Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215

Malerooster
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Malerooster

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 04:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

Standard Discretionary Sanctions as applied under ARBPOL2. Specifically, that the user be placed under a revert restriction.
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) 19 May 2017 Reverts my content 1, minimal communication in edit summary
 * 2) 21 May 2017 I ask why on Talk page
 * 3) 01:51, 22 May 2017‎ After not receiving an answer, I restore the content
 * 4) 02:42, 22 May 2017 An unsubstantive reply that has no relevance to policy.
 * 5) 02:43, 22 May 2017 They revert again.
 * 6) 02:59, 22 May 2017 I challenge again for a justification.
 * 7) 03:02, 22 May 2017 Refuses to discuss
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):

Alerted here on 5 September 2016.
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

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)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Unwillingness to justify reverts in a content dispute, when asked, and then reverting again is a conduct matter. It doesn't help that the content issue seems obvious. Why shouldn't an article covering a Fox News controversy have a See Also to an article about Fox News controversies? The party reverting wouldn't say. That's not good faith collaboration. Geogene (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malerooster&diff=781591280&oldid=774127010
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Malerooster
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by JFG
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,, also reverted one of the "see also" items independently, 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)

Result concerning Malerooster

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * What specific remedy from the case do you want enforced? How is this more than a content dispute?  Sandstein   04:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would take no action. This is a content dispute. The complaint does not identify the conduct policy or guideline that was supposedly violated. I also see no actionable misconduct. Malerooster did give valid reasons for their revert by writing "Links in the see also should ideally be worked into the article if applicable." The question of whether or not this is a good reason is a content issue that needs to be resolved via WP:DR.  Sandstein   07:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * sums it up rather neatly and so does Sandstein, so I won't repeat. This is a content dispute, not something for WP:AE.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Snooganssnoogans

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 01:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :

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. 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. 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.

Later in May, he again added WP:UNDUE material to BLPs which were describes by User:Drmies as WP:SYNTH. . 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. 

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.


 * New York: John Faso, Chris Collins (U.S. politician), Lee Zeldin, Ed Royce
 * California: Darrell Issa, Steve Knight (politician), David Valadao, Kevin McCarthy (California politician), Dana Rohrabacher
 * Florida: Mario Díaz-Balart, Brian Mast, Carlos Curbelo (politician)
 * Ohio: Jim Jordan (U.S. politician), Steve Chabot
 * Texas: Pete Sessions, Ted Poe, Blake Farenthold, John Culberson
 * Iowa: Rod Blum, Steve King, David Young (Iowa politician)
 * Other Conservatives: Greg Gianforte, Liz Cheney, Sean Hannity, Ben Swann, Charles C. Johnson, Brigitte Gabriel, Martha Roby, David Clarke (sheriff), Karen Handel, Andrew Napolitano, Kris Kobach, Donald Trump Jr., Mo Brooks, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Roger Stone, Rod Rosenstein, Larry C. Johnson, Tom MacArthur, Sebastian Gorka, Martha McSally, Susan Collins, Mark Levin, Michel Chossudovsky, Justin Amash, Mark Sanford, Scott Tipton, Dave Trott (politician), Bruce Poliquin, Martha Roby, Erik Paulsen, Tom MacArthur, Jason Lewis (congressman), Rodney Davis (politician), Dave Brat, Don Bacon (politician), French Hill (politician), Randy Hultgren, Peter Roskam, Kevin Yoder
 * Liberals: Rob Quist, Peter Navarro, Jon Ossoff
 * Other Political BLPs: Julian Assange
 * UK Conservative: Louise_Mensch
 * Non-political: Kenedy (footballer), Tony Levin

And then two days ago, he had an edit summary removed for making a BLP violation in an edit summary.

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.

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.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * Previous attempts at dispute resolution:
 * 1) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/American_politics
 * 2) Administrators%27_noticeboard
 * 3) Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive947
 * 4) User_talk:Drmies/Archive_109


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Aug 31, 2016
 * Reminded of the Arbitration Sanctions during this ANI.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Now, I've spent many hours compiling this information and I'm quite exhausted. But  if someone gets a chance, I'd ask that a report be drawn up of Snoo's last 100 edits to determine the ratio of [edits that add negative info to a conservative article]:[all other edits].--v/r - TP 03:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, these diffs are very recent and only after this appeared to be heading toward ANI or AE. I believe they're an attempt to manipulate.  I was tempted to take this straight to a case, but I was concerned that the Arbs would've preferred it come to AE first.  If you recommend a case, I will draft one up.--v/r - TP 13:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It could not possibly be a request to gain an advantage in a content dispute because I haven't engaged in any content dispute that Snooganssnoogans has been apart of.  WP:RS and WP:V are only two of our content policies.  There are others like WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.  You'd be wise to mention them in your list of policies you think Snoo hasn't violated.  I have engaged in one that you've been apart of and your reply appears, on the surface, to be retaliation for that.--v/r - TP 13:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, your comment misrepresents the statistic. I never said 65 out of his last 400 edits were to BLPs.  I said he has edited 65 political BLPs in his last 400 edits.  He has also edited conservative organizations, political topics, and those 65 BLPs multiple times.--v/r - TP 13:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just done up some numbers. Before this looked like it was headed to AE, approximately 78% of Snoo's edits were to a conservative topics and were intended to add negative information to the topic.  2% were to remove poorly sourced negative information. 0% were to non-political articles (this is probably because of sample size).  While inspecting these edits, I also found significant evidence of altering claims to change allegations into Wikipedia's voice.  If this goes to Arbcom, I'll write up a separate evidence section on that.--v/r - TP 14:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just become aware of an additional Arbcom remedy that this editor appears to fall afoul of: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion--v/r - TP 14:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like AE admins to consider Volunteer Marek's comment as evidence of his own POV pushing. WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD are mandatory.  WP:NPOV is mandatory.  In isolation, Snoo's edits could be fine.  Taken together, they show an effort to systematically attack a group of BLPs.  And VM wholeheartedly supports it.  WP:NPOV requires that we summarize what the reliable sources say as a whole.  But Snoo selectively picks RS's that supports his POV.  Again, Volunteer Marek seems no problem with this at all.   Have I misrepresented your position in this?  You see zero problems with this at all?--v/r - TP 21:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you care to address the SYNTH and unsourced material I've provided diffs to above, then? Those are uncontroversially policy violations no matter what bias anyone has.  What about the effort to link unrelated BLPs to Trump?--v/r - TP 22:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 10% of this complain is about WP:LEAD. Do you want to address the other 90%?  Like, as I just said, the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues?  See diffs above.--v/r - TP 22:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting a WP:NPOV in topic areas guideline? I agree, as I said above, that aside from the SYNTH and OR above, there is no guideline that specifically addresses a user systematically making minor edits across a wide topic area.  How and where would you propose to start such a discussion?  Talk page of WP:NPOV?--v/r - TP 00:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With your own conclusions drawn, would you say that after 4 discussions, insufficient effort has been made to correct the behavior?--v/r - TP 03:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me offer a compromise. I think there'd be a huge improvement in Snoo's editing if they refrained from making mass-edits of the same variety "XX did something..." and also if they avoided SYNTH in the future.  Whether this is a voluntary or enforced rule, I'll leave up to you all.  If they did this, I believe it'd alleviate my immediate concerns and I'd be willing to sit back and see how it shapes their editing.  I think that's a fair compromise that focuses on improving the encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 12:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Standard discretionary sanctions only require that a user is notified of their existence. Snoo has been made aware several times, I've provided the diffs.--v/r - TP 16:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with Snoo's commitment in this edit to seek a consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/American_politics before any mass edits. But I'd urge that it'd be a consensus of more than just a handful of editors after a hour.--v/r - TP 18:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that the other problems can be resolved as simple content disputes. It's easier for all editors to collaborate and come to a consensus before mass changes.  If he's no longer mass-editing, then regular editing by others can resolve the rest of the issues.  Per my essay on desirable outcomes, we should try to least amount of sanctions necessary, first.  Snoo isn't a bad person, their editing just needs shaping.  Previous attempts to get them to stop mass-editing had failed.  If they're willing to try it now, I'm comfortable giving it a shot.  As they've pointed out, when asked to quit editing leads, they had.  If more trouble arises, I can either bring it back here or open a full case next time.   For now, I'm comfortable with the change in direction and I think it's a fair compromise that everyone can agree on.--v/r - TP 19:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you truly believe that, then this is not the project for you. Wikipedians have an obligation to make a good faith attempt at impartiality.  That good faith attempt should be evident in their edits to article space.--v/r - TP 20:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverting blatant vandalism proves nothing at all. Reverting vandalism doesn't disprove that Snoo has introduced more nuanced POV violations into the articles.  The number of people here pointing to WP:RS and WP:VAND as justifications to excuse Snoo is staggering, as the uninvolved admins have already said.  It says a lot about those commenting, trying to excuse the behavior.  WP:UNDUE and WP:OR are policies that have been demonstrably violated.  The number of red herrings trying to turn this into an WP:RS and WP:VAND issue, to conflate the issue, is making a underlying issue more evident.--v/r - TP 17:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Snooganssnoogans
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Snooganssnoogans
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“). 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 and this. 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, a typical example of me trying to portray a Republican candidate (Karen Handel) negatively is this edit 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 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:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.

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. 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 but when other research was published which rebutted the study, I added that too. 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. 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)


 * [Reply to Sandstein moved from admin section] I did a search through my contributions. I'm not sure how I can comprehensively see all my contributions, so this is only a partial list that I could easily find and remember:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm reading several comments above and below where it's being debated whether I have previously been warned and told not do these kinds of edits. Just to clarify, the only time that I've been officially warned about my pattern of editing was back in March 2017 when I was told explicitly not to add content to the ledes of congresspeople unless it uncontroversially adhered to Wiki policy. I took that warning to heart and haven't added anything to the lede of any congressperson since. The March 2017 ANI discussions did also revolve around my addition of political positions to articles, but the editors disagreed amongst each other as whether adding political positions to articles was wrong. I have often also been involved in content disputes and had complaints raised against my pattern of editing (common to most who edit on US politics pages) but there were never any conclusions or consensus reached about whether what I did was wrong. Those discussions led me to improve my editing but I never took them as official warning that I should not do mass-edits at all or refrain from US politics pages. Were I to be officially warned about diffs 42-96, I would of course abide by whatever instructions and rules that senior editors and admins set out for me. Even if the admins opt not to warn me or sanction me, I will definitely consult with the American Politics board (or whatever the appropriate forum is) before adding any mass-edits like the ones I added on the health-care vote. In those discussions, I will ask other editors involved on the board whether the content is notable enough to be included and how/if we should describe the legislation. If the other editors oppose my proposed content, I will not add it. 16:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Even reading the discussion here, there seems to be significant disagreement as to whether and to what extent I did something wrong (beyond the inadvertent errors that I've copped to) and to what extent that my errors are malicious as opposed to sincere attempts to add notable and due content. I think it would be very unfair to just blanket ban me from US politics pages before instructing me on what's acceptable when even the editors and admins below think that the rules surrounding this are hazy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, I do understand the problems with the mass edits. That's why I'm voluntarily offering to consult with the American Politics board (or whatever the appropriate forum is) before adding any mass-edits like the ones I added on the health-care vote and where I'll only add them if the board agrees with them. This is also something that TParis, the complainant, finds an acceptable resolution. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ping Dennis, may i suggest a modification?: "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, unless he can get a consensus on the precise language for the mass edit on the "American politics" WikiProject". You can replace the "American politics" WikiProject with some better venue if there is one (I'm not seasoned enough to know what venues are available). The problems with "[using] the talk page of any article to request edits" are (i) that these pages are extremely low activity, so there is no healthy back-and-forth on what to include and (ii) fulfilled requests will give rise to concerns that I'm conspiring with other users to circumvent the ban (which is the last thing I want). Seeking consensus before mass edits on a large forum would avoid both of these problems while preventing me from adding any content that violates NPOV. What do you think? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * May I suggest a second modification?: "Snooganssnoogans is banned from mass editing in the area of American Politics post-1932 for BLP pages an indefinite period of time. This means adding (more or less) the same material to more than two articles, unless he can get a consensus on the precise language for the mass edit on the "American politics" WikiProject". The concerns that TParis raises revolve around mass edits on BLP pages. I also edit extensively on academic pages, some of which are of a political nature in a broad sense, so I'm worried that I'll get snagged by virtue of copying content from one page to another. For instance, the content that I've added to 'Immigration' is almost exclusively studies and I sometimes export content from that page to other immigration-related pages. The content is primarily academic and beyond dispute, but it would breach the ban that you're considering giving me. Also, sometimes a new study gets published that is relevant to several pages, and this ban would also prevent me from adding that study to more than two pages. I'm one of few editors that systemically adds new research in political science and economics to pages (I've only encountered one other editor who seems to do the same), so the language in the proposed ban could cause collateral damage. The ban could also be rewritten as "...in the area of American Politics post-1932 unless of a primarily academic nature...". What do you think' Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
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. Did Snooganssnoogans participate in discussion? Yes, they did, and their arguments are convincing. 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: - 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, however not everything was accepted by others.


 * P.S. I saw previously an ANI discussion about Snooganssnoogans and gave him this advice. He did follow my suggestion and fixed their previous edits. My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I checked many diffs provided by TParis in his request. I agree that many edits by Snooganssnoogans (like that) were disputable, but only in one aspect: they provided certain negative qualifiers of the law which was passed by the legislature. The included qualifiers were basically a "majority view" on the law, as reflected in RS, but still qualifiers. However, all of them are already fixed by other contributors if you look on current versions of these pages, for example here. What had happen? The text about controversial aspects of the law was usually modified in a such way that the relevance of the aspect to specific politician became clear. Hence this is no longer a disputable content. Based on that, I believe that contributions by Snooganssnoogans to these pages were rather positive: they partly remain on the pages, and party were modified by other contributors, but this is a normal process around here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @GoldenRing. That would be a good argument if we had a previous consensus that Snooganssnoogans must receive at least an official warning. But I do not see it. Probably the "closest call" was that ANI discussion started by the same admin. Still, it did not result in a clear consensus that Snooganssnoogans must receive an official warning. Simply having someone debated at ANI is not really an argument. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @TParis. Yes, sure, S. was previously warned about the existence of discretionary sanctions. However, GoldenRing tells that S. was previously officially warned about his inappropriate behavior and therefore he must receive something stronger this time. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just would like to tell that (a) admins should not rule on the content, and (b) 99% of significant content edits around here (excluding grammar, links and other technical corrections) are actually biased. This can not be fixed. Why? People who are not experts read just a few of books or articles on the subject and therefore prefer quoting them (this is not WP:NPOV). People who are experts know the subject, but they also have an opinion that is going to be reflected in their writings. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @TParis. Topic banning S. would be unwise because his overall contribution in this subject area is very big "positive". My very best wishes (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Neutrality
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:


 * The filer acknowledges that Snoogans's editing conforms to reliable-source policy.
 * The filer acknowledges that Snoogans's editing conforms to verifiability policy.
 * Snoogans has not engaged in edit warring. (And the filer does not allege that he has).
 * Snoogans routinely discusses issues at talk, and does not (insofar as I have seen) improperly restore contentious material under active discussion.
 * Snoogans does extremely helpful work in adding peer-reviewed studies to articles on a broad range of matters, including on politics and public policy.
 * It violates no policy for a user to focus primarily, or even exclusively, on one topic. And even if it were, by the filer's own calculation, i.e., less than 17% of Snoogs' last 400 edits ("65 out of 400") were to politician BLPs. That's entirely normal.
 * The claim that Snoogans is a single-purpose account is demonstrably false. He has, over a series of months, added peer-reviewed studies and other useful material related to Iceland and Icelandic history. (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6 (dating back six months). He's also added great new material (and removed unsourced and badly sourced content) on articles ranging from farmer's markets to China's one-child policy to women in Russia. There are many other topics as well, which a cursory look at his contribs would entail.

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)


 * P.S.: Two further comments:
 * First, none of what I wrote above should be read as suggesting that Snoogs has never made a mistake or never erred. I would say, for example, that he was too hasty to edit those sentences of copy into multiple congresspeople's articles in rapid succession. But: (a) that was in good faith, (b) he stopped when objections were raised and was very receptive to feedback/discussion, even when critical; and (c) he has shown every sign of being a better editor (which makes sense given more experience).
 * Second, I concur with MrX's comment in its entirety, including the trenchant analysis of both Snoogs's diffs (the substantial majority of which are reasonable, proper, or innocuous, with a smattering of errors or bad diffs) and TParis's diffs (the latter furnishes ample reason to be skeptical of the motives of this filing).
 * Snoogs doesn't have a perfect "batting average" but his score is as good or better as many editors. Neutralitytalk 04:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
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
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.]


 * Diffs 51 through 65 show a bulk approach to editing, in the spirit of Dr. Blofeld and dozens of other editors who edit in that fashion. The material is brief, neutrally written, and verifiable in multiple highly-respected sources. The material satisfies a reasonable interpretation of WP:DUEWEIGHT (which, by the way, is a means of evaluating and achieving WP:NPOV, not a separate policy). Many of these edits were reverted. Snooganssnoogans does not seem to have edit warred or personally attacked editors who preferred the material to remain out of the articles.- MrX 23:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Diffs 66 through 71 are mostly reasonable edits. Some are not great. 68 was a bad edit in that it made a controversial BLP claim in Wikipedia's voice.
 * Diffs 72 through 110 show more bulk editing. The edit includes a couple of unsourced claims. I assume that this was a mistake and that the unsourced portion was from an uncited source. That, and the "voted voted" typo, was replicated 38 times. That deserves an 8 lb. trout, but it's hardly a sanctionable offense.
 * Diff 111 is part of the same edit as in diffs 72 through 110. Diffs 112 through 114 are WP:SYNTH, but Snooganssnoogans made a sincere effort to understand the issue and self-correct. I made similar WP:SYNTH errors in my early editing career. It took a similar discussion with a more experience editor before the lightbulb came on and I realized that my edits violated WP:OR.
 * Diffs 115 through 120 show the introduction of properly-written, sourced content. In some cases, it may not be the best content for those articles, but there seems to be nothing that breaches policy, especially in the context of the American politics 2 Arbcom case.

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" and he's keeping a list. Some of his comments, including accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence on this very page, and here, suggest a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset that leads me to believe that this is an attempt to RIGHTGREATLEFTS.- MrX 03:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You haven't made a convincing case that there actually is a behavior problem. What I see is an editor who is very receptive to any advice given them, and who is making progress as an editor.- MrX 04:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000
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)
 * @Masem, thanks for the link to EEng. I’ve quoted RECENTISM and NOTNEWS many times and nearly always tend to suggest a delay to see if a story has legs or falls off the radar. Besides, “breaking news” is becoming a part of comedy routines. But, for those that edit political articles, a strict time period doesn’t work. Obviously there’s a difference between so-and-so said such-and-such and an assassination. But, where do we draw the line? Objective3000 (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
Thanks for the effort in your request. I wonder if you have any response to this edit. It is in mid-March, so not particularly recent. It added a study which argued against a "Democratic" position.

My own viewpoint is the following. Most people who edit political topics (I am one of them) have biases, and it is often possible to figure out their POV after a few edits. Also, Wikipedia is not compulsory, so people edit what they like. So Snoogan's behaviour is largely normal in political areas. I think, primarily, only egregious behaviour can be tackled. Does editor's edit add so much negative information that it becomes a COATRACK for the main article? Is the subject creating articles to primarily push a POV, filled with COATRACK stuff, for instance? Do they refuse to discuss on the talkpage, refuse to compromise, canvass, fail to cite reliable sources or don't understand reliable source policy, indulge in personal attacks, bad faith and so on?

Short of egregious behaviour, things become much more murky. I am not sure if these things can be fought (or whether it is even desirable to fight them) if they don't rise to egregious behaviour. There will be many many editors who fall in the category of "less than egregious" and I know lots of people who are much worse than Snoogans in this respect. I think politics and religion are topics in which such behaviour is inevitable. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I analyze several of the claims by, 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 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.. This kind of editing is wrong. The correct way to go about doing this would be to say "Congressman X voted for AHCA. Here is a short, neutral description of what the bill does". Or, "Congressman X voted for AHCA." (full stop). The bill has many provisions. It is not permitted to randomly pick two provisions (which, coincidentally, happen to be negative) of the bill to highlight in an unrelated article. This is archetypical WP:CHERRYPICKING.

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 &#9821; &#9818; 10:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to emphasize one point in response to the comments made by a couple of people here, including BullRangifer and MVBW. They state that as long as other people add something to balance one editor's contributions it's ok. No, it isn't. See WP:NPOV: Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.. It is the responsibility of every editor to add neutral information, or at least move the article towards neutrality (if the article was earlier imbalanced). It is not permitted to add (say) the propaganda of one side and hope someone else balances it out. I see far too many people doing this in political areas. Of course, neutrality is, to some extent in the eyes of the beholder; so one can't be too strict about this. But, in my opinion, the diffs 48 to 81 are clearly on the other side of the line. By no stretch of imagination can the text I quoted be said to be a neutral description of the AHCA. As I said, the behaviour is not egregious (I have seen much worse). And I'm not sure if it deserves some kind of sanction (I leave it to admins). But I don't agree that the behaviour was ok, as some people argue here. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with MVBW that one can find an awful lot in political areas which is biased. The editing by Snoogans is by no means the worst in political areas on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is a hobby and most of us are amateurs; are editors really expected to be familiar with the literature on a topic? No, nobody is asking for expertise; the comment is fundamentally misguided. One does not aim to completely, or even mostly remove bias: human beings are biased, and Wikipedia is a human project. What is required is for people to strive to present a neutral view of the topic as presented in reliable sources, as required by WP:NPOV. To make it concrete: in this case, the AHCA already has a Wikipedia page. If one wants to give a short, neutral description of the act, one could simply summarize the lead of the AHCA page (sources can be taken from the references on the page). It's not too much to ask editors to do this kind of stuff. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 22:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Politrukki

 * 1) (March 9) Less than two days after the ANI thread was closed and Snooganssnoogans was told to respect NPOV, they make an edit, adding breaking news to the lead.
 * 2) (March 29) Snooganssnoogans reverts. Later when a DS template is added to the article,, they admit making an error and self-revert per request, only to reinstate the same edit few weeks later.
 * 3) (April 6) Snooganssnoogans reinstates a partial revert that challenged an edit which introduced original research. They were asked to explain a reason for their revert  and I asked them to self-revert, actually twice, but they were completely unresponsive. If Snooganssnoogans didn't violate the "consensus required" remedy, then it must be I who violated the rule by reverting their revert after I got tired of waiting for at least some kind of response.
 * 4) In March Snooganssnoogans created Lawfare Blog. After their edits yesterday, the article mostly consists of Donald Trump controversies. I don't know exactly how well the article adheres to NPOV, but this seems fishy.
 * 5) It is somewhat troubling that Snooganssnoogans doesn't seem to take their recent BLP violation seriously, judging by their comment "like slinging spaghetti on the wall".

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
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. Timothy Joseph Wood 00:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll admit that SS offering some kind of resolution in submitting to outside oversight is commendable. Personally, if I were king of Wikipedia I would have probably leaned toward a topic ban from political BLPs back when the ANI thread was filed. If they're fine with using the WikiProject and/or edit requests on political BLPs for probably six months, then I'm personally satisfied. This will help them get a feel for what other editors think is acceptable (I would hasten to add for others that doing this in good faith means not doing it with an accomplice, intentionally coordinated or otherwise). But I do think that this should apply for all political BLPs and not just for mass edits. Overall, I think voluntarily submitting for something like this would go a long way toward lending credibility toward their good faith willingness to try to understand and adapt to community expectations. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID
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)
 * Just to respond - the impact of the cost disparity on the elderly for the new AHCA can be trivially sourced online from secondary sources. Its also easily calculated using basic math from the primary documents. And keep in mind plenty of people actually *applaud* these changes. Obviously not anyone affected by them, but they will be dead soon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by JFG
I'm puzzled by '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 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)
 * And just to respond, I never said the cherry-picked information on AHCA premiums was incorrect or unsourced, just that adding it to dozens of BLPs was tendentious and borderline advocacy. — JFG talk 12:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer
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
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).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sagecandor
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:

,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.

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)

Result concerning Snooganssnoogans

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * I'm of two minds about this:
 * On the one hand, WP:N WP:NPOV does have a conduct aspect, and editors who systematically edit to promote a particular point of view are not here to write a neutral encyclopedia. (That this may be true for very many veteran editors in contentious topic areas is another matter.). I also think the complaint has a point in highlighting several occasions in which Snooganssnoogans has added material to BLPs in such a way that, even if individually verifiable, it is read as criticism of the subject's political positions by Wikipedia. To paraphrase, these are the edits in the vein of, "Senator X supported the AHCA which would reduce health care coverage, and supported Trump's firing of Comey when Comey was investigating Trump"). This is, in aggregate, non-neutral, because it confuses the political positions with (even reliably sourced) criticism of them by third parties. In articles about politicians who have taken a political position, we don't really have the space to fairly address all relevant views about the position, and therefore such views normally belong in the articles about the political issues themselves.
 * On the other hand, Snooganssnoogans has submitted (in their otherwise overlong and difficult to read reply) recent diffs in which they removed derogatory or problematic content from articles about conservative politicians . In my view, this substantially weakens the complaint's assertion that "Snooganssnoogans edits almost exclusively to add negative material to Conservative articles". Furthermore, the (necessarily) broad scope of the complaint makes it very difficult to untangle from the underlying content disputes, which AE does not address, and makes it not well suited for action at AE. This forum relies on action by individual admins, which makes it well suited to clear-cut cases of disruption that can be shown with a few diffs and resolved with a block or ban, but much less to cases that require analysis of much evidence and long-term editing patterns, and perhaps a more nuanced remedy. Concerns of this type are probably better suited to a full arbitration case.
 * Because of this, I think that we should not take AE action at this time. But I advise Snooganssnoogans to take into account the concerns that have been raised about their editing and to take care not to make edits that, individually or in aggregate, can be perceived as non-neutral.  Sandstein   08:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In response to the complainant's contention that what you say is your practice of "regularly reverting vandalism and unproductive edits to GOP politicians’ pages, many of which seek to attack them" is a recent development in response to the complainant's concerns, can you provide diffs of such edits over an extended period of time prior to May 2017?  Sandstein   15:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, which does indicate similar edits (although mostly reverts of clear vandalism) from earlier in 2017. On this basis, I don't think I'll change my assessment of the issue above.  Sandstein   17:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In view of the subsequent discussion, I would not oppose appropriate sanctions, because I think it is now more clear that Snooganssnoogans has in fact edited in a manner that is, in aggregate, not compliant with WP:NPOV. But it would be preferable if Snooganssnoogans could make it clear that they understand the problems with their editing and give us clear assurances that these problems will not reoccur.  Sandstein   10:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"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."
 * There's a ton to read over, so this will take time. I'll just say at the onset that I agree with Sandstein as to his last point-- this highly-complex request is better suited for Arbitration. However, that doesn't preclude action here. I'll continue reviewing diffs over the weekend. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * VM, I haven't said "this is essentially a content dispute," only that this type of complex evidence might be better suited for arbitration. Having had a chance to actually look through it, I'm inclined to agree with the concerns below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I'm only part through reading. What bothers me most is that I see a lot of repeats in adding things like "In February 2017, he voted against a resolution that would have directed the House to request 10 years of Trump's tax returns" being put in many different articles.  It isn't about the truth or sources, this is just kind of a minor thing that doesn't say much about the person but does seem to be added solely to be prejudicial.  Really, it isn't interesting enough for any article, and we don't do a blow by blow on everything that a congressman has voted for, so cherry picking this fact and using it multiple times, well, is odd.  WP:DUE and WP:NPOV are concerns if I seek seeing this.  I still have more to read.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing more than Sandstein. Perhaps he hasn't read as much, or just sees it differently.  The common thread in all these diffs appears to be to add negative information that aligns the person with Trump, even those that never endorsed him as a candidate, which is a high number.  Many of the facts are rather mundane, meaning the article isn't really improved or damaged by the single fact, but there is a common theme and I can't ignore that.  This strikes right at the heart of WP:NPOV.  NPOV is much easier to spot and enforce within a single article, but when shotgunned across a host of articles, it requires a lot of reading to spot.  Adding material to the lede, that was obviously a problem.  Individually, the edits are not very useful, but if you step back enough to view them as a group, and a problematic pattern arises.  When you have this many edits and every single one is framed as a negative and it is only for one political party, I can't help but to see that this is a real problem. American Politics 2 made a point of passing a resolution that covered NPOV. If the political leanings of an editor is brutally obvious, that editor should excercise restraint when editing in politics, to do so in a neutral manner.  I am not convinced that is what is happening here.  Again, spread over many articles, the pattern is harder to detect, but there is no way to ignore this pattern. It is not enough to have good sources, editors must consider the WP:DUE value of their contributions and how it affects the neutrality of not just that one article, but our political articles as a whole.  I want to read more of Snooganssnoogans's contribs before drawing a conclusion, but I think it would be foolish to dismiss the charges out of hand. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Masem makes a couple of interesting points below that I would expand on. I do think there is a bias at work here that let good judgement be overridden.  Snooganssnoogans isn't the first to flood political articles with factoids that are trivial and would not be expected in an encyclopedia article, yet they have been willing to take on criticism in the past, so allow me to add some now:  If you have strong political feelings, you need to go out of your way to seek balance in what you contribute and ask yourself if those factoids are what people are really going to care about in 10 or 20 years. I would go beyond a "trout" and instead strongly warn you that your edits do in fact border on NPOV violations when taken as a group and are rapidly approaching the point of sanction. I can accept that sometimes passion about a topic can cloud someone's judgment, but this isn't a justification, it is just a potential reason.  When you edit here, you have to put your personal opinions to the side and find that inner kernel of objectivity, and if you can't, you need to avoid the topic or only use the talk page to suggest edits.  Wikipedia does have serious issues with objectivity in political articles on the whole, so perhaps Masem is correct in that we need a larger discussion on the topic. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 08:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * GoldenRing, I wouldn't be against that. I'm stymied as to a solution and agree that a warning rings a bit hollow, but something needs to be done to get the point across.  I fear this is soon going to end up in a full blown Arb case if we don't find a way to put an end to this kind of editing.  There are others who are likely as guilty, but for day, we just have the issue at hand to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , and others: It seems to me the problem is always related to entries that are more news than anything.  Not so much politics since 1932, but politics in the last couple of years.  Maybe some kind of restriction that is narrowed down to more current events is in order.  A restriction to the talk page of politics 2010+ perhaps, or a restriction on adding material on events that have taken place in the last 10 years.  Something of that sort that might tamp the temptation of padding the articles of one political party as he has done. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but the more I think about it, the more I agree a simple warning just isn't going to get the job done. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I agree that does solve some of the problems.  I think he also needs to reflect on NPOV even when not doing mass edits, as the mass edits indicate a pattern, but the pattern is still there for single edits.  If we can solve without complicated sanctions, all the better.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , the fact that people think this is ok also disturbs me. I think they are missing the big picture and looking at edits in isolation.  TParis has touched on something, that the real problem was the mass entries to articles.  Generally speaking, adding something to one article can be hashed out on the talk page, but adding it to a dozen or more is the bigger problem.  Maybe a ban against putting the same information in more than one article, ie: mass posting. I would also strongly warn about adding material that is more akin to a news site rather than an encyclopedia, which is part of the problem as well. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think "posting the same basic content in three or more article in the Post 1932 American Politics covered areas, construed broadly." plus the warning. Really, mass posting in any subject area is usually a bad idea and a recipe for sanction.  A couple of articles is one thing, but mass posting is usually overkill or POV pushing.  He's offering to get consensus before he mass posts, but the fact is, the whole idea of mass posting itself is the problem.  Looks like you might be in a different time zone, we can wait, and maybe others can jump in or implement something to this effect.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think is best described as a content issue at this point -- but it represents a larger trend that's been growing more and more in the last few years of editors rushing to fill in articles on current political and ideological issues as they break rather than from hindsight when summarizing a political career, which is against the intent and spirit of WP:NOT and documented more at WP:RECENTISM. Are the edits bad? No, not individually or hard to say taken as a whole, though it hints at a bit of coatracking particularly when it is including Trump's name, but not enough to take action yet; but it is also information that is likely not appropriate in its current form if we look back at any of these people 5, 10, 20 years down the road. I think the project needs a larger discussion of how we should be handling current politics knowing that these articles draw intense conflict within the project and potential POV editing (as it is being claimed here). So no action here beyond cautionary trouts, but I think we need a full discussion of how we really should be writing on these types of topics now which is beyond the scope of AE. --M ASEM (t) 00:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @TParis I'm not so sure it is strictly isolated as an NPOV issue though that's central to it. Again, many of these edits strictly aren't NPOV violations in isolation, but they tickle the edge of coatracking for me to warn/trout. I'd personally say they should be added with much more hindsight over time if the point is still relevant. There is something that is happening on User talk:EEng that extended from a few recent AN/ANI issues that are in the same territory of rushed edits of "breaking" news in the US political arena to try to set some type of moratorium, but it really needs a larger discussion once something more concrete can be developed. --M ASEM (t) 00:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Objective3000 It is not a simple solution. There is a balance to be made about some information that should be included because it is objectively true and not going to change, but going beyond that should be avoided in the short term; a good example is that we should identify that Comey was let go from the FBI from the get-go, but we should avoid the reams of opinion on why that happened and what it means, at least until a bigger picture is known. But that dividing line is very hard to set, and why we need a larger discussion to figure that out; we definitely shouldn't single out Snooganssnoogans here for something that affects many articles and many editors. --M ASEM (t) 04:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noting my own agreement with GoldenRing's statement below that while the information meets WP:V, and seems neutral in wording, missing a bigger picture of what our purpose should be, and why we really need to have RECENTISM in mind when dealing with ongoing politics and ideological battles. Editors need to think if that information would be added en masse if we were talking about Congresspeople from 20 or 30 years ago, and if that makes doing the same appropriate. Again, this to me is a trouting situation to not call out one editor for a larger problem that is going on. --M ASEM (t) 14:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There seems to be fairly general agreement that the editing pattern is problematic (and I agree), but no agreement on what to do about it. A number have suggested that a warning might be sufficient - but the complaint lists multiple attempts at resolution and here we are.  On at least the AN and ANI threads, Snoogums appeared to heed warnings and the threads were closed on that basis, but here we are.  IMO either a lengthy topic ban - say one year - or a full case are the viable outcomes of this.  A warning seems unlikely to be effective, given the history.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I quite see the problem. I have considerable difficulty thinking of a restriction that would be effective and is tailored to the situation.  Any narrower topic ban seems to me a recipe for trouble: a topic ban is usually a message to stay well away from the area, so any narrow TBAN seems likely to lead either to actual editing around the edges of it or to groundless accusations of violations.  Any restriction that amounts to "edit neutrally" is just a restatement of policy anyway.  The problems are widespread enough that anything to do with mass edits or edits to the lead etc won't capture it.  A topic ban from all post-1932 AP does seem a blunt tool, but it might be the only effective tool we have.  What about a shorter TBAN (1-3 months?) to give some space to gain perspective?
 * On a wider point, which may be part of the underlying problem here and related to what User:Masem has to say above, I'm a bit worried by the number of editors here who see no problem with Snnogums' edits because they are all verifiable. I'm aware of the discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability, but neither version of that policy text makes verifiability sufficient grounds for inclusion.  GoldenRing (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's too late here for me to draft anything clear. I'm tempted by something along the lines of, "is prohibited from adding substantially similar content to multiple articles in the post-1932 AP topic area and is warned that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROPORTION are compulsory policies with which their recent editing has not complied and that further violations may lead to a topic ban."  But it still all looks like a can of worms (not to mention a run-on sentence) to me.  How substantially similar?  How many articles?  Over how long a time period?  I don't want to end up creating a trap that opponents will end up using against him or a sanction that is easily violated unintentionally.  GoldenRing (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I read through this when it was filed, and I've read through it all again now that people have commented. My initial thoughts, and my further thoughts now, are pretty much in alignment with those of Dennis Brown. I see lots of edits which, examined individually, might appear acceptable - perhaps with a debatable touch of WP:UNDUE, but not deserving of any action. But taken as a whole, I do see a clear bias against conservative politicians and I see editing that highlights "shaming" comments in an NPOV and UNDUE manner. I'm not sure that any sanction is needed right now, but I do think we need at least the serious warning that Dennis suggests, such that further biased editing will result in sanctions. (Disclaimer: by US political standards, I'm liberal rather than conservative.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Proposal

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&cent; 20:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping, , , and . Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonably fair given all statements above, without eliminating the ability to still contribute constructively. --M ASEM (t) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that should be a fair and effective result. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, Dennis. This is a narrowly-tailored restriction that gets at the heart of the issue while still allowing them to edit in this space. I agree with Boing! that there's biased editing going on in the aggregate that justifies a remedy. I'd support this with the proviso that it can/should be modified/expanded to a TBAN if there's an effort to wikilawyer out of it. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Goldenring hasn't edited today, but I think their opinions are pretty well known, so we seem to all agree here. I will implement shortly.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Archwayh
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Archwayh

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 : WP:ARBAPDS


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) 20 May In consecutive edits, and without obtaining consensus on the talk page, reinstates a series of edits that were challenged.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 2 August 2016


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

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, "part of operations to compromise Donald Trump", "close ally and friend" and other original research, including The intercepted communications allegedly claimed that the goal of interference in the election was a White House that was pro-Kremlin and anti-European Union. [emphasis added]

Asked to self-revert. They have not reacted in any way.

On April 4, in another article under ARBAPDS, they used personal attack in an edit summary, and doubled down on it.

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, User_talk:Archwayh Politrukki (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Archwayh
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by JFG
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)
 * Will you consider adding a provision about being mindful of minor edits and edit comments to the remedy? (I just noticed Archwayh rarely adds edit summaries to his contributions.) — JFG talk 02:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Archwayh

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * There's a consensus restriction on the article that shows up in an edit notice. This wasn't complied with. I'd like to hear from them first, but otherwise I'd propose a short topic ban. This individual incident, plus the personal attacks (or what are at least unhelpful barbs), along with the failure to respond to feedback, justify a sanction of some kind. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, JFG. He hasn't edited since my comment above, so I'm hoping he gives a statement. If he doesn't, or edits and doesn't contribute here, I'd impose the short TBAN proposal above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Keith-264
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Keith-264

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 19:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: short-term block
 * Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
 * Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) 03:46, 25 May 2017 First revert
 * 2) 03:50, 25 May 2017 Second revert
 * 3) 11:43, 25 May 2017 Blatant incivility and personalization of content dispute, refusal to answer questions asked in good faith

(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.)
 * 1) 12:34, 9 March 2017 personal attack, and threat of more
 * 2) 23:54, 10 March 2017 personal attack


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

(none)


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months on 25 April 2017, and see the system log linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Keith-264 has a lengthy history of similar disruptive conduct at Talk:RT (TV network), and has been warned about it numerous times, but this might be the first time he has subjected himself to DS. I'd also like to note that I have zero experience with WP:ARBPIA and little with AE, so my apologies in advance if I've done anything wrong. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , this request concerns conduct, not content. Any time an initial comment on a discussion is met with an immediate and curt "of course you would think that" is stifling and disruptive and inhibits the consensus-building process. Having to deal with these sorts of content-free ad hominems through DR would be a waste of everyone's time, in my view. In any case, I added the 1RR vio a minute before you commented, so you probably missed it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 12:36, 25 May 2017

Discussion concerning Keith-264
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Keith-264
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 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)
 * Pls also scrutinise edit comments for more evidence of incivility and bad faith and check previous rulings. Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The allegations against me are a one-sided view of the history of the article and the talk page. I think that it would be quicker and fairer for the article and talk page to be reviewed by an outsider than play reciprocal complaint games with DrFleischman.Keith-264 (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Keith-264

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * I'd recommend one of the many methods for handling your content dispute. Don't get too heated and too personal. Otherwise, this single diff isn't enough for anything. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I commented before the extra diffs. That's a 1RR violation. The article as a whole isn't within the sanction area, but a section titled "Israel–Palestine conflict" definitely is. Would like to hear Keith-264's response to the new diffs, please. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You've been given a chance to explain why you shouldn't be sanctioned for a 1RR violation and haven't offered anything. I'm going to close this with a short block for the 1RR violation and a reminder not to engage in personal attacks. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

JGabbard
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning JGabbard

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 :
 * Standard Discretionary sanctions.
 * User previously topic-banned for behavior at article Murder of Seth Rich, now continuing same behavior.


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) 24 May 2017 - Exact same behavior at exact same article Murder of Seth Rich that resulted in prior topic-ban, casting aspersions against . Comment: "SPECIFICO has always been a minimalist and a deletionist on this article, and has been standing guard over it ever since it was just a few hours old. He never even wanted it to exist in the first place, so he really should have no say in its content.  He is overruled, period."
 * 2) 24 May 2017 - Disruptive editing at page Murder of Seth Rich, reverts to add back non-information. Cleaned up and removed by  at.
 * 3) 27 May 2017 - Violation of reliable sources at page subject to WP:BLP and discretionary sanctions - at Murder of Seth Rich, adds source "Listverse.com", site that takes "list" submissions from literally anyone . Source removed by  as not reliable source.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 27 September 2011 - Blocked for 1RR violation on Planned Parenthood, by admin.
 * 2) 27 August 2016 - Topic-banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, for six months, by admin . Prior AE thread at . Topic ban was related to similar behavior at exact same article, namely, Murder of Seth Rich.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * 18 August 2016 - Discretionary sanctions alert notice, given by.
 * 27 August 2016 - Prior topic-banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, for six months, by admin . Prior AE thread at . Topic ban was related to similar behavior at exact same article, namely, Murder of Seth Rich.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * I have to say I agree with . The prior sanction was for casting aspersions against at article Murder of Seth Rich. This same exact behavior of casting aspersions is against exact same editor, at exact same article. Sagecandor (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

More evidence, more diffs, same exact behavior, same exact article, against same exact user, after expiry of prior topic ban at same exact page:


 * Entrenchment in the conspiracy theories and appeal to ignore the parents of the murder victim: "The parents' request should be disregarded because it is unreasonable".


 * Advocacy to ignore Snopes.com as a fact-checking resource. "Snopes has been widely debunked and discredited as a reliable, objective fact-checking source, and should not be cited on WP" (and yet simultaneously advocates views of Kim DotCom, instead .)


 * More evidence of casting aspersions against the same exact user (SPECIFICO) for which he was previously sanctioned, after expiry of his prior topic ban: "SPECIFICO, Rich's murder obviously carries much more significance than just that of "a low-level staffer at some political project," especially to you, or you would not have spent the last seven months of your life obsessing over it.".

Sagecandor (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 20:15, 27 May 2017 - posted to user's talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion concerning JGabbard
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by JGabbard
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.,, , ), 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, victim's statements, 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, 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
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)

Result concerning JGabbard

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * The diffs above are more tame than when you were topic banned, but they don't suggest you've learned much about appropriate conduct in this topic area. The Murder of Seth Rich article is incredibly heated right now and passive aggressive remarks about other editors is unhelpful. That said, this isn't enough for me to say another ban is warranted, though I wouldn't be surprised if other admins propose one. I'd close with a warning. Keep in mind: repeat conduct usually earns one a lengthy/indef topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I still feel this is too thin for any topic-level sanction, considering it's just one diff of personalizing the dispute. That's no pattern. On the other hand, considering this is the same article where the issues were before, I'd only support something like the narrow restriction proposed by Dennis Brown below. If there's more evidence available that speaks to broader conduct issues, I'd like to see it. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally, this wouldn't be enough to trigger a first time sanction, but this isn't the first time this editor has had a problem with this article. JGabbard does indeed seem rather invested, to the point that it affects their ability to work constructively with others. The problem isn't all politics, just this one topic.  A more narrow topic ban, "anything relating to Seth Rich, broadly construed" might be worth considering.  This would solve the problem more surgically without restricting them in other areas where they may be able to contribute constructively.  I would support any length and recommend 6 months, same as last time.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to get a third admin opinion, as this is a bit on the cusp. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Gahgeer
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Gahgeer

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA3 :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) Editing I/P article
 * 2) Editing I/P aricle


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on

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  he will continue to edit the articles--Shrike (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Gahgeer
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Gahgeer
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)


 * @NeilN I have no problem with that rule whatsoever evident by how I discussed changes on Talk: Dalal Mughrabi and Talk: Palestine Liberation Organization. My concern that I was accused of violating the rule when it was not clear it applied to a disambiguation page (and even now, the revert in my opinion shows a completely subjective treatment of the topic but I digress). I have no problem complying with the rule (because I have been doing so in the first place). I'd like to turn this page over and move on. Gahgeer (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Question by jd2718
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

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * Gahgeer first edited in 2008, although he is not remotely close to the 500 limit. Still, this is a bit of a different circumstance.  His user page makes his bias pretty clear.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at his talk page, it is possible he really didn't understand. The page wasn't extprot until after his edit.  It isn't an intuitive policy, so I'm willing to give a little benefit of the doubt, but only a little. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on their talk page encouraging them to come here. They edit so little, they might not even notice a block, so I'm more focused on making sure it doesn't happen again.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , what do you do about someone who arguably didn't know about them? In good faith, I can see that potential.  I agree the reply didn't help, but the restriction isn't intuitive and really we should be applying the extprot to all articles that clearly apply, and being a little understanding in cases where the editor doesn't know because it is easy to do for a new editor (or in this case, old but infrequent editor).  I'm a bit stuck here as to what we should do.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree there has been a lack of willingness to listen. I can forgive a bit of this, being upset he was dragged to AE about a editing an article that wasn't protected, but that doesn't take you far and I agree at some point you should be wise enough to say "I didn't know, weird rule, I won't break it again.".  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on his positive response to NeilN's question, I'm happy to just leave this as a warning. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , that is a good question and I'm not aware of a perfect answer, but it would seem so since that editor was not supposed to be editing that article. Reverting is restoring the article as if the infraction didn't take place.  Other (500/30 qualified) editors are welcome to add back the material, as the infraction isn't about the content, it is about the user not qualifying to insert it.  It would be an editorial decision, not related to the Arb restriction.  This assumes the material doesn't violate other Arb restrictions on PI articles.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I get what EdJohnston is saying, but this is a de facto ban on editing, so the reverting doesn't bother me. It isn't required, but as I understand it, it is allowed.  I'm happy to be pointed to an actual ruling, and maybe that is a topic for WP:ARCA so we don't have any confusion about it in the future.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am afraid the user should be blocked since they were very clear they are not interested in stopping editing the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks Dennis. Let us wait a bit.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Gahgeer has left a response above which doesn't inspire confidence. The options that remain for us seem to be block, ban or final warning, They made no response at all regarding the concern that led to this AE, about disobeying the 500-edit restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Dennis: Once a discussion has begun with the editor, we should expect them to start paying attention. So whatever rules he didn't know previously is not so relevant. He has shown he is willing to answer here, but not to address the concern. Originally I was going to say 'Final warning not to edit ARBPIA before 500 edits' but everything he has said so far (including what is on his user page) suggests he is unlikely to listen. He can show he is listening by addressing the concern. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Jd2718: Arbcom calls the 500-edit limit a 'general prohibition'. They are not employing the word 'ban'. If they did, it would be correct to assume that WP:BANREVERT applies. In general, I would not personally revert a prohibited edit unless I thought it was a bad idea. Assuming I was working as a regular content editor. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've asked a direct question. Let's see if we get a direct answer. --Neil N  talk to me 19:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Recommend this be closed noting that will adhere to WP:ARBPIA3 --Neil N  talk to me 05:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)