|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==Reference==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *Nic Hill, Scott Glosserman [https://thoughtmaybe.com/truth-in-numbers/ Truth in Numbers]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Qatar==
| |
| − | Qatar is a small peninsular country that juts into the Persian Gulf and whose only land border is with Saudi Arabia. Gas-rich, the country's ''citizens'' enjoy the highest per capita income in the world. Doha's capital is well known for its skyscrapers, at least one of which resembles a spicy pickle. Though sports like camel-racing and falconry are more traditional, Qatar has shown an interest in football (soccer) through its ownership of Paris-St. Germain and its sponsorship of FC Barcelona. It is building nine stadia in preparation for the 2022 World Cup, which it is hosting. Its media property Al Jazeera has been a bone of contention with other Gulf nations, as has its refusal to condemn the Muslim Brotherhood. After its neighbors decided during Ramadan in 2017 to cut diplomatic ties, many families living in Qatar found themselves with difficult choices, including potentially being forced to renounce their citizenship if they remained in Qatar.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In June 2017, John Ascroft's lobbying firm signed a $2.5 million contract to rehabilitate Qatar's image in the US by better publicizing steps taken in recent years to prosecute private citizens funding the Taliban and jihadi groups.<ref name=Aschcroft>{{cite web
| |
| − | |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-10/singled-out-by-trump-qatar-hires-former-top-law-man-to-lobby
| |
| − | |title=Singled Out by Trump, Qatar Hires Former Top U.S. Law Man
| |
| − | |first=Bill
| |
| − | |last=Allison
| |
| − | |publisher=Bloomberg
| |
| − | |date=10 June 2017
| |
| − | |accessdate=11 June 2017
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | </ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[File:Georgia_Aquarium_-_Giant_Grouper.jpg|300px]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | =Copy of the en.wp "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" page currently at Articles for Deletion... =
| |
| − | <!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the discussion has been closed. -->
| |
| − | {{Article for deletion/dated|page=Ideological bias on Wikipedia|timestamp=20180525184424|year=2018|month=May|day=25|substed=yes|help=off}}
| |
| − | <!-- Once discussion is closed, please place on talk page: {{Old AfD multi|page=Ideological bias on Wikipedia|date=25 May 2018|result='''keep'''}} -->
| |
| − | <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
| |
| − | [[File:Wikipedia scale of justice 1.jpg|thumb|307px|right|To some, ideological bias can be seen as a "thumb on the scale" of Wikipedia's editorial balance.]]
| |
| − | Concerns about an '''ideological bias on Wikipedia''' are reflected in analysis and [[Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship|criticism]] of the [[Reliability of Wikipedia#Liberal bias|reliability]] of the online encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]], and especially its [[English Wikipedia|English-language site]], in relation to whether or not its content is biased due to the [[Political spectrum|political]], [[Belief#Religion|religious]], or other [[epistemological]] [[ideology]] of its volunteer [[Wikipedia editors]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Collectively the findings show that Wikipedia articles edited by large numbers of editors with opposing views are at least as neutral as other sources, but articles with fewer edits written by smaller groups of ideologically homogeneous editors were more likely to exhibit bias.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Public opinion==
| |
| − | Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] said in April 2006: "The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from [[liberalism|liberal]] to [[conservatism|conservative]] to [[libertarianism|libertarian]] and beyond. If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) they almost certainly don't, I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." <ref name="MediaShift">{{cite web|last1=Glaser|first1=Mark|title=Email Debate::Wales Discusses Political Bias on Wikipedia|url=http://mediashift.org/2006/04/email-debatewales-discusses-political-bias-on-wikipedia111/|website=[[MediaShift]]|accessdate=22 May 2018|date=April 21, 2006}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Sorin Adam Matei, a professor at [[Purdue University]], said in 2018 that, "For certain political topics, there's a central-left bias. There's also a slight, when it comes to more political topics, counter-cultural bias. It's not across the board, and it's not for all things."<ref>{{cite news |last=Matsakis |first=Louise |url=https://www.wired.com/story/youtube-wikipedia-content-moderation-internet/ |title=Don't Ask Wikipedia to Cure the Internet |work=Wired |date=March 16, 2018 |accessdate=May 22, 2018}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Analyses==
| |
| − | ===Greenstein and Zhu===
| |
| − | [[Shane Greenstein]] and [[Feng Zhu]], both professors at the [[Harvard Business School]], have authored several studies and articles examining [[Wikipedia]] from an ideological standpoint as component of its [[collective intelligence]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====''Is Wikipedia Biased?'' (2012)====
| |
| − | In ''Is Wikipedia Biased?'' (2012), the authors examined a sample of 28,382 articles related to U.S. politics (as of January 2011) measuring their degree of [[bias]] on a "slant index" based on a method developed by Gentzkow and Shapiro (2010) to measure [[media bias in the United States|bias in newspaper media]].<ref name="Econometrica">{{cite journal|last1=Gentzkow|first1=M|last2=Shapiro|first2=J. M.|authorlink1=Matthew Gentzkow|authorlink2=Jesse M. Shapiro|title=What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers|journal=[[Econometrica]]|date=January 2010|volume=78|issue=1|pages=35–71|doi=10.3982/ECTA7195|publisher=[[The Econometric Society]]}}</ref> This slant index measures an ideological lean toward either [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] or [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] based on key phrases within the text and gives a rating for the relative amount of that lean. The authors used this method to measure whether Wikipedia was meeting its stated policy of "[[:Wikipedia:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]" (or NPOV). They also examined the changes to articles over time as they are revised. The authors concluded that older articles from the early years of Wikipedia leaned Democratic, whereas those created more recently held more balance. They suggest that articles did not change their bias significantly due to revision, but rather that over time newer articles containing opposite points of view were responsible for centering the average overall.<ref name="GZ2012">{{cite journal|last1=Greenstein|first1=Shane|last2=Zhu|first2=Feng|authorlink1=Shane Greenstein|title=Is Wikipedia Biased?|journal=[[American Economic Review]]|date=May 2012|volume=102|issue=3|pages=343–348|doi=10.1257/aer.102.3.343|publisher=[[American Economic Association]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Study: Wikipedia perpetuates political bias|author=Khimm, Suzy|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/study-wikipedia-perpetuates-political-bias/2012/06/18/gJQAaA3llV_blog.html|work=The Washington Post|date=June 18, 2012|accessdate=May 22, 2018}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The findings have been confirmed by later research, such as ''[[#The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds (2017)|The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds]]'' (2017).<ref name="Wisdom" />
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====''Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias?'' (2017)====
| |
| − | In a more extensive follow-up study, ''Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia'' (2017), Greenstein and Zhu directly compare about 4,000 articles related to U.S. politics between [[Wikipedia]] (written by an [[online community]]) and the matching articles from ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' (written by experts) using similar methods as their 2010 study to measure slant (Democratic vs. Republican) and to quantify the degree of bias. The authors found that "Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased", particularly those focusing on civil rights, corporations, and government. Entries about immigration trended toward Republican. They further found that "(t)he difference in bias between a pair of articles decreases with more revisions" and, when articles were substantially revised, the difference in bias compared to ''Britannica'' was statistically negligible. The implication, per the authors, is that "many contributions are needed to reduce considerable bias and slant to something close to neutral".<ref name="GZ2017">{{cite journal|last1=Greenstein|first1=Shane|last2=Zhu|first2=Feng|authorlink1=Shane Greenstein|title=Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia|journal=[[MIS Quarterly]]|date=2014|volume=|issue=|pages=|doi=|publisher=|url=http://fengzhu.info/BritannicaWikipedia.pdf<!--replace this url with doi when journal is out-->}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Is Collective Intelligence Less Biased?|url=https://bized.aacsb.edu/articles/2015/05/is-collective-intelligence-less-biased|website=[[BizEd]]|publisher=[[AACSB]]|accessdate=17 May 2018|date=May 1, 2015}}</ref><ref name="Guo">{{cite news|last1=Guo|first1=Jeff|title=Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet’s biggest flaws|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/25/somethings-terribly-wrong-with-the-internet-and-wikipedia-might-be-able-to-fix-it|accessdate=17 May 2018|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=October 25, 2016}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===''Jointly They Edit'' (2013)===
| |
| − | A 2013 study, ''Jointly They Edit: Examining the Impact of Community Identification on Political Interaction in Wikipedia'', was conducted by Jessica J. Neff, professor at [[USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism]], and colleagues David Laniado , Karolin E. Kappler, Yana Volkovich, Pablo Aragón, Andreas Kaltenbrunner, all from the Barcelona Media-Innovation Centre. The study was conducted to "take a closer look at the patterns of interaction and discourse that members of different political parties have around information online, because they may have important consequences for the accuracy and neutrality of political information provided online". It investigated how [[Wikipedian]]s (editors of Wikipedia) identified themselves as affiliated with any political party, whether their participation was divided along [[Party line (politics)|party lines]], if they had a preference to interact with members of the same party, and how much affiliation impacted conflicts within discussions. The authors identified party and ideological affiliation using "userboxes" which some Wikipedians place on their user pages. The authors concluded:
| |
| − | {{quote|"Although Democrats and Republicans seem to maintain their political identity within the Wikipedia community, our findings show that users displayed more 'Wikipedia' boxes than political boxes on their user pages, indicating that the identity of being a Wikipedian may be more salient in the context of this community. Further, the lack of preference to interact with same-party members in the context of article discussions does not indicate the same polarization that has been observed in other contexts. In this sense, the Wikipedian identity seems to predominate over party identity. Hence, the results of our analysis show that despite the increasing political division of the U.S., there are still areas in which political dialogue is possible and happens."|source=<ref name="Jointly">{{cite journal|author1=Jessica J. Neff|author2=David Laniado|author3=Karolin E. Kappler|author4=Yana Volkovich|author5=Pablo Aragon|author6=Andreas Kaltenbrunner|title=Jointly They Edit: Examining the Impact of Community Identification on Political Interaction in Wikipedia|journal=[[PLoS ONE]]|date=April 3, 2013|volume=8|issue=4|page=e60584|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0060584}}</ref>}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === ''The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds'' (2017) ===
| |
| − | A 2017 study ''The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds'' (Feng Shi, Misha Teplitskiy, Eamon Duede, James Evans) investigated the effects of ideological diversity on Wikipedia entry quality scores for political, social issues, and science articles. To accomplish this, the authors estimated editor political alignment on the liberal-conservative spectrum based on their prior contributions and gauged article quality using a [[MediaWiki]] tool called "[[mw:ORES|ORES]]". The authors found that "polarized teams" (a balanced group of editors with diverse political viewpoints) "create articles of higher quality than politically homogeneous teams", "engage in longer, more constructive, competitive, and substantively focused but linguistically diverse debates than political moderates", and "generate a larger volume of debate and their balance of political perspectives reduces flare-ups in debate temperature". They found that homogenous or highly-skewed teams engaged in less, but highly [[acrimonious]], debate which produced articles scoring lower in quality.<ref name="Wisdom">{{cite journal|author1=Shi, F.|author2=Teplitskiy, M.|author3=Duede, E.|author4=Evans, J.A.|title=The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds|journal=(paper)|date=November 29, 2017|arxiv=1712.06414|accessdate=}}</ref><ref name="Heterodex">{{cite web|last1=Stevens|first1=Sean|title=Research Summary: The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds|url=https://heterodoxacademy.org/research-summary-the-wisdom-of-polarized-crowds/|website=[[Heterodox Academy]]|accessdate=22 May 2018|date=December 21, 2017}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Case prep==
| |
| − | ===BLP===
| |
| − | * In the course of an editwar with an IP then a registered account, Snooganssnoogans [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations&type=revision&diff=910399171&oldid=910396527 introduced a BLP violation] by falsely stating that Kathy Shelton had accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct. This mistake was reverted but Snoog [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=next&oldid=910474876 edit-warred it back in] instants later, berating the person who had removed their mistake. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASashiRolls&type=revision&diff=911248532&oldid=911248099 pinged them] to inform them I intended to correct the mistake once unblocked if nobody had done so by then, but they chose to resume their editwar on Jill Stein ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&curid=1747821&diff=911252679&oldid=909875920 thirty minutes] after being pinged) rather than to fix their BLP violation.
| |
| − | * On [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&diff=prev&oldid=765093000 12 Feb 2017] made an edit stating in wikivoice that Tulsi Gabbard opposed the arrest of a consular official for "fraud and perjury". The source does not mention what the consular official was arrested for and instead mentions that Gabbard opposed the '''way''' that the official was arrested. Two and a half years later, a new user provided context [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&diff=prev&oldid=907068794] (not in the source) which Snoogans removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&diff=next&oldid=907070910]. At first I restored the context, then realized that the source did not include that info so conformed to the source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&diff=next&oldid=907263778], which Snoogans reverted claiming their longstanding text conformed to RS (which it did not as there was no mention of the reason the consular official was manhandled in their source): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&type=revision&diff=907453070&oldid=907274741]. Eventually, I spelled out exactly why their contribution which had been sitting in the entry for two and a half years (while I'd been banned for exposing Cirt's astroturfing) was misleading and another contributor came in and removed their text entirely. (Had I done that, I would have ended up at AE.)
| |
| − | *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti%20...%20politician)&diff=prev&oldid=905987444 Bill Lee] Here SS claims the source says Bill Lee "created" a holiday ex nihilo when in fact the governor has been legally required to declare the holiday every year since the 1970s (as the article says).
| |
| − | *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Solomon_%28political_commentator%29&type=revision&diff=908022310&oldid=908022182 John Solomon] (only the 2nd source (an opinion piece) verifies the 1st claim, the other two do not.
| |
| − | *[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Galloway/Archive_8#Galloway's_alleged_support_of_Trump_over_Clinton discussion] preceding RfC on Snoogans' claim George Galloway supported / favored Trump in the 2016 US election. Note Snoogans incivility towards Kingsindian and the subsequent unanimous condemnation of Snoogans' misleading statement about Galloway.
| |
| − | *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seymour_Hersh&diff=891375880&oldid=889507802 Seymour Hersh] (This edit is a huge mess.)
| |
| − | ::Snoog adds to a paragraph purportedly about Syria: {{tq2|Politico's Jack Shafer described the story as "a messy omelet of a piece that offers little of substance for readers or journalists who may want to verify its many claims."[1][2]}}
| |
| − | :The only problem with this is that, in fact, Shafer is talking about an article about ''bin Laden'', that has ''nothing to do with the Syrian civil war''. So in the end the first and third sentences of the new paragraph Snoogans created refer to articles about bin Laden, not Syria, while the middle sentence (which Snoog pulled from preexisting text in the article) is the only one in the paragraph that is actually about Syria. I've looked at this pretty carefully and just cannot understand how or why that mistake could have been made. The irony is that in that sentence Bellingcat {{small|(see below in misc. for more on Bellingcat)}} is accusing Hersh of ''sloppy journalism'' (perhaps correctly, I have no opinion on that). All I know is that that paragraph's topic sentence is sourced to articles not about what Snoog's text claims they are about, and the "smoking gun" quote they found in Politico to end the paragraph is not referring to Hersh's reporting on Syria either.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seth_Abramson&diff=prev&oldid=876041834 Seth Abramson] misattribution of a source (which they were in a hurry to post to their wall of shame, and so left the mainspace article wrongly referenced ...)
| |
| − | ==== Jill Stein ====
| |
| − | *After not having edited the page for two weeks, Snoog disrupted my editing 6 minutes after I began correcting misleading prose (and restoring the source they had deleted in their haste two weeks prior) on 5 August 2019. In their haste to disrupt, they introduced a new formatting error. The reason for their haste may well have been their desire to bring me to ANEW in order to protect their misleading content. Cf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive394#User:SashiRolls_reported_by_User:Snooganssnoogans_(Result:_) Snooganssnoogans v. SashiRolls] @ ANEW.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I was blocked by Awilley immediately after starting this compilation for ArbCom (@18:32 10 August 2019). An admin commented at BLP/N and a contributor commented on my talk page that this block seemed out of order.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Exactly two hours before I returned on 17 August, Snoogans resumed the "slow edit war" to source the claim that Stein was spending money on "her own campaign's legal defense" to an article headline. They have not discussed on the talk page since beginning the edit war by reverting me on 5 August 2019.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&diff=prev&oldid=911252679 16:28 17 August 2019] (Revert 1)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :After this revert, clearly timed to coincide with my return to editing, I posted to the talk page and solicited a third opinion concerning the term "legal defense". Snoog responded to my new post agreeing that they were not "wedded" to the term, which they were sourcing only to the headline of their chosen ''Daily Beast'' article. They said that they did not like the term "compliance" used 4 times in the source. I did not use the term "compliance" but rather used a different formulation suggested to me by the person I consulted (as I understand it someone quite familiar with law and legal proceedings).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I created new text from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=911320173&oldid=911289275 01:53-03:50] based on careful rereading of Snoog's chosen articles (in my view highly POV pieces) and based on the understanding we had agreed to remove the wording sourced only to the headline.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :After this, Snoog twice reverted to the text that they had agreed they were not "wedded to" ("legal defense").
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :This is covered by point 2 of the explanatory supplement to en.wp policy called [[Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_the_consensus-building_process|gaming the consensus-building process]]: {{tq2|Bad-faith negotiating – Luring other editors into a compromise by making a concession, only to withhold that concession after the other side has compromised.}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :They also said that I had not mentioned that the money came from the recount (which is not true) and that I had not presented the experts more "nuanced" views "as had been explained to me". (The experts views are in fact not nuanced... they say that recount money can be used for campaign-related matters but not for personal expenses.) This is covered by point 4 of the aforementioned "gaming the consensus-building process": {{tq2|Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, {{highlight|reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction}}, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – {{highlight|to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord}}. }}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&diff=prev&oldid=911320274 3:51 18 August 2019] (Revert 2), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=911321558&oldid=911320716 4:06 18 August 2019] (Revert 3)
| |
| − | :Forcing me to 3RR here as on 5 Aug, 21 July is a very typical example of their MO: [[Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_of_sanctions_for_disruptive_behavior|Gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior]]. Cf. ANI, Levivich's testimony (link to add) {{tq2|"Borderlining" – habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, to make it hard to actually prove misconduct. }}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :à suivre... so far they've reverted to the same text 11 times (rather dogmatically one might say) ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=909431492&oldid=909429289 11:30 5 Aug], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&diff=prev&oldid=909389553 3:03 5 Aug], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&diff=prev&oldid=909387861 2:45 5 Aug], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&diff=prev&oldid=907452825 0:41 23 July], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&diff=prev&oldid=907268278 18:39 21 July], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&diff=prev&oldid=907266478 18:23 21 July], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&diff=prev&oldid=907265103 18:09 21 July], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&diff=prev&oldid=906698189 16:13 17 July])
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *Copyright violation of Yashir Ali's ''Daily Beast'' piece on Jill Stein's retirement / life insurance [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=746363353&oldid=746322132 the day it was published]. This was only fixed on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=747442715&oldid=747435737 2 November 2016], by Green Means Go, fitting with the general pattern of Snoog refusing to fix their own mistakes (cf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jill_Stein/Archive_4#Plagiarism discussion]).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *Harambe: misrepresentation of a poll. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&diff=prev&oldid=732314282 original addition 31 July 2016], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&diff=prev&oldid=732326706 initial rejection 31 July 2016]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::{{tq2|VictoriaGrayson and Neutrality expressed support for keeping the polling data in. The user who deleted it never even tried to justify it on the talk page. Polling data is standard on Trump's and Clinton's pages. The fact that you don't like what the polls show isn't an argument for removing it. (Snooganssnoogans 15:01, 19 August 2016 UTC) }}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJill_Stein&type=revision&diff=735269103&oldid=735268119 final rejection] with demonstration that the poll was fundamentally misrepresented. (Neutrality mistakenly restored it later, but did not not edit-war to keep it in.)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * another example of not doing due diligence: {{tq2|You're correct to remove the first part of the first sentence. I assumed Pink News had gotten its dates correct without checking.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jill_Stein&diff=next&oldid=736448338#WP:SYNTH_on_Assange source]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Not BLP===
| |
| − | *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Review&type=revision&diff=907370339&oldid=906798124 National Review]: problems: gets dates wrong (2013, not 2009), adds detail about 17 year old not mentioned in the article, mentions ''National Review'' in isolation, does not mention the other 3 papers mentioned in the article (unfaithful representation of the article)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiLeaks&diff=prev&oldid=807130251 copyvio of BBC on Wikileaks].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Misc.===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Creates [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=909325913&oldid=909319398 10K post] on "general reliability" of Bellingcat on 4 Aug 2019, without mentioning that he really wants approval to include an article on a specific subject (Tulsi Gabbard) because of a negative article [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2019/08/04/tulsi-gabbards-reports-on-chemical-attacks-in-syria-a-self-contradictory-error-filled-mess/ released the same day]. The in-depth nature of the 10K post suggests that there may have been some prior work done to coincide with the publication of this article. Compare the above notes about Yashar Ali's story (added to en.wp the same day it was published), the Pink News story, etc. ... (more evidence of Snoog publishing obscure articles ''as soon as they are published'' would be helpful)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It has been suggested that Snoog's userpage should be proposed for deletion at MfD. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Snooganssnoogans&oldid=909700844 userpage]
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Previous sanctions ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASnooganssnoogans 14 Nov 2016]: sanctioned for personal attacks and harassments (calling me "batshit insane" & a "sociopath")
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215#Snooganssnoogans 24 May 2017]: banned from mass-editing in AP-1932 due to biased mass edits
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Previous noticeboard appearances ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive217#Snooganssnoogans 3 July 2017]: Warned to use more care after breaking urls and titles in refs in their haste to disrupt an editor fixing mistakes:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Previous sanctions ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASnooganssnoogans 14 Nov 2016]: sanctioned for personal attacks and harassments (calling me "batshit insane" & a "sociopath")
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215#Snooganssnoogans 24 May 2017]: banned from mass-editing in AP-1932 due to biased mass edits
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Previous noticeboard appearances ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive217#Snooganssnoogans 3 July 2017]: Warned to use more care after breaking urls and titles in refs in their haste to disrupt an editor fixing mistakes:
| |
| − | ==See also==
| |
| − | * [[Gender bias on Wikipedia]]
| |
| − | * [[Racial bias on Wikipedia]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | {{reflist}}
| |
| − |
| |
| | Arbcom can [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Review_of_community_sanctions|reverse CBANs]], if | | Arbcom can [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Review_of_community_sanctions|reverse CBANs]], if |
| | | | |
| | # they were procedurally unfair | | # they were procedurally unfair |
| − | *multiple misleading elements in opening statement: diffs presented for rhetorical effect rather than in chronological order (El C's 2-way no-fault I-ban with Tryptofish should have been first, Tony's role in overturning it 3rd), sanctioning admins not mentioned | + | *biased presentation: diffs presented for rhetorical effect rather than in chronological order, rhetorical language includes: vendetta, accused, harassment, harass, attacks, punching bag, book-length rant (589 word statement of fact), battleground mentality, inability to interact with "others", etc. |
| − | *unfair vote: [regular !voters] to sanction me include: [BMK], [Johnuniq], [Neutrality], [MrX], [WMSR], [Bishonen], [Jorm], [Objective3000], [Dennis Brown], [Doug Weller], [Hut 8.5] | + | *[regular !voters] came to sanction me within hours: [BMK], [Johnuniq], [Neutrality], [MrX], [WMSR], [Bishonen], [Jorm], [Objective3000], [Dennis Brown], [Doug Weller], [Hut 8.5]. Was this mentioned on admin IRC? |
| | *the votes were miscounted | | *the votes were miscounted |
| − | *MastCell was not a neutral party | + | *MastCell was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=866330671&oldid=866310440 not a neutral party], having claimed I made no positive contributions. See further... |
| | *no account was taken of the massive trend against a site-ban once evidence was presented (and after El C's statement that they did not seek a site-ban). | | *no account was taken of the massive trend against a site-ban once evidence was presented (and after El C's statement that they did not seek a site-ban). |
| | *I said I was too busy to mount a defense during the work-week. Despite this, 13 people voted primarily based on my quick edit to remove the rhetoric from the initial report, calling it "deception" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962866332&oldid=962864000 1]+[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962861879&oldid=962858608 2]ABF). The case was closed early despite a clear trend against a site-ban and despite my request to be given adequate time to respond. | | *I said I was too busy to mount a defense during the work-week. Despite this, 13 people voted primarily based on my quick edit to remove the rhetoric from the initial report, calling it "deception" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962866332&oldid=962864000 1]+[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962861879&oldid=962858608 2]ABF). The case was closed early despite a clear trend against a site-ban and despite my request to be given adequate time to respond. |
| − | **the 12-5 vote (by far the proposition with the highest support%) to close Tony's case and send the case to ArbCom was entirely ignored in the close (opposed by 3 voters with "unclean hands") | + | **the 12-5 vote to close Tony's case and send the case to ArbCom (by far the proposition with the highest support %) was '''entirely ignored''' in the close (opposed by 3 voters with "unclean hands") |
| | **those !vote of some of those who expressed evidence-based opposition to an immediate site-ban ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=962935089&oldid=962931042&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&type=revision 1], [2], [3], ...) was not counted ''at all'' or was given equal weight to !votes like: ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962827130&oldid=9628180921], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962914715&oldid=962914388 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962864000&oldid=962861879 3], ...) | | **those !vote of some of those who expressed evidence-based opposition to an immediate site-ban ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=962935089&oldid=962931042&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&type=revision 1], [2], [3], ...) was not counted ''at all'' or was given equal weight to !votes like: ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962827130&oldid=9628180921], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962914715&oldid=962914388 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962864000&oldid=962861879 3], ...) |
| | **Claims such as [1], [2], [3] were debunked but not struck. | | **Claims such as [1], [2], [3] were debunked but not struck. |
| Line 161: |
Line 22: |
| | | | |
| | Conclusion: The site-ban should be reversed and an '''evidence-based''' case started if the GMO and AmPol topic bans are to be maintained. Kingofaces43's long history of being a timesink and the evidence of tag-teaming in AmPol (centered around MrX) should be studied. For my part, I agree that I did not react well to being targeted for elimination. See also RS on the main battleground actors: [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-wikipedia-page-battles 1] (''[[Wired]]'') + [https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.html 2] (''[[Slate (technology)]]'') Note that my name is not included in either article, but that MrX's and Snooganssnoogans' are. | | Conclusion: The site-ban should be reversed and an '''evidence-based''' case started if the GMO and AmPol topic bans are to be maintained. Kingofaces43's long history of being a timesink and the evidence of tag-teaming in AmPol (centered around MrX) should be studied. For my part, I agree that I did not react well to being targeted for elimination. See also RS on the main battleground actors: [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-wikipedia-page-battles 1] (''[[Wired]]'') + [https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.html 2] (''[[Slate (technology)]]'') Note that my name is not included in either article, but that MrX's and Snooganssnoogans' are. |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Category:Criticism of Wikipedia]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Bias]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | {{reflist}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Category: en.wiki]]
| |
