Talk:Rob Astorino

edit war
and are going at it--I locked the article for the time being. The alternative is to block them both; instead, they can talk it over here, like good collaborators. I'll drop a few suggestions: IP, you are wrong in this edit--the million dollar donations should be mentioned. Jtwang, in the same edit you're wrong also--that Astorino's opponent tweeted something is of no relevance in this article, none whatsoever. IP, you're right in this one--the donation is already mentioned, and the edit was a sly, roundabout way of bringing it up again ostensibly under a "Trumpian" section, when the connection to Trump is only indirect. Jtwang, are you familiar with the WP:BLP? If not, I'll be happy to advice you of Arbcom's discretionary sanctions on the topic. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I asked to discuss on talk page as seen in the edit history. Repeated reverts by an IP user removing information should not be the standard for WP. Regarding this one I agree, my fault for not reviewing more carefully. I am familiar with the WP:BLP and I believe the edits in question conform to it. Rapid reverts by an IP user to remove information with no justification are IMHO not credible. Regarding tweet by Astorino's opponent, fair enough. Felt it was easier to put it here as George Latimer (New York politician) does not have a section about the race in question. --Jtwang (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC) What do you feel are the violations of the WP:BLP? Jtwang (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Repeated reverts by an IP" are no better or worse than repeated reverts by a registered account. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Trumpian innuendo--wasn't that clear? Two paragraphs about the guy's connection with Trump, and you stick in the million dollars again by way of the financier, who also backed Trump, you say. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, that section was not my work and I was reverting based on the presumption that an IP account with no history that refused to engage on the talk page was a vandal. Jtwang (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Mention of controversies including the Rolex Seamaster is relevant in the section on 2017 election because the timing of the disclosures was directly relevant to the election. The page as it stands now does not allow the reader to link the Norman Seabrook trial to the election because the concurrent timing of events is unclear. Furthermore, the section as written now does not include the citation that showed that the FBI had a copy of the check Rechnitz says he cut to pay for the watch, nor the amount that Rechnitz says he paid. Jtwang (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the Rolex, but if you have so many things happening in one edit, problems arise. I repeat, I locked the article because the only alternative was blocking both of you, and I locked it in the least-BLP violating version. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , are you up yet? Can you have a look? I think Jtwang and I agree on a few things, but since I locked the article I don't want to go and edit it--and the IP seems to be MIA. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC); [Note: Added missing bracket per WP:TPG so that ping works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)]
 * I've put back everything that's not directly related to personal donations and fundraising, as that doesn't seem contentious. I'm not happy about his 13-point defeat being cited only to Facebook and Twitter, but on a locked article I can only go with what has agreement here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking this out, Ritchie. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Ritchie333, hold on--the Twitter/Facebook thing is a problem (since it's not from the subject, for starters), now also recognized by Jtwang (and it's really unnecessary). Also, I am not against inclusion of the two mentions of the million dollar donations: that seems reliably sourced and it's relevant. I am opposed to the million dollar donation being mentioned in the "Trump section"--see here, "Relationship with Donald Trump": it's indirect, innuendo. That content should not be restored (it's a BLP violation, strictly speaking). Drmies (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 November 2017
Astorino was supported by Robert Mercer's $1.55 million donation to a super PAC backing his bid. The super PAC would end up accounting for nearly a quarter of the total money spent on Astorino's campaign. He was defeated in the election. Towards the end of the campaign on October 27, 2017, Astorino was damaged by revelations from testimony in the Norman Seabrook trial that a campaign donor, Jonah Rechnitz, had paid $5,790 to cover most of the cost of a Rolex Submariner that Astorino had bought shortly before naming Rechnitz a chaplain for the Westchester County Police.
 * Update "George Latimer" in second paragraph to link to George Latimer (New York politician)
 * Add information about 2014 super PAC backing to the end of section regarding 2014 race:
 * Add information about Rolex scandal to section regarding 2017 race, before "Another controversy in the closing days":
 * Change "President Trump" in second paragraph of "Relationship with Donald Trump" to "Donald Trump" for consistency.

Jtwang (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Link to George Latimer and consistency for Trump done, the rest see above thread. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag/formatting help
I am tagging the article as unbalanced. It is heavily focused on negative episodes in Astorino's career and on his connection with controversial figures and contains almost nothing about his eight-year tenure as Westchester County Executive and his 2014 gubernatorial campaign. Those are the two things he is most notable for, and they are almost afterthoughts in the article. I am tagging the two deficient sections for expansion.

On a minor note, I have added election results from the 2014 gubernatorial election, but the formatting is different than the formatting for the other election results in the article and I am not sophisticated enough to know how to change it so that it matches the others. Help would be appreciated. SunCrow (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)