timpson lawsuit against Willis in November. But another lawsuit is pending in Fulton County Superior Court. I think Jordan is grandstanding, and that his subpoena lacks WP:WEIGHT. I'm not suggesting adding that to the article, that would be my OR. I'd need to see more on why the judge dismissed a suit in November and what happens to the pending one. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay @Muboshgu, I see the problem and I've experienced this before. Even the most advanced of editors misread the WP:WEIGHT policy. As to Jim Jordan's subpoena of Fani Willis to "hand over records, including documents and any communication, related to receiving or using federal funding since Sept. 1, 2020" that is not a "viewpoint" as mentioned in WP:WEIGHT. Rather that is a statement of fact. There is no question that the subpoena exists AND that it is a legally binding subpoena that carries with it a potential charge of obstruction if there's no response. As I said before, there is no question that Congress has oversight over the use of federal funds. They are exercising that oversight by asking the recipient of those funds to provide documentation on how those funds were used. Jim Jordan is not asking for or implying "jurisdiction over a state court matter" as you suggest. That is a red herring. The U.S. Constitution gives the House what's called the "power of the purse." 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 you, this viewpoint has been noted prominently by almost all reliable sources. In fact, I have yet to see you show that a single reliable source has not referenced to the potential misuse of the federal grant or that it's not at issue. 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) I don't see how you've made your case that:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

In fact, you haven't made a case at all. Rather you've just stated that "We weigh whether or not to include items based on their merit." The word "merit" doesn't even exist on the WP:WEIGHT policy page! Rather, it says "...these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective." When you get a chance, please provide references in the WP:WEIGHT policy that discuss the merits of a viewpoint to counter my argument. Mkstokes (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

As to the dismissed case that you reference above, I see you expressed a need to know why the case was dismissed. Fani Willis says the case was dismissed because "The courts that have ruled found no merit in these claims." (see AJC Feb 2, 2024) That is demonstrably false, and a D.A. should know better than to make a statement about judicial rulings that can easily be validated. The court did not rule on the merits of the claims. Rather, "Judge Ray ruled that this specific case should be litigated in state court as opposed to federal court." (see AJC Dec 1, 2023) Furthermore, the court said that the case against Willis was dismissed because Willis can't be sued in her individual capacity as a D.A. Timpson will be refiling the case in state court. Mkstokes (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. All this being said, theres no reason not to include a segment about this whole misuse of funds controversy and mention that she has been subpoenaed.

Friedbyrd (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason to not include a "misuse of funds controversy" is that we do not know that funds were misused. What we know is that Timpson alleges that funds were misused. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god, I don’t know how many times I have repeated specifically to you that we should make sure to include that these are all allegations until proven otherwise. Every excuse you have made so far has been refuted and it’s apparent to me that you are not able to fairly moderate this page.

Again, include that a whistleblower has ALLEGED misuse of federal funds and that Fani is being subpoenaed by Congress and being sued by the whistleblower for retaliation. All of these are objects facts that meet the threshold of WEIGHT and do not violate any BLP rule. Once this has all been investigated and she has found to be either guilty or innocent, then we can update the page as such.

Friedbyrd (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

seems news will be coming out tomorrow that Ms Willis has been dodging a subpoena and she was served by US Marshals today 2.9.2024. 2603:8080:3EF0:68F0:ED3D:32ED:A60C:C87D (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus that there is a whistleblower. Willis says it's a disgruntled former employee fired with cause. We don't know who's right. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of allegations that are widely reported be RS and have weight. @Muboshgu, having the allegations proved in court is not the bar. This seems more the case of applying dual standards has on the political orientation of the BLP. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a process where we can request that someone else take over the arbitration powers of this page? Its been a few days since we have clearly reached consensus through the proper process of clearly understanding the various rules of wikipedia and no change has been made to the page. The discussion is completed and Muboshgu has just used circular logic without any follow up.

Friedbyrd (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There is still an open discussion at WP:BLPN#Fani Willis. You (and some others on this page) just don't like the consensus that has clearly formed there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Its the exact opposite though. We have reached a consensus and you ignored it, just as you have ignored the previous post of yours I replied to where you once again used circular logic pointing out that these are allegations, which doesnt violate any BLP rule. Consensus is not based on popularity or "ranking" of any kind.

Friedbyrd (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You say I ignore your consensus, I say you ignore WP:BLP considerations and so do the editors on BLPN. This is why this talk page has gotten circular. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Part of the MO around keeping inconvenient realities out of these pages is to tie them up in circularity… Helpingtoclarify (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I say you ignore consensus because the talk page you refenced doesn't even discuss the topic of the whole misuse of funds issue with the last post being from Feb 2. You fought tooth and nail on the issue of her relationship which you were ultimately wrong about and now you are doing the same thing with this issue. Again, we have reached a consensus on the issue here. It meets all the requirements of WEIGHT and does not violate any BLP restrictions, we just need to make sure to include that these are all allegations until proven otherwise.

The talk page isnt going circular, you are the only one here resorting to circular logic and you have ignore Mkstokes in depth post.

Friedbyrd (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion at BLP:Fani Willis is not related to the inclusion of the mid appropriation of funds matter… Helpingtoclarify (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You want a discussion that focuses on the appropriation allegations? Start an WP:RFC. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll start the RFC actually. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC: alleged misuse of funds

Copied above from KiharaNoukan[6] 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)

• 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)

• 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.[7][8] 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.[9] This line of inquiry mirrored a similar House Judiciary probe into Alvin Bragg's investigation of Trump's business records.[10][11] Willis has described the inquiry as unconstitutional interference into a state case.[12][13] 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)
• 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)

---

• 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)

Trump To Attend Prosecutors Hearing On Their Misconduct

This information SHOULD be in the article. The person that she is Prosecuting is going to attend her hearing on her misconduct. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/12/fani-willis-hearing-trump-georgia-case/ 2603:8080:3EF0:68F0:3D5A:544D:CBA6:2A04 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)