| Content dispute, no action taken. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Malerooster[edit]
Standard Discretionary Sanctions as applied under ARBPOL2. Specifically, that the user be placed under a revert restriction.
Alerted here [1] on 5 September 2016.
If you can't give a reason to revert something, it's edit warring if you go ahead and do it anyway. Given that that article is largely about a Fox News controversy involving Fake News, it's logical to include See Alsos to Fox News controversies and Fake news. I don't understand why Malerooster doesn't like it. Saying that they don't like is not enough, see WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Geogene (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malerooster&diff=781591280&oldid=774127010
Discussion concerning Malerooster[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Malerooster[edit]Statement by JFG[edit]This is a frivolous complaint. After a revert, the onus is on the inserting editor to defend their edit, however Geogene immediately turned around asking Malerooster to justify his revert, and then demanding more justification as he was not satisfied with the explanation provided. Another editor, Stevietheman, also reverted one of the "see also" items independently,[2] so clearly more discussion is required. I would close this with no action and enjoining both editors to get consensus one way or another: if they can't agree, they should seek input from other editors. — JFG talk 07:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Malerooster[edit]
|
| Snooganssnoogans is banned from mass editing in the area of American Politics post-1932 for an indefinite period of time. This means adding (more or less) the same material to more than two articles. He is free to use the talk page of any article to request edits if he feels more articles should have the material. He may appeal at WP:AE after one year and every six months after that if the first appeal is unsuccessful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Snooganssnoogans[edit]
BLUF: Snooganssnoogans edits almost exclusively to add negative material to Conservative articles or to attack conservative viewpoints in political topics. In March 2017, Snooganssnoogans began by editing votes on issues the he finds "interesting" to articles of politicians. He seems to be trying to shame them for their votes ([3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]). This led to the first discussion. Then, Snooganssnoogans started adding material en masse to the leads of articles regarding political positions that they personally find unsavory to articles of Republican politicans ([18][19][20][21][22][23]). This led to the first ANI case where Snooganssnoogans was warned about WP:UNDUE and how it affects WP:NPOV in articles. Particularly, that WP:LEAD prohibits adding undue material in the lead. In May 2017, Snooganssnoogans again made a mass addition of material to 34 Republican articles (Curbelo -> Trott) in 29 minutes which means he spent 51 seconds on each edit. The second sentence of the material included mention that it "allows insurers to charge the elderly up to five times as much as the young". This material is unsourced at best, WP:SNYTH or WP:OR at worst. It's also WP:UNDUE in a BLP and belongs in the article about the bill, instead ([24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]). Later in May, he again added WP:UNDUE material to BLPs which were describes by User:Drmies as WP:SYNTH. ([63][64][65][66]). This led to the discussion on Drmies talk page. Also in May, added additional WP:UNDUE material to tie politicans to Trump. These four edits were made in 6 minutes with different sources which appears to support the perception that Snooganssnoogans searched for sources that supported what they wanted to say. This is generally called cherry picking. ([67][68][69][70][71][72]) Finally, I reviewed Snooganssnoogans's last 400 edits. Of those 400, 65 out of 67 BLPs edited were politicians. 60 out of those 65 were conservatives. And each edit to a conservative article was to add negative information to the article (a cursory look by anyone is welcome). Additionally, Snooganssnoogans seems particularly interested in politicians that are from states that are advantageous to win in a Presidential election. He particularly favors New York, California, and Florida.
And then two days ago, he had an edit summary removed for making a BLP violation in an edit summary [73]. Despite this, very very recently, he has tried to make a couple edits that have the appearance of neutrality. I believe these are deceptive because the issue was heading to WP:AE soon([74][75]). Often when these issues are brought up, Snooganssnoogans quickly reverts but the behavior only stops long enough for folks to stop watching (as demonstrated above). The real issue here isn't WP:V or WP:RS. Snooganssnoogans's edits are often well cited. The problem is that this editor is singularly interested in adding negative information to conservative BLPs and conservative articles. Often ignoring WP:UNDUE in the process which results in a slanted article. But their efforts to singularly trash Conservative articles also results in a slanted topic area as well - for which we don't have a policy about but perhaps should.
Discussion concerning Snooganssnoogans[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Snooganssnoogans[edit]The claim that I edit almost exclusively on Conservative articles or political topics is false. I edit extensively on pages on history and social science. In the last month, I've for instance added at least 30 studies to articles. I do edit a lot on the pages of political figures but not exclusively. TParis's description of the March 2017 discussion is inaccurate. I did not add content to "shame" Republican politicians or issues that I considered "unsavoury". I added political positions that were easy to find to those articles, and thus could be sourced and added. So usually the positions on issues such as abortion, healthcare, same-sex marriage, and then on issues that had extensive and recent RS coverage. What I did wrong in that ANI discussion is that I added political positions to ledes, which is something I apologized for and self-reverted upon hearing complaints. I explain my erroneous reasoning here in the paragraph that starts with “I understand the concern and will comply“[76]). So, I apologized for adding political positions to ledes and haven’t added any such content to the ledes of any congressperson since. As for my additions of AHCA content to congresspeople's articles: I added congresspeople’s votes on the May 2017 version of the American Health Care Act, as I believed there was encyclopaedic value in adding those votes to Wikipedia (the extent of RS coverage for each individual congressperson on this issue substantiates that it was notable). Instead of just saying, “congressperson voted for the May 2017 version of AHCA”, I wrote “congressperson voted for the May 2017 version of AHCA. That version of the American Health Care Act would allow insurers to charge people significantly more if they have pre-existing conditions, and allows insurers to charge the elderly up to five times as much as the young.” The first part of that sentence was in the NYT source (so both sourced and notable), but the second part was not. As I explained in a discussion on the American Politics board, I mixed up the NYT source and the Wikipedia article for AHCA in adding the second part of the sentence. I apologized for the error and offered to self-revert. I also explained to the American Politics board that these were intended to be initial edits and that other edits sourced to in-depth pieces (from both local and national news sources) on each congressperson’s vote would be added. As for the claim that it’s undue to outline the contents of legislation, I disagree. If RS cover the contents of legislation in the context of a congressperson’s vote, it is consistent with Wiki policy to add it. It is in fact common practice. It would make no sense to, for instance, say “In September 2006, Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act”, because it’s unclear what that entails. That’s why her positions article says “In September 2006, Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act, authorizing the construction of 700 miles (1,100 km) of fencing along the United States–Mexico border.”[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Border_barrier] Unless the intent is to obfuscate, you’re supposed to explain what the legislation is and what sets it apart provided that it can be RSed. If other editors come to a consensus that legislation shouldn't be elaborated on, I will of course abide by that. TParis notes that Drmies considered some of my edits SYNTH: After discussing with Drmies and hearing his/her concerns, I decided to self-revert one sentence related to the firing of James Comey (note though that the claim of Synth was never correct, but other concerns were valid). While RS do find it relevant to mention that Comey was fired by Trump while the FBI were conducting a probe into Russia ties, I heeded the concerns and removed it from the pages. The claim that I'm cherrypicking is also false. The politicians who explicitly supported the Comey firing were listed by New York Times and Propublica, and received coverage and attention for it. Most of my edits on congresspeople are on high-profile pages that have gotten a lot of coverage by reliable sources in the Trump era. All the congresspeople that I've edited have been frequently covered by national news organizations (e.g. will they / won’t they support healthcare reform, the Comey firing), which is very uncommon. The reason why I’ve edited the pages of those congresspeople from NY, Cali and Florida is because of the extensive coverage by reliable sources and the national news attention that those congresspeople get. TParis claims that I edit those pages because they are the three of the largest states and carry the most votes in presidential elections, but I'm unclear what the logic behind that would be. Note also that I’ve edited the few high-profile Democratic politicians’ pages in the Trump era: Rob Quist and Jon Ossoff. My edits to Quist and Ossoff’s pages are the exact same edits that I’ve made to GOP congresspeople’s. I created the “political positions” sub-sections in those articles, see this[77] and this[78]. These pages are indistinguishable from the political positions sub-sections in GOP congresspeople’s pages with one exception: there is less RS coverage of Quist and Ossoff because they haven’t served in Congress and are only very recent candidates. It’s therefore harder to find their positions on many issues. So, just to re-cap, TParis is complaining that I’m adding political positions to the articles of GOP congresspeople in an attempt to negatively portray GOP congresspeople in particular. Yet, I’ve done the exact same thing to Democratic politicians. The truth however is that I’m of course neither trying to portray Democrats negatively nor Republicans. According to TParis[79], a typical example of me trying to portray a Republican candidate (Karen Handel) negatively is this edit[80] wherein I add her self-description, a description by Politico of her philosophy and positions on the minimum wage and the gender pay gap (I’ve added more positions to her article in other edits). Three weeks earlier, I added this[81] to the page of Handel’s opponent, Jon Ossoff: a description by the New York Times of his philosophy and positions on various issues (many of the same positions as on Handel’s page). These two edits are indistinguishable, yet by merely presenting info on the GOP candidate, TParis is convinced that I’m intentionally portraying her negatively. I presented the same info on the Democratic candidate (the candidate of course holds different positions on those issues), am I trying to negatively portray him too? One of the complaints that TParis brings up is that I BLP violation in an edit summary: Yes, I apologized for that. I didn’t realize that you couldn’t say mean things (I called someone a wackjob - this individual had wrongly been added to a section containing the views of scholars) about a public figure in an edit summary. TParis claims that my edits that have the appearance of neutrality are disingenuous and that I'm playing some long con. This is completely false. I’ve always attempted to keep Wikipedia articles neutral and I do add negative things to articles that leftwingers are inclined to like, as well as positive things to articles that conservatives are inclined to like. One of my recent edits was making sure that Louise Mensch’s Wikipedia page (a person that some conspiracy-minded Democrats like) notes that she promotes conspiracy theories and makes unsubstantiated claims. I added that a few days ago for the simple reason that I stumbled upon an RS making the case. According to TParis, it’s because I knew that he was going to come after me again and that this is my way of conspiring to produce evidence of my neutral posture. I’ve also edited Michael Chossudovsky’s page (a person that some conspiracy-minded Democrats like) and have butted heads with people over there for noting that his leftwing conspiracy website should be described as such. I started doing that in March 2017 I regularly revert vandalism and unproductive edits to GOP figures’ pages, many of which seek to attack them. Just some examples: [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]. I also add studies to articles that end up defending conservative viewpoints and arguments. In the article on 'Immigration and Crime', I for instance added a study (sometime in 2016) showing that immigration from terror-prone states increase the risk of terrorism in the host country[100]. In the article on "Voter ID Laws in the United States", I added research and significant amounts of text which noted that there is no clear-cut evidence that voter ID laws reduce overall turnout or minority turnout (which is a huge Democratic talking point). As an example of my neutrality and interest in improving the Wikipedia project, I added a recently published study which added support for the Democratic talking point[101] but when other research was published which rebutted the study, I added that too[102]. In fact, I devoted more text to the critique than the original findings. Earlier today, I fought to include language that did not cast aspersions on Fox News’ motivations in re-igniting the Seth rich conspiracy[103]. These are just some examples of my desire to keep things neutral and due. I always try to abide by the instructions provided by senior editors when there’s broad agreement, and always heed well-reasoned concerns (such as in the various self-reverts I’ve done) when there are mixed views and no consensus. When I have erred, I usually ask for clarifications so that the errors are not repeated. I add notable and relevant info to both conservative and liberal articles. This info is almost always well-sourced as was noted and in my view due, though the occasional inadvertent error may occur. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes[edit]I am looking at the last page about conservative politician edited by Snooganssnoogans. He makes this edit. Here is corresponding section of the page. This is all well sourced. OK. Is it a negative information about a living person? From a "liberal" standpoint, that might be seen as something negative, but in reality it is not. This is simply a sourced opinion of a politician delivered to a reader. That politician is probably proud of her opinion and wants it be delivered to public. Is it undue? Hardly. The subject/opinion is certainly important, more important than her opinion about grey wolves in the previous phrase. This edit by Snooganssnoogans has been already reverted by another user [122]. Did Snooganssnoogans participate in discussion? Yes, they did, and their arguments are convincing [123]. I do not see any problems with behavior by Snooganssnoogans in this example. My very best wishes (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC) 2nd example: [124] - the edit was made to include last phrase into the paragraph. Yes, that makes it judgemental, however this particular connection was made in a large number of sources. This is not WP:SYN. Nevertheless, this should not be included in this page and was correctly removed by another contributor later. Overall, this looks to me as a typical work in this subject area when Snooganssnoogans did contribute something reasonable to the page [125], however not everything was accepted by others.
Statement by Neutrality[edit]This filing lacks merit, because no arbitration remedy has been violated. Frankly, this filing smells of an effort to gain an advantage in content disputes by barring a productive editor from a topic area. Note:
In sum, this filing is the continuation of a content dispute by other means (as the face of the complaint shows), and should be closed with no action against Snoogans. Neutralitytalk 06:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]I think it's pretty clear that if we take any one edit by itself there's nothing wrong here. It's sourced, it's encyclopedic, yada yada yada. What people are disagreeing over and where some people are trying to see wrong doing is in this: "do politicians' stances on various issues, and how they voted on them, belong in the lede"? And this is a judgement call regarding CONTENT. Some think this is undue. Others think it belongs in the lede. There's no policy or guideline one way or another. There's nothing in discretionary sanctions language which prohibits this. Even if one disagrees with these edits (myself I think that "it depends" on the politician and particular issue) it's impossible to argue that anything has been violated here. If some "incorrect editing" took place here it's the fault of policy or its absence, not any particular editor. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Dennis Brown, you're making the implicit assumption that adding the text that says "Person X supports Y" is adding "negative text". This is peculiar. If politician X supports bans on abortion, then from their point of view, adding "Person X supports bans on abortion" would be "positive text". You're working on the basis of a whole bunch of strange implicit assumptions there in your statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC) And frankly, WP:DUE is always gonna be an editorial judgement call and as long as stuff is reliably sourced, it's not edit-warred into an article and no other policies are broken, you can't sanction fro someone for exercising their judgement just because you disagree with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC) @User:TParis - please quit it with the WP:BATTLEGROUND comments and unbacked WP:ASPERSIONS. That's really some "conduct unbecoming" there. Of course NPOV is mandatory - nobody here is disputing that (WP:LEAD actually isn't but nm). The problem is you have failed to show (here or at Drmies page, or at ANI or wherever else you've block shopped this proposal) that it has been violated. All you've shown is that a user has made some edits you don't agree with. Yeah, so what? That's a CONTENT dispute. Furthermore you are grossly misrepresenting my statement with the whole "VM wholeheartedly supports it". Where the hell did you get "wholeheartedly"? Where the hell did you get "supports it"? I explicitly said above that my opinion is "it depends" which is a far cry from "wholeheartedly supports". So please stop making stuff up. Your comment just provides more evidence that this is some irrational grudge against Snoogans (and those who dare to speak in their favor) rather than any policy based concern. Seriously, coming from an admin, this kind of behavior is deeply disturbing. I'd appreciate it if you'd strike your attacks on me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC) TParis, yeah I can address those accusations. Can you strike your unfounded attacks on me? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Actually, looking at the diffs provided by TParis in more detail, it looks like most of these aren't even in the LEDE, so now I really have no idea how they're supposed to be objectionable. So a politician supported Trump on something. There's lots of sources on that. This is added to the politician's article (not LEDE). Annnnndddddd? I mean, yeah, if it was added to the LEDE I can see how someone could argue WP:UNDUE and WP:LEDE. But it's not even that! Mountains meet molehills.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC) @User:GoldenRing - you yourself admit that Snoogan's edits are verifiable and based on reliable sources. Well, that's sort of the point, isn't it? There's no policy being violated here except a vague assertions about WP:UNDUE, which are always a judgement call and subject to editor's discretion. Now, if there was a consensus not to include some ifo on some article per WP:UNDUE and Snoogan tried to get his way anyway, then you'd have a case. But that's not what happened. All these diffs are "diffs I (meaning TParis) happen to disagree with". As others have pointed out at the end of the day this is just a content dispute because no policy has actually been broken. You think the edits are wrong for some other reason? Fine. Rewrite the policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC) To elaborate on my point above and one on my talk page - yes, GoldenRing, verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. But then you flip it and proclaim the fact that someone followed verifiability as a... reason to sanction somebody? How does that work? You can say "WP:UNDUE" all you want, but others can just as easily say "No, it's DUE!". How does the matter get settled? ON THE TALK PAGE, NOT at WP:AE, which is not for content disputes. If you, or TParis can show that Snoogans ignored talk page consensus somewhere and did so consistently, then you might have a justification for some kind of sanctions. Otherwise you're really just running around yelling WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT (50 points - how do we tell IJDL from UNDUE?). Also, I find it a bit disingenuous of you to claim, quote, "There seems to be fairly general agreement that the editing pattern is problematic " where there's obviously NO SUCH AGREEMENT, neither between admins here or users commenting on it. Three of the admins (Sandstein and Masem, with Lord Roem indicating that they agree with Sandstein) are taking the view that this is not sanctionable (or not suitable for AE) and is essentially a content dispute, and only you and Dennis arguing otherwise. I'm sorry, that's suppose to be "fairly general agreement"? I don't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by MrX[edit]Snooganssnoogans and I have edited more than 30 of the same articles, and my general impression is that he is a constructive editor. I did notice some minor concerns in August of last year, so I gave hime and alert and some advice then. I was surprised to see that Snooganssnoogans had been brought before arbitration enforcement, until I saw who who brought them here. More on that later. [Note: I am reviewing every diff in evidence and will comment in subsequent posts.]
Wikipedia editors are not required to be generalists. Some editors focus on a narrow scope of subjects. Wikipedia does not have an SPA policy. The cited 2011 Arbcom case does not have an SPA remedy. It states a general principle about SPAs, the key takeaway of which is "users should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral". In this case, the evidence that Snooganssnoogans has edited from a non-neutral point of view is subjective. To paraphrase what Volunteer Marek pointed out in his response to Dennis Brown, what is construed by some as negative may be construed by others as positive. For example, if I say I want to ban Muslims from entering the US, about a third of the U.S. population would view that as positive, while others will view it as neutral or negative. The OP's motivation for bringing this to AE are suspect. He has soapboxed before about enwiki's "left leaning bias" [126] and he's keeping a list [127]. Some of his comments [128][129][130][131], including accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence on this very page, and here[132][133], suggest a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset that leads me to believe that this is an attempt to RIGHTGREATLEFTS.- MrX 03:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000[edit]I’ve had little interaction, if any, with Snooganssnoogans. I didn’t agree with a recent revert that they made; another editor quickly said it was against consensus, and they said oops, and that they would look at it. This will happen when you make so many edits. Looking through their edits, they appear far more researched than most of what we see day-to-day. OTOH, I’ve seen multiple edits from the filer of this request claiming there exists a systemic bias in Wikipedia. I will not supply diffs as my intention is not to seek a boom. The enormous detail that the filer has provided, I think to be bothersome. I may be wrong, but in my mind, an AE sanction should be based on obvious infraction(s); not a “pattern” that requires so many words to describe. We all have our opinions. If we follow the guidelines, such opinions are not a problem. And yeah, we are likely to spend more time on articles of interest. I’m disturbed by a complaint against an editor that makes large contributions who may be sanctioned for a pattern that requires so many words to “prove”. I suggest that the filer retract the complaint. If those that have spent more time looking at the rather large body of contributions find a problem; then warn the object of the complaint. From what I’ve seen, a minnow at most. Objective3000 (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Kingsindian[edit]
I analyze several of the claims by TParis, and give my opinion. Snoogans often adds content of the form "Congressman did A. Here's an explanation of A". Snoogans states that they did the same for Hillary Clinton. Let's look at the diffs now. To avoid any confusion over diff numbers, I am using the numbers in this revision. Diffs 48 to 81 are, in my opinion, wrong. Here is why. The diffs first say: that Congressman X voted for AHCA. Then it says Snoogans states that part of the description was in the NYT source, so it's notable. But that's not the correct way to go. On this topic, so much is written, that you can find a source to say practically anything you like. If you wish to summarize the AHCA, you look at a broad variety of sources, or a source which summarizes a large variety of sources, and write a summary. I don't think diffs 87 to 90 are SYNTH, but they come quite close. Still, assuming WP:AGF, we can say that the most notable aspect of firing of Comey is the Russia connection, the edit is defensible, though not ideal. Diffs 91 to 96 add the position of various politicians on the firing of Comey. Whether or not it should be included is an editorial decision. One can make a case either way. Overall, I think TParis' contention that Snoogans is editing to add negative information to conservative politician's BLP is correct. Do these changes overwhelm articles and result in COATRACKs? I don't think that's true. TParis' contention that Snoogans is an SPA is plainly not correct, because they edit plenty of other pages. What should be done about it? I am not sure. The behaviour isn't egregious, and one can find biases in the editing of all editors; and I'm sure I know plenty of people worse than Snoogans in these topic areas. Wikipedia isn't compulsory, and people edit what they like. Editors are allowed to be biased, but are expected to edit neutrally. Perhaps a warning to Snoogans is enough. Perhaps a sanction is justified. I leave it to the judgement of admins. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Politrukki[edit]
I don't think it should matter whether Snooganssnoogans edits conservative or progressive topics. I reviewed only a tiny portion of diffs – and I'm afraid I can't review all of them. It is clear that some are unwise (for example edits adding SYNTH), but I'd say most are innocuous. For example I agree with what they say about Louise Mensch, and their edits to that topic are good (TParis didn't actually say there were problems in that area). Snooganssnoogans can be co-operative if they want to. Review of Snooganssnoogans edits should be focused on what they have did after the ANI thread. Politrukki (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Timothyjosephwood[edit]This is a bit of an interesting test for whether we should be applying policy in terms of intent or that of effect. I think if we had two users: one who made only SS's edits to BLPs, and another that made all other edits, we may find fairly good agreement that we had one POV pushing user and one fairly normal constructive, even commendable user. We don't however, and that seems to make the moral judgement much more difficult, although the effect for readers, and for the overall POV of the encyclopedia is the same. TimothyJosephWood 00:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by OID[edit]Stating a politician has taken/supported political stance 'X' (which is a matter of public record) would only be a negative issue if it was deliberately phrased in a negative way. For any political position supporters will always see it as a positive addition. 'Senator X supports repealing a woman's right to an abortion' is only a negative if you start from the base position women have a right to an abortion. A good portion of the US citizenry dont believe that. An addition like 'Politician X has supported bill Y which would result in millions of unborn children not being murdered' or 'Politician X has supported bill Y which would take away women's freedom' would be an edit that is not neutral. From taking a look at the edits above, most are written neutrally, but fall in the area where the liberal/left-leaning average wikipedian would consider them 'negative' information. A conservative right-of-center politician/voter would have a different opinion. You might as well argue that the editor has been biasing conservative politican articles in a positive way (for a conservative). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by JFG[edit]I'm puzzled by OID's rationale. He says that stating a politician's support for a given position "would only be a negative issue if it was deliberately phrased in a negative way", then proceeds to argue that Snooganssnoogans' edits could be construed as positive if you're a supporter of said politicians. That seems a stretch, and regardless of the political leanings of readers, we can't deny that Snoogans' edits deliberately emphasized the potential negative consequences of AHCA. Adding this occasionally in a couple articles discussing healthcare would be just fine, but adding it deliberately to dozens of politicians' BLPs must be labeled WP:ADVOCACY. As Timothyjosephwood mentioned, if those tendentious edits were made by one editor and the benign edits by another one, the first one could be rightly topic-banned. However, Snoogans being an otherwise productive and amicable editor, we can't slap him too hard beyond warning him to not repeat such a pattern of edits in the future. Surely our wise admins will know where to draw the line. — JFG talk 11:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by BullRangifer[edit]I see a problematic approach to a slippery slope situation. The result could be the imposition of limitations on editors who are specialists in one topic or subject area or hold certain POV, without them having violated any policies. Keep in mind that part of WP:NPA is "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." Bringing it to a noticeboard doesn't make it any more legitimate. Edits must be judged on a case by case basis, not by any type of pattern extending over multiple articles. If the edit is proper in the article, whatever else is happening is irrelevant. If an edit is improper in an article, then deal with it there. Every editor makes mistakes. Only if most of their edits are creating a real problem should there be any action beyond what happens at the relevant article. We just need to be very cautious here. There is no justification for any serious sanctions. Maybe a trout for some particularly poor edits, but no more. Otherwise the editor is being punished for their specialty or interest. No editor has an obligation to add content that covers all sides of an issue. We are many, and together we create the whole. The individual editor doesn't have to do that. They find some good sources and content on one aspect of a subject. Great. Let them add it without making them feel guilty. Other editors who hold opposing POV will come along and balance things out. We are happy to have anyone make any positive contributions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Anythingyouwant[edit]I wouldn't mind these edits by Snooganssnoogans if they were all made subsequent to edits by a hypothetical editor Unsnooganssnoogans who had made similar edits except with an opposite POV (e.g. distancing the politicians from Trump). In that case, one could plausibly argue that Snooganssnoogans was merely restoring a semblance of NPOV by adding balancing material. That's not a good way to write an article, but it might excuse Snooganssnoogans (though it wouldn't excuse Unsnooganssnoogans). Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Sagecandor[edit]The user seems quite able to edit on pages of conservative politicians in a positive and constructive and helpful manner, including cleanup, reverting vandalism, and reverting violations of WP:No original research: [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163]. This shows the user is knowledgeable of site policy and edits in a helpful manner to improve biography pages of politicians on the site, including those of a conservative bent. In addition, the user seems most able and willing to engage in polite discussion on talk pages to help others come to friendly resolutions to issues. Sagecandor (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Snooganssnoogans[edit]
"Snooganssnoogans is banned from mass editing in the area of American Politics post-1932 for an indefinite period of time. This means adding (more or less) the same material to more than two articles. He is free to use the talk page of any article to request edits if he feels more articles should have the material. He may appeal at WP:AE after one year and every six months after that if the first appeal is unsuccessful." I think this is the least aggressive way to deal with the problem at hand, while not putting undue restriction on his editing and recognizing he has the ability to contribute in a positive way. I would prefer other admin input (below this is fine) before anyone enacts, although I do think this is the minimum we should do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
|
| Archwayh (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people for one month. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Archwayh[edit]
Archwayh reinstated edits that were challenged – violating the "consensus required" restriction – and copied basically the same content to the lead. The content is questionable at best and I assume that Archwayh did not read the cited source. The content includes fake quotes that don't appear in the source, Asked to self-revert [169]. They have not reacted in any way. On April 4, in another article under ARBAPDS, they used personal attack in an edit summary [170], and doubled down on it [171]. They've marked their edits as "minor" and mark nearly all of their edits as "minor", even after they've been told to stop it: User_talk:Archwayh#Minor edits, User_talk:Archwayh#May 2017 Politrukki (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Archwayh[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Archwayh[edit]Statement by JFG[edit]Looks like a straightforward DS violation despite warnings. Whatever remedy ends up enacted, I would insist that this editor should stop marking their contributions as minor, because many people filter out minor edits in their watchlist or edit history. As noted by the OP, "minor edit" has a pretty restrictive meaning on Wikipedia. As soon as the meaning is changed, no matter how slightly, it's not minor. — JFG talk 16:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Archwayh[edit]
|
| Keith-264 is blocked 36-hours for their 1RR violation. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Keith-264[edit]
(The following edits may not be subject to DS but provide a bit of useful background. There is a much broader, persistent pattern of disruption but these are the most blatant standalone examples.)
(none)
Discussion concerning Keith-264[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Keith-264[edit]I supported an edit by someone after it was removed and later found that a posse of editors who try to dictate the content of the article had made disparaging remarks and threats against me. Anyone who reviews the edit history of the article and comments on the talk page will see that I'm more sinned against than sinning. I submit a comment by one editor [173] as evidence of bad faith and request that anyone judging this matter takes care not to be used to harass by proxy. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Keith-264[edit]
|
| JGabbard (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all edits about, and all pages related to Seth Rich broadly construed for six months. --NeilN talk to me 18:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JGabbard[edit]
@Dennis Brown:More evidence, more diffs, same exact behavior, same exact article, against same exact user, after expiry of prior topic ban at same exact page:
Sagecandor (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JGabbard[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JGabbard[edit]Following AE notification, I would have promptly self-reverted; however, that had already been done. Using Listverse as a reliable source was an error, and for that I apologize. My good faith intention was to augment (or replace) that reference with better sources (e.g., [182], [183], [184]), all highlighting basically the same thing, i.e., the overlooked gap between the shooting and Rich's death in the hospital some hours later. However, I did not have that opportunity. Although perhaps not widely reported, it is not a secret that first responders spoke with Mr. Rich, as well as police and also medical staff at the hospital. If D.C. police have freely acknowledged withholding such salient details (weapon,[185] victim's statements,[186] suspects, etc.) in the interest of the investigation, then it should not be improper to state the same in the article. The existence of unpublished facts which are known to authorities but not yet released, may be equally significant as that which is known, which is precious little. I do not see that as NON-information, but rather as intrinsically helpful information. I consider it unfair to classify a single restoration of such material to the text as disruptive editing, especially since I was not even its original poster. As to user SPECIFICO, I cast no aspersions in my cited statement of May 24, nor was that my intent at all; I merely provided a general and objective analysis of his editing history on the article to support my rationale why his opinion should be given less weight in a consensus discussion on the inclusion/deletion of the article's infobox. - JGabbard (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]Responding to ping. I just saw JGabbard's edit summary about me at Murder of Seth Rich when I read his denial above. He is a longtime editor, he's been amply warned and sanctioned previously. His justification above is absurd on its face. JGabbard's comment in evidence contains no objective statements at all and not even diffs to support up his ad hominem. So here is an editor who is experienced, who (we may presume) knows not to make such complaints without diffs, not to do it on the article talk page, and who knows the reason any article is under DS is because Arbcom has determined that we need to be particularly careful about our conduct there. It's hard for me to believe Admins here would take JGabbard's defence seriously. Every time a POV or PA editor gets off with a warning here at AE, countless other editors reduce their participation on Wikipedia to avoid the unpleasant and unproductive editing environments at these difficult articles. These articles are already tough enough to edit and improve. Bad behavior and lax enforcement are very costly to the Project. We've seen many productive editors walk away or reduce their participation rather than continue to work in a hostile environment. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning JGabbard[edit]
|
| Editor is now fully aware of restrictions. Assuming good faith and simply closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gahgeer[edit]
The user not meet the criteria for editing the I/P article it was explained to him and he was given an alert about the sanctions and yet he seems to edit the articles anyhow.It seems that per this thread [190] he will continue to edit the articles--Shrike (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Gahgeer[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Gahgeer[edit]Statement by Gahgeer[edit]I really find it strange that there are calls for blocking me because I corrected a subjective description of a commander on a disambiguation page (Red Prince). My edit on that page was simply removing the word "[sic] Terrorist" and replacing it with a commander, a description that was taken from the figure's own Wiki page. I find it strange that this edit stayed there for several months, until I became more active recently (specifically after I made comments on the Talk page of Dalal Mughrabi) in which I pointed to complete false information that was inserted by editing. This is when one user started hounding me and reversed that edit. All my edits were not subjective and merely I either corrected wrong information, provided more content. In some cases, my suggestion resulted in complete overhaul of articles that were otherwise based on fake information. See examples here: Arab Peace Initiative: I corrected a major blunder which attributed the Israeli decision to a completely wrong prime minister. United States foreign aid: Corrected a gross misrepresentation of the US aid to the Palestinian Authority (and discussed it on the Talk page too) Dill: Corrected the Arabic translation of the word Dill. Honor killing: Updated the Palestine section with information on recently passed law. Palestinian Preventive Security: Updated and corrected the information on this page from trusted sources. Francis E. Meloy Jr.: Updated information on CIA findings from recent leaks. Draft: Jihad al-Wazir: Researched and created a profile of this person based on a request on Wikiproject Palestine (it is still a draft). To say that my personal page constitutes a basis for blocking is utter oppression. What is even worse is to make a motion for blocking me because I corrected a disambiguation page that was not protected and was placed as part of the protection rule only by the biased editor who reported me. The protection rules was meant to save articles from vandalism. My record on Wikipedia is everything but that as shown above. I also find it honestly sad that as someone who began to dedicate more time to Wikipedia is being hounded and punished just like this. Wikipedia should welcome new users not bully them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gahgeer (talk • contribs) 10:30, 31 May, 2017 (UTC)
Question by jd2718[edit]Does the arbitration decision allow editors to revert Gahgeer's edits on sight? I'm a bit surprised by the automatic reverts. Jd2718 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Result concerning Gahgeer[edit]
|