En-WP: Act I -- Tryptological green Sashirolls tried neutrally

From Creolista!
Jump to: navigation, search

Usage note: this article is taken from Wikipedia and the content below is therefore CC/BY/SA.

Green Party political positions' pages deleted during the 2016 campaign

Political positions of Jill Stein

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SashiRolls (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an unnecessary WP:POVFORK. I also have several additional concerns:

In addition to the article creator (tagged above), I am tagging the following editors who have weighed in on this article: Template:Yo, Template:Yo, Template:Yo, Template:Yo, Template:Yo. Neutralitytalk 21:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is not a sufficient amount of meaninful political position material to justify a spinoff article. Many of her political positions range from aspirational to down right ludicrous, and are not the type of information that we would typically document in an independent article. - MrX 21:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:POVFORK and the well-articulated concerns expressed by User:Neutrality. Note also that this article was created during discussions about the "positions" sections on Jill Stein in which article creator had just proposed creating this page and a fellow editor has said [1] not a good idea. I am not suggestion that a single editor's opinion must rule a second editor, only that That discussion should have been continued before creating this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep . All of the other main presidential candidates have a "Political Positions of" page, and those most active on Jill Stein's biography page (see Talk:Jill Stein) seem to wish to deny her this privilege. Note that no edits have been made to the page since it was split, and I am following consensus and editing at her bio page while her political positions remain on that page. To respond to Neutrality, Bloomberg never ran for President, Jill has done so twice, and to be honest I've never heard of Bill Richardson, so cannot comment. SashiRolls (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)SashiRolls is article creator. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • More to the point, Darrell Castle does not. Stein has never held political office except for being a member of the Lexington town meeting. Few if any RS regard her as a "main presidential candidate."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
For Wikipedian practices, see Political positions of the United States presidential candidates by political affiliation, 2016 (table that I did not add though I am a Wikipedian.) SashiRolls (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That page has had exactly 36 edits in the 2 months of its exisentce, almost all of them by the article creator, that gets~ 10 pageviews per day, and on which every single topic is marked "unknown" in the Jill Stein column. imho, the lack of active editing and paltry sourcing on that page demonstrate the problem with multiplying articles on minor political figures like Stein. As does Political positions of Cynthia McKinney although she, unlike Stein, was elected to Congress, and in that sense the article is not as absurd as Political positions of Ben Carson, although even Carson did have a period when he was polling serious numbers of voters. The McKinney positions page, sourced heavily to blogs, including 911truth.org, is a poster child for the problem of having articles of this type. It was created in 2008 when McKinney was the Green Party candidate for president, was written almost entirely by a single editor who has long since left this project, and has not been meaningfully improved in the decade it has existed.E.M.Gregory (talk)
  • Keep multi-time presidential candidate's with political positions covered in extensively by independent, reliable sources.--TM 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete The parent article is not long enough to justify a fork, and can probably be trimmed a bit anyway. TimothyJosephWood 00:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The candidate is far less notable than Clinton, Trump and Johnson. Her political positions are not extensive enough to be covered in a separate article (they fit neatly into her main article). I provide other reasons on the Jill Stein talk page but those are the gist of my objections to a separate Stein Positions article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - the political positions is not a POV fork but is a division of the prior article to fit existing practices as shown in other candidates, so it fits the WP:SPINOFF accepted section at WP:POVFORK. Also, conceptually the Jill Stein page is a BLP so it should focus on her life and chronology, and maybe change over time of politics -- but not a detailed focus. Markbassett (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment One problem I am having in squaring this with the other pages in our category Category:Political positions of United States presidential candidates, 2016 is that, Trump excepted, all of those candidates have political records as holders of major office where they actually took positions. (Note the "Political positions of Carly Fiorina", like those of several other contenders for major party nomination, redirects). This means that their Political positions pages can be reliably sourced to secondary coverage of their positions on issues they were involved with as elected officials. Jill Stein's page, however, is heavily - and perhaps inevitably - primary sourced, not only to jill2016.com but all the way down to source # 16, ""Dr. Jill Stein on Twitter". Retrieved 2016-07-28.". sources # 3 and # 4 are Jill Stein press releases [2], [3]; no fewer than 6 items are cited to http://www.jill2016.com/plan It is also heavily sourced to partisan sites that may or may not be independent of Stein, the first source on the page is occupy.com, Many other positions are cited to obscure blogs/websites including: lumpenproletariat.org , Rainbow.org , www.p2012.org, and youtube postings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzwZtmTEMuw I could go on, there's more of this sort. My question is whether it is even possible to reliably source an article on a third party candidate who has never held a significant public office (she was a member of the Lexington town meeting) and who, therefore, has no press coverage on issue positions outside of what comes during a political campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Your activism on both Jill Stein's page and Ajamu Baraka's make it such that I'm not surprised by your comments. Of course, given your activism, you know that none of the tweets mentioned have been added by the creator of this page, but have been primarily (if not exclusively) added by Snooganssnoogans (above). One might cynically believe the goal in preventing this page from existing, despite clearly established precedent, is to ensure that people seeking to learn more about Jill Stein don't have to click twice in order to see the writing I and others have slowly and patiently managed to tone down towards neutrality in the past weeks despite the user's consistent unwillingness to compromise (or even talk cf. lack of response to [User:AndrewOne|AndrewOne] here for one example among many). (It should be noted that Snooganssnoogans is the author of much of this page User Contribution Search. Since August, I have become more active providing balancing material in the past month, Snooganssnoogans continues to be active, and has provided us with, for example 16 references to the same Washington Post interview here, which strikes me (and others in print) as both an unbalanced source (given the questions) and undue weight. Nevertheless, in the spirit of "consensus" of those involved on a daily basis reverting efforts aimed at improving the article to remove the anti-bias tag on the Jill Stein page in late August, I have not removed those links, despite the obvious bias of the way in which the questions the Post asked her (already expressing the Post's negative point of view (as for Sanders)) have been used. But I'll assume "good faith" and admit that there are some things in life I could not understand behind that veil of ignorance. ^^
To respond to the substantive claim in your argument, to the best of my knowledge, Noam Chomsky, and Christopher Hitchens and Ralph Nader have never held political office, yet all three have political positions pages... SashiRolls (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Political positions of Ralph Nader turns out to be a poster child for all the problems with Political positions of articles created for minor candidates during campaigns, especially bad sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Note, however, that Political positions of Tim Kaine and Political positions of Mike Pence redirect to their pages, as several of us are proposing to redirect this to Jill Stein. Nor do we have Political Positions of Darrell Castle or Political Positions of Ben Carson, candidates who share the sourcing problem I perceive with Stein, that is, the fact because she has never been elected to a significant office or been a significant player in the national and international political conversation, we lack the kind of analysis by political scientists, policy analysts and political journalists that enables us to reliably source articles on Noam Chomsky, and Christopher Hitchens and Ralph Nader. Perhaps it is merely WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Striking part of my comment because on examining those 3 articles I find that I was incorrect; the Caldwell and Chomsky pages both suffer from excessive reliance on primary sourcing, while Political positions of Ralph Nader is so bad it that needs to be redirected or deleted. The point is that all 3 articles held up as models by User:SashiRolls appear to reinforce my hypothesis that sources (or something) makes it close to impossible to source good articles on the political positions of individuals who have not served in major political office.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, to meet WP:HEY an editor would have to remove the WP:FANCRUFT from the page along with all the blogs and everything that cannot be sources as per WP:RS, and turn this into at least an early version of something that might conceivably become WP:GOOD. I just spent a little time nosing around, and my impression is that RS do not at this point exist to either properly source such an article, or to support its notability. It is simply WP:TOOSOON to source an article of this type on Stein. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. In principle, there can be both a bio page and a political views page for a particular political figure. However, to make it an editorially desirable separation, there should be a good reason for the political views page to explore content that does not fit at the bio page, and also, both pages must be equally balanced and neutral in POV. Here, however, this really is a WP:POV fork, intended to bypass content disputes at the bio page. The content is pretty much just copy-pasted, and it seems unlikely that there will be sufficient reason in the next year or so for this page to go into additional content. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK, and possibly containing OR based on primary sources, such "JS on Twitter" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are sources: [4] and [5] from Rolling Stone, [6] from Politico, [7] from Newsweek, [8] from NBC News, [9] from Bustle, [10] from CNN, [11] from The Washington Post, [12] from The Post-Standard, [13] from The Seattle Times, [14] from Slate. These articles not just "Jill Stein is running for President" stories; they analyze her political positions and compare/contrast them to other candidates. If the article is problematic, it can be fixed. I skimmed over it, and it looks like there are some questionable sources. But it's possible to find better ones. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I believe the above sources are best added to the main article Jill Stein. Since she's described there as a "perennial candidate" I believe it's best to keep the material on her political positions there. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Agreeing with K.e.coffman's comment just above, I don't think that anyone questions the existence of sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Instead, the issue is that satisfying notability does not make it mandatory to have a separate page. Here, there are issues of WP:SOAP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:IINFO. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note. SashiRolls has been topic-banned from Jill Stein-related content as an Arbitration Enforcement sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above Keep arguments. It's a fork but a notable one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Political positions of Ralph Nader

Redirected by neutrality on Sept 4, 2016 without any discussion on the talk page

Political positions of Cynthia McKinney

Redirected by neutrality on 31 Aug 2016 without any discussion on the talk page.

Tryptofish v. SashiRolls

Wikipedia Archive 198: 1 Sept - 3 Sept 2016
statements: clpo13, The Four Deuces, Timothy Joseph Wood, Snoogansnoogans, Neutrality
admins: NeilN, LaserBrain, Nuclear Warfare
closing admin: Nuclear Warfare

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.

Tryptofish's Request

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Template:Userlinks 18:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Discretionary Sanctions
  2. Also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms
  3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

These edits are all at Jill Stein (clearly in scope for American politics):

Violation of 1RR restriction on GMO content:

  1. I make this edit: August 31. SashiRolls reverts addition of a source: September 1, falsely claiming that the source does not contain the cited information. This is because the source is Physics Today, and a scientifically based publication undercuts the POV that what the community decided in WP:GMORFC about the scientific consensus is incorrect. Please note that the specific content is directly about the scientific consensus on the safety of eating GM food, which is exactly the topic of the RfC and the resulting DS.
  2. I restore the source: September 1. SashiRolls removes it a second time: September 1. In that same edit (lower down in the diff), he also reinserts a negative connotation about a journalist, that I had tried to correct as a WP:BLP issue: September 1.

Against a background of repeated slow edit warring:

August 31, August 31, August 31. The other editor was actually correct: [15].

And POV-pushing:

  1. permalink Does not like a source, so claims that the Washington Post is not a WP:RS. Other editors near unanimous in rejecting the claim as patently false and WP:POINTy.
  2. Then goes on to edit war, to insert a disparaging "ref name" about the source: August 31, August 31, August 31, August 31.

Continues WP:Battleground after this AE has opened, blames everyone except self:

  1. Opposition research: September 2, September 2, September 2.
  2. More edit warring: September 2, September 2.
  3. Resumes same edit war the next day, making 2 reverts per day to avoid 3RR but maintaining continuous slow edit war: September 3, September 3.
  4. Refactors other editors' talk page comments: September 3. Deflects blame: September 3.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
August 27, August 30, (also September 1).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I leave it to the patrolling administrators to assess how much SashiRolls is self-aware about the issues here, how well TFD understands what was determined about DS for GMOs after such a very long struggle, and whether there is any truth to the silly claims that I have been disruptive at the Stein page. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Responding specifically to where TFD said: "While the closing adminstrator determined the consensus of the RfC and set discretionary sanctions, those sanctions were not for disgreeing with the determination of facts in the RfC. Ironically, Stein has not said that currently manufactured GMO food is unsafe." The issue at the page was about saying in Wikipedia's voice that the opposite of the RfC language is true; there is no objection to quoting Stein as saying the opposite. The page quotes Stein as saying that the existing science says what the community rejected at the RfC, and SashiRolls has opposed citing critics of Stein's statements. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Please note that I just added diffs of continued edit warring today, and weigh that in whether a warning will prove effective. Also, although I accept that, in terms of possible sanctions, AP2 is more central that GMO, please consider that GMORFC was intended to put an end to arguments, and without a clear statement now at AE, some editors will continue to argue that anything goes on pages other than the pages listed at the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A warning will be fruitless, and ANI would be a drama-fest of arguing content. Either DS mean something, or let's shut AE down. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning SashiRolls

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 SashiRolls

Given Snoogannsnoogans' invective laden and patently false accusations, I will ask until Monday at 17:00 to respond completely, as Snoogannsnoogans hasn't really understood that Tryptofish may well be making a larger WP:Point, not entirely involving me, by bringing me here. Snooganssnoogans first censored me on the 13 Aug, here. Between the 11 Aug and 16 July he made 16 reverts (all of other people). His first revert on the page was the 29th of June. His reverts are of two types: to delete content that he feels support a positive image of Stein, or to do defend as the status quo content that he feels support a negative image of Stein. These are the facts concerning the user's interventions on the article.

Concerning Tryptofish's assertion that the 1RR applies in the GMO section, I solicited input from the closing admins of the GMO debate who declined to comment. The Four Deuces and I both looked into his assertion and do not find it credible. Tryptofish, who is apparently somewhat famous, is clearly a very experienced Wiki-warrior given his past interactions with the Arbitration Committee. Having learned this from a google search trying to find clues as to what the "trypto" could mean, I decided to proceed cautiously, including the entire "proposition 1" of that debate in the article (3-4 lines of texts with lengthy references), because Tryptofish seemed like he wanted to create trouble in that section. He reverted this commonsense peaceful solution here.

I'm also not sure why s/he wanted to include this article ("Media coverage thin for presidential candidates’ science awareness and views"), almost entirely about Clinton & Trump (with one sentence dismissing his own Weissmann reference) and pointing fingers at ScienceDebate.org to support his claim that many articles are calling Stein "contrary to science" (diff). This, in the context of a great deal of pushback concerning normal wikipedia spin-off procedures for political candidates pages (afd that he encouraged, but hasn't yet voted in (4 delete, 3 keep, currently)...)

POV-pushing (ref-name change): Tryptofish's 2nd and 3rd diffs in this section do not refer to my edits (cf. the chaotic (& snarky) removal of material and vast operation of multiple reference renaming, which added confusion to the page (I was not involved in these decision to snark with significant chunks of content). In sum I changed one reference name in the first "diff", waiting for the "stray link fixed bot" to come and pick it up. I stayed on the page to see if it would. It didn't. I fixed what I had done by replacing all 16 references to the same article, introduced all in one edit by another editor here. I admit this was to make a point after having seen yet another bit of (what I consider to have been) trolling cluttering the head of a sub-section that has caused much grief and hard work in the last month with a gossipy quote that had nothing to do with anything: (diff). I figred if Tryptofish could troll with impunity I could draw attention to a serious problem: Snooganssnoogans's particularly lopsided edit here, in which introductions and conclusions of Jill Stein's arguments were cited, but the argument itself strangely disappeared from at least some of the 16 quotes s/he added from the WaPo. (cf. talk here).

Tryptofish does not mention this context of consistent disruptive editing, nor does he mention his own, somewhat more troubling, history of it: he came to the Jill Stein thread on the 20th of August, with very pointed stated goals (vaccines, GMOs and pesticides interventions in the article) and added lots of "menacing" warnings about AE in his/her participation in the talk thread. I will not comment on the POV that Tryptofish may or may not be pushing, as I don't understand his actions.

Regarding the diffs that are said to relate to "slow edit warring". In an environment of (occasionally) diametrically opposed viewpoints, and on a page where one editor has been going up to 3RR frequently on a regular basis in July and August (I came to the thread only in August myself), it is not surprising to find that I made 2 reverts on a section recently marked by another user as non-neutral precisely because of the text concerned. Repeated requests have been made to the editor to rework the paragraph he has added and reworked over time, to no avail. [17]. I have likewise had to remove an unreliable source that the user deliberately smuggled back into the article at [15:10 27 Aug 2016, after admitting the source had failed a basic fact-check talk 15:04 27 Aug 2016 and should not be included.

I do not anywhere say that the WaPo is an unreliable source generally, contrary to the claim made, and two of the four revert diffs have nothing to do with me. There was a great deal of intermediary sniping going on, while I tried to satisfy AndrewOne's concerns about the QE argument in the Education section (from [Talk] and [POV tag]). Cf. also these more worrying snark edits diff and diff

I also think ludicrous (lud = fun), and ridiculous (rid = laugh) are odd word choices that I see a lot on the talk pages. diff1 diff2. SashiRolls (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Response to additional comments from the accused party

I have responded at length on my talk page and at Talk:Jill_Stein#WP:DUE + cite Talk:Jill_Stein#from_WP:Edit_warring + diff of earlier menacing thousand-year comment from notifier, which I chose to remove from my talk page. SashiRolls (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by clpo13

I take full ownership of this edit. In my defense, SashiRolls felt that the interview was accorded undue weight, so I figured I'd see what all would have to go if the source wasn't used. Turns out there was a lot. Well, I put it all back and received a (rightful) admonishment about being WP:POINTy, which I've taken to heart.

Anyways, SashiRoll's original complaint was vague, and a follow-up response clarified that the real issue was WaPo's apparent bias against Sanders (and by extension Stein, I guess). But that still comes across as "WaPo doesn't like my candidate so we shouldn't use it as a reference". It took a fair bit of needling to get any further explanation. I can understand the sentiment that no Wikipedia article should rely so much on a single article, but this wasn't a good way to go about making an objection since it wasn't clear to many people what the issue actually was.

As a final note: relying on the bot to fix the reference names probably wasn't the best idea, since over an hour passed between the first change and my fix, during which time the source was inaccessible to readers. clpo13(talk) 23:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces

Jill Stein is not a "page[] relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." Earlier, it was determined in a request for clarification in which Tryptofish participated, that Bernie Sanders was not a page related to GMOs. (See: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms.) Both Stein and Sanders are or were 2016 presidential candidates who are critics of GMOs.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms applies to 11 named articles and "will be implemented, broadly construed, for other articles in the subject area." Furthermore, there is no template for GMO on the talk page, although there is one for "American politics 2." 1RR is not part of U.S. politics general sanctions[18] and would be too draconian for such a wide topic area.

Trypofish falsely claimed at Talk:Jill Stein, "I want to make it very clear to editors that the content that I reverted violates the [GMO] Discretionary Sanctions linked above, because it alters the language that was established in the community RfC about GMOs. Editors must not make up alternative language, and doing so will result in Arbitration Enforcement." [20:55, 27 August 2016[19]] While the closing adminstrator determined the consensus of the RfC and set discretionary sanctions, those sanctions were not for disgreeing with the determination of facts in the RfC. Ironically, Stein has not said that currently manufactured GMO food is unsafe.

The articles in The Washington Post and others are cited in the article as the opinions of their authors, not as statements of fact. While SashiRolls unfortunately says the paper is not rs, he actually argues that it is biased, and provides an article originally published in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting ("Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours") as a source.[20] [22:43, 31 August 2016[21]] The paper's editorial board has called Trump a "clear and present danger."[22] although it has not yet endorsed Clinton. It is not a stretch of the imagination to assume that at least some of the opinions expressed in the paper have a partisan tinge.

The article by Steven T. Corneliussen, ""Media coverage thin for presidential candidates’ science awareness and views", in Physics Today, does not "clearly agree[] with the criticism" of Stein, as Tryptofish says. [1 September 2016[23]] It says only, "An opinion piece at Slate dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy. If anything it draws into question the extensive concentration on science issues that Trypofish has shown.

Tryptofish was an involved party in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. It appears that his interest in that topic has brought him to the Jill Stein article and blurs his neutrality. S/he has not provided edits on any Green-related articles except to add opinions that they are anti-science.

TFD (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Timothyjosephwood

I'm somewhat involved, though not deeply. Sashi's enthusiasm is admirable, but unfortunately their experience hasn't caught up with it yet, and disagreements stemming from that gap seem to have grown tensions to the point where assumptions of good faith have started to wane on all sides.

Mentoring could be an option here, given appropriate assurances by Sashi that they're willing to slow down a bit and take active steps toward being a bit more cool headed about things. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Given their behavior over the past 24 hours, strike all above. TimothyJosephWood 11:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
User is openly warring on the article, ([24], [25],[26], [27], [28]), being generally disruptive on the talk, mangling formatting and others comments to the point where I'm not even sure what diffs to provide. They've dropped any pretense that this is anything but a personal contest, and accused others on their talk of leading an "offensive" against Jill Stein, and apparently calling me a Nazi for suggesting that they take a break and edit something less controversial for a while.
Either sanction the user or close this because we would have easily already been at ANI or AN3 were it not for this open complaint. TimothyJosephWood 15:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by snooganssnoogans

The user SashiRolls has for the last few weeks engaged in constant disruptive editing on the Jill Stein page. I'll try to limit this text to just recent examples of disruptive behavior. The user repeatedly:

  • re-writes text into incoherent word salads full of weasel words. Yesterday, SashiRolls edited Stein's straight-forward position on student debt (she wants to cancel it using quantitative easing) into some incomprehensible mess that also features original research: "Stein has brought the idea of debt relief for student loans, much discussed after the Federal Reserve began quantitative easing,[1][2][3] back into the political arena in 2016.[4][5]"
  • adds content of questionable reliability and relevance. The user repeatedly adds WP:OR which does not mention Jill Stein, the Green Party and usually comes from rubbish sources and does not relate to the subject at all. IIRC, the user has added 4-5 OR pieces to the article in just the last two days.
  • cannot or will not tell the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable source. The user has, for instance, fought to include TeleSur, ShadowProof, Mint Press and Counterpunch as reliable sources while trying to get the Washington Post excluded from the page for being an unreliable source. Just today, SashiRolls restored ShadowProof and Counterpunch, which I removed for being unreliable. It's impossible to edit the page when the user cannot or will not tell the difference between a reliable source and unreliable one.
  • acts in disingenuous ways to revert content. On the 31 August, I used up three reverts to revert SashiRolls' demonstrably false edits (the user claimed that a paragraph had nothing to do with Stein's education plan, despite containing the phrase "student loan" three times and being doubtlessly about Stein's plan to cancel student debt), at which point SashiRolls responded, "ok, you are at 3RR for today." The user repeatedly calls out users for approaching or being at the 3RR limit (or in the case of the GMO section the 1RR limit), usually always when reverting SashiRolls' ridiculous edits.
  • casts aspersions on the intentions of other editors. The user has repeatedly over the last few weeks cast aspersions on at least three editors and Wikipedia as an institution. user:Neutrality has called SashiRolls out on this with little effect. The user has also repeatedly threatened to sanction me or have me banned, something I've never encountered before despite editing a lot on political pages. Despite being involved in contentious editing on a number of political pages, I have honestly never encountered an editor that has edited in such a disruptive manner as SashiRolls without being sanctioned for it.
  • goes against consensus. SashiRolls created an RfC on 13 August 2016 where he/she proposed re-writing Jill Stein's position on Brexit. This was overwhelmingly rejected. Since having had the RfC rejected, SashiRolls has on three or four occasions re-written the Brexit section in ways that were rejected in the RfC.
  • goes against the discretionary sanctions in the Stein article. SashiRolls has occasionally within 24 hours reverted the same content in the GMO section, which I believe is a violation. Other than that, SashiRolls continues to edit the GMO section in insincere and ridiculous ways.
  • lies about the content of sources, the content of the Stein article and what happens on the talk page. In a particularly memorable talk, SashiRolls willfully misrepresents the user JayJasper's twice comment on the talk page[29] (once after having it pointed out to him/her) and also in the edit summary when SashiRolls proclaimed that he/she had consensus for a particular edit relating to that talk. Within the last few days, SashiRolls lied or pretended to be obtuse about the Stein's education plan, arguing that her proposal to cancel student loan debt through quantitative easing had nothing to do with education or student loans. SashiRolls repeatedly misrepresents the content of sources, there's no point running through the times.
  • edit (one day later): I just want to note that SashiRolls just restored conspiracy and fringe websites twice this morning to the Stein (this is now the forth time in two days that he/she's restored them). Even though the user is on Arbcom, he/she shows no sign of taking the warnings and advice of other editors to heart.

- Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Neutrality

I agree completely with Snooganssnoogans and Timothyjosephwood others who have commented. On Stein and Stein-related articles, SashiRolls' sustained course of conduct has been completely unacceptable, and the array of problems is broad: everything from casting aspersions to personal attacks to POV-pushing.

I also agree with Timothyjosephwood that it would be wise to act on this report relatively rapidly. If this file weren't open, this matter might well be up at ANI for discussion of a possible topic ban of SashiRolls. Neutralitytalk 18:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning SashiRolls

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I am concerned both about the behavior of SashiRolls enough to suggest a sanction. I would suggest that SashiRolls comment as soon as feasible. NW (Talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Unrelated to here mostly, but I am also concerned about the article being a battleground for people's opinions about politics writ large. Are we really using Counterpunch and Shadowproof (Firedoglake) within the Jill Stein article to criticize the coverage of The Washington Post on Wikipedia? NW (Talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm still stuck on this issue, and it appears that SashiRolls simply just doesn't get it. Quoting from the first draft of their statement[30], "A brief response to NW, who is concerned about Shadowproof. The article has not been disputed on any grounds, though many people have seen it. Had that subject been opened, I would have responded or withdrawn, if consensus was reached concerning it. This is an article about a US eco-socialist politician, so no, the Washington Post, as wikipedia's own subject on the paper might suggest, is not likely to be a reliable source concerning her politics. Jacobin, Democracy Now!: these are among "her" fellow-traveling media outlets; Counterpunch has frequently published her running mate. They are knowledgeable sources about the Left. Her sources will look different than mainstream news outlets." This is a fundamental failure to understand Wikipedia's sourcing and neutral point of view policies, and I do not see how a warning will be sufficient. I am going to issue a six month topic ban relating to Jill Stein under the post-1932 American Politics discretionary sanction. Further requests for action can be brought to here without prejudice. NW (Talk) 19:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I favor a one-time warning. I'm unimpressed by SashiRolls' behavior here, which amounts to POV-pushing in my opinion. I consider this to fall mostly under DS for American Politics—the fact that the content is related to GMO is an aggravating factor but shouldn't be used as a red herring to distract from the poor behavior. I don't quite think we are dealing with behavior that rises to the level of sanctions, though. Further edit warring to push a POV should be met with an American Politics topic ban of some length. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've had some experience with SashiRolls on my talk page (User_talk:NeilN/Archive_33#Enforcement_request_and_COI - starts about one-third of the way down) which left me unimpressed. Plus there are incomprehensible statements like this. Any warning should highlight WP:1RR and instruct the editor to stop casting aspersions. --NeilN talk to me 16:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Appeal to Tryptofish v. SashiRolls

Archive 198 10th Sept - 12th Sept.
statements: neutrality, tryptofish
admins: Lord Roem, The Wordsmith
closing admin: Blade of the Northern Lights

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SashiRolls

Template:Hat Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
Template:Userlinks – ~~~
Sanction being appealed 
6 month topic ban
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Notification of that administrator 
Notification of ArbCom
10 September 2016 by email.

Statement by SashiRolls

On 01/09/2016, Tryptofish asked for Arbitration Enforcement against me because 1) I deleted an article that s/he claimed supported the contention that Jill Stein had made statements that were "contrary to science". The article does not support this claim, but notes that Jordan Weissmann (a business and economics editor), author of "an opinion piece at Slate[,] dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy." This is the only sentence in the article pertaining to Stein, and so -- in my view -- should not be added as a separate indictment since the text (quoted in full above) is hardly a recommendation of the article by Mr. Weissmann and takes no explicit position on Jill Stein's positions (though the language suggests the author does not concur with Weissmann. Farther down in his complaint, Tryptofish accuses me of inserting a "disparaging remark" about Jordan Weissmann in the Wikipedia article, referencing the text: "Weissmann subsequently wrote a retraction of one part of his article related to the effects of pesticides on honeybee populations."[6] I do not see how this could be disparaging, as both the title and the content of the article indicate that Weissmann (a business and economics editor) is making a retraction of a significant error about science in his original article.

Next, I was called out for 2) changing the name of a reference from :03 to WaPoArticleCitedSixteenTimes and waiting for a bot to come correct the other 15 references to the article. I plead guilty and apologize for the error of judgment. An editor quickly objected to this change so I changed all sixteen references to avoid links becoming unavailable. Waiting for the bot was a regrettable technical mistake, as was the polemical name I chose for the over-cited reference. The legitimate point on the oversourcing of the article to half-quotes from the Washington Post interview the day after it appeared (a move which was criticized here, here, here, here, and here) got lost in the process.

The error I made was made shortly after I had to revert Tryptofish's non-constructive edit diff in the science section, an attempt to discredit Jill Stein's peer-reviewed published views on science in the preceding sentence, which subsequent to my ban from the topic Tryptofish removed. I admit that my view of legitimate editing behavior was influenced by my accuser (Tryptofish's) addition of this (IMO unhelpful) citation for the section "science":

Stein has said: "For science geeks, you can show yourself if you have any doubt that I too am a science geek."[7]

Nevertheless, my error was an error, despite the fact that it was motivated by frustration with the inappropriate behavior of two other users. Three wrongs don't make a right, I concede.

Finally, Tryptofish accused me of 3) slow edit-warring, adducing as evidence two reversions (which are reversions of reversions made by Snooganssnoogans) on a subject that AndrewOne suggested (correctly in my view) needed urgent correction and contextualization here and here. Since Snooganssnoogans continued to ignore the sensible call for balancing perspective, I read all of the source material provided by AndrewOne, found another article from a source that Snooganssnoogans had previously argued was an RS in an effort to address the neutrality problems in this section (cf. non-neutral POV tag added to the section on 31 Aug (diff)).

The editor objects to information being added from Forbes, the Atlantic, the Roosevelt Institute, and Yes! magazine here to provide context concerning the economic argument about quantitative easing, and has used the Arbitration Enforcement discussion (concerned primarily with Tryptofish's distracting actions in the GMO section of the article) to delete this balancing information suggested by AndrewOne, but which only I was "bold" enough to add (here), given the polemical atmosphere that has been created by Snooganssnoogans' 30+ reverts in the last two months. This will be the subject of a separate call for disciplinary sanctions against Snooganssnoogans (see context I deleted [31] to show Lord Roem good faith).

I would like to complete my appeal by noting a few procedural elements related to this disproportionate 6-month topic ban. First, two administrators (Laser brain and NeilN) spoke of possibly warning me, the former saying that my behavior did not rise to the level of sanctions (calling the actual motivation for bringing me to DS (GMO) a "red herring"), and the second stating that any warning should mention 1RR. (NB: the administrators had not yet looked into the context of Snooganssnoogans' consistent pattern of edit-warring since mid-July). I asked to be given until the 5th of September 5pm to formulate my defense. However, NuclearWarfare chose to go well beyond their suggestions and sanctioned me for 6 months on the 4th of September, before I could finish formulating my defense. I subsequently asked NuclearWarfare (on the 7th of September) to explain the grounds for his/her decision here, but as of the 10th of September I have not received any acknowledgment of my request. Based only on what s/he wrote in the decision, his/her concern was with my contention that the Washington Post article was being given undue weight on Jill Stein's WP:BLP, saying that I "just didn't get it", concerning this specific reversion concerning NPOV and RS. It is worth noting that I was reverting an entire paragraph that had been deleted by Snooganssnoogans, and not just a single reference to the sources that NW considers partial (articles written by Kevin Gostola and Peter Lavenia). Articles appearing in Al Jazeera, Democracy Now! and the Free & Equal Elections Foundation were also deleted, as well as any reference to Media Coverage / Media Access. It would seem logical that if an editor has a problem with a reference to an article published in Counterpunch or Shadowproof that they should eliminate the sentence that cites those sources (only) rather than all of the surrounding material unrelated to these sources. It is certainly not narrow POV-pushing to note that a major and widely reported concern of Jill Stein's is that she does not have equal media access. Concerning the bias of the Washington Post (which is the subject of contention), it is worth noting that there have been numerous claims related to its bias, some of the (older) sources of which have been included on Wikipedia (Cf. The Washington Post#2000-present), though not yet the newest claims / evidence, including the article from the independent Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting about 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours on March 8, 2016. [8].

Finally I would note that I have never before been accused of any inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia, which is not the case for either Tryptofish (who brought the complaint), or for Snooganssnoogans (who has been WP:Bludgeoning the process at Jill Stein for over two months (preventing over a dozen editors from balancing the POV s/he is pushing) and engaging in edit wars elsewhere... cf. the warnings from 22 May, 5 June, 30 June, 18 July, 20 Aug, 27 Aug, 28 Aug, 30 Aug on the user's Talk Page here.)


Statement by NuclearWarfare

Statement by Neutrality

I would strongly urge that this appeal not be granted. For brevity's sake, I note only a few points:

  • Since SashiRolls (SR) was barred from the area (a mere week ago), the articles have been stable and rather peaceful editing has occurred. As SR's long (and rather self-serving statement blaming others) signals, if the topic ban is lifted, SashiRolls will undoubtedly return to the same scorched-Earth, battleground mentality that seeks to wear other editors down through attrition.
  • SR does not understand reliable sourcing. SR believes that the Washington Post is not a reliable source on Jill Stein, a position that SR apparently continues to hold, as his/her statement here indicates. At the same time, SR believes that Russian government-controlled and Venezuelan government-controlled media outlets are reliable sources, although scholars identify these sources as propaganda. Editors have unanimously or near-unanimously rejected SR's view, but SR is apparently unwilling to accept this.
  • SR continues to maintain that editors who disagree with him/her on content, including myself, are "shill" editors, secretly in league with the Clinton campaign. This is false (and ridiculous), but SR continues to bring up this contention at every opportunity, creating a toxic editing environment.

--Neutralitytalk 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

This request is without merit. Almost all of the request completely misrepresents the facts, and it is fundamentally a demonstration of unwillingness or inability to understand SashiRolls' own misconduct that resulted in the sanction in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SashiRolls

Result of the appeal by SashiRolls

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • First thing's first-- SashiRolls, you need to substantially cut down your statement in size. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I'll take a look at the substance of your statement soon. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
      • After reviewing the statements, the topic ban should be endorsed. NW was well within their discretion to impose this sanction. SashiRolls continues to litigate their content dispute in the bulk of their appeal which leads me to believe the POV-pushing behavior would continue. I'm thankful they reduced the huge size of their statement to not as enormous, but there's nothing there that convinces me NW did anything unreasonable. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I concur with the above. Nothing here was an unreasonable exercise of administrative discretion, and NW's decision was the right call. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


Evidence not considered due to length requirements

Context:In this same vein, it is important to note that Snooganssnoogans (notified here) has been engaged in significant personal attacks against multiple editors, but concentrated on me since I was the most active editor struggling against his POV-pushing. I have stricken some of these personal attacks: (here and here), but there are many others which I have not stricken (here, here, here, here (edit summary calling me dishonest, when I will show in fact that his own edit was the deceptive one below), and here Other editors have stated that the editor's comments are "haughty and counterproductive" here.

It is likewise important to note that Snooganssnoogans consistently makes deceptive edits and/or edits against consensus. First, with regard to the discussion on third party chances, a number of editors noted that it was unwarranted in Stein's WP:BLP: starting here. JayJasper noted that the information assembled under a section heading "On Third Party Chances" did not belong in the article, saying "Bottom line: the entire section was about an electoral analysis, not about about Jill Stein, the actual subject of the article". In this edit, Snooganssnoogans claimed to be executing the consensus view that the section and its content should be removed, but was instead hiding the contested material in the previous paragraph while simply deleting the section heading signaling that the material was related to third party chances (as noted above, s/he called me dishonest for pointing this deceptive edit out). Second, I removed content the same editor added which failed a basic fact-check here. After acknowledging that the article was unreliable on the talk page (diff), s/he added it back to the article anyway (diff), adding links to unrelated tweets in an effort to buttress an unfounded claim. For a third example, one editor noted that "You [ndlr: page editors] put an old quote about wifi under the education section. I have no problem with that, but it doesn't need its own section later in the article." here After I was topic banned, Snooganssnoogans seized the opportunity to remove this fuller context from education here, leaving the section about "wi-fi" untouched, despite the clear suggestion that the opposite procedure (removing the redundant wifi section where the citation is truncated) would have been more warranted. Fourth, another neutral editor, reacting to Snooganssnoogans' reversion of four edits in one (here) noted that "mechanically, WP editing process will go smoother if the Media Access edits are done separate[ly] from Chomsky edits" here, but again, this sensible suggestion (which only mentions 2 of the 4 reversions) was not heeded. Fifth, another neutral editor has observed here that "For the record, although I see above where you [ndlr: Snooganssnoogans] acknowledged the Chait line was inappropriate, it looks to me like you never actually removed it and neither has anyone else since it was added on August 4th. That seems like evidence of systemic bias to me. Again, from my perspective, I saw something like that Chait line in every position-related section I happened to look at. But you may be right that I have just been unlucky in the few subsections I've chosen to examine." Finally, it is worth noting that Snooganssnoogans is the origin of the comparison of Jill Stein's chances in the election to the chances of a gorilla here, an addition which was continually criticized starting the same day here, but which it took nearly 3 weeks to finally get off the page (though Snooganssnoogans never removed it him/herself, despite multiple calls to do so (most succinctly here)). The gorilla was added back to the page by administrator (Neutrality) in this edit.

The user's behavior on the talk page is also worthy of note. As soon as a conflicting point of view is expressed, Snooganssnoogans has engaged in WP:Bludgeoning behavior (this has been true since July whether the subject is a gorilla or media access). Many, many times I have lost data trying to formulate detailed argumentation, because the editor was adding vague or ad hominem arguments. As a result, the user accused me of "refactoring comments", when in fact all that I had done was mark out some space in which I could add an extended argument without the interference of the two editors who were WP:Bludgeoning the process.

With this context, the editor's personal attacks against me in his/her statement at the AE should be reappraised, along with that editor's disruptive editing which I've shown above (including the WP:Bludgeoning which is clear in archive 1, archive 2, and on the current talk page. I am hereby calling for appropriate sanctions to be taken against Snooganssnoogans: (an indefinite ban from post-1932 US politics).

Finally, I feel the need to respond to his accusation that I have "cast aspersions" on other editors, as indeed I may have erred here, by reporting some facts, and interpreting them as indications of bias. I have cited a reliable source[9] concerning the somewhat strange role of a Wikipedia administrator in editing the Kaine page prior to his nomination. (NB: I do not believe that this is WP:Outing as it only refers to the editor's WP identity.) (This was a citation of a verifiable fact.) I have not mentioned that I think it strange that this administrator has given a barnstar to Snooganssnoogans for his editing of political pages here.

I have also been troubled by the fact that this same administrator has redirected two Green candidate political positions pages without any discussion on the 31st of August and the 4th of September (see his edits diff for Ralph Nader and here for Cynthia McKinney), perhaps to establish grounds for deleting the political positions of Jill Stein, for which he initiated an AfD here and in which his recent deletions are adduced as an argument against Jill Stein having a political positions page here contrary to the 3 other major 2016 presidential candidates. This is surely not "neutral" administration. Contrary to what Neutrality asserts below, it should be noted that I have never used the word shill. When I first came to the page I used the word "spinner", thinking of weavers at work in the web. Neutrality asked me to revise that statement, (on my suggestion), on the talk page. I executed without complaint. What I have done is join in with other "marginalized" voices who (had) noted the systematic bias of the article from late July to late August (see diffs above). SashiRolls (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans copyright violation

An article written under a pseudonym by Yashar Hedayat -- a rich kid from Chicago who worked on HRC's 2008 campaign -- was added to Jill Stein's Wikipedia page at the same time it appeared in print in the IAC-owned Daily Beast. Chelsea Clinton is on the board of director's of IAC.

Though they would later receive a slap on the wrist for mass-POV editing, they were never preventively blocked for this particular copyright violation. Who knows, maybe Snoog *is* that rich kid from Chicago (Rahm Emmanuel's fief), which means it wasn't exactly a copyright violation after all! (It should be noted that Snoog did not offer that defense at the time so any assumption that the account is actually Mr. Hedayat is only conjecture; chances are significantly better that they either received information from their team concerning this story, or that they independently saw this planted story which supported their POV.

Neutrality on Democratic Underground


  1. cite web|last1=Roosevelt Institute|title=The Next Round of Quantitative Easing Should be a Debt Jubilee|url=http://rooseveltinstitute.org/next-round-quantitative-easing-should-be-debt-jubilee/%7Cwebsite=Roosevelt Institute|date=14 March 2012
  2. cite web|last1=McCardle|first1=Megan|title=Debt Jubilee? Start With Student Loans|url=http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/debt-jubilee-start-with-student-loans/246307/%7Cwebsite=The Atlantic|accessdate=1 September 2016|date=6 October 2011
  3. cite web|last1=Brown|first1=Ellen|title=A Jubilee for Student Debt|url=http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/a-jubilee-for-student-debt%7Cwebsite=Yes!%7Caccessdate=1 September 2016|date=20 October 2011
  4. Citation|last=The Young Turks|title=How Dr. Jill Stein Will ERASE Student Loan Debt|date=2016-06-08|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzwZtmTEMuw%7Caccessdate=2016-07-26
  5. Cite web|url=http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/07/07/green-partys-jill-stein-on-tax-free-student-loan-bailout.html%7Ctitle=Green Party's Jill Stein on Tax-Free Student Loan Bailout|publisher=Fox Business|last=Wisner|first=Matthew|date=2016-07-07|language=en-US|access-date=2016-07-27
  6. Cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/08/19/i_would_like_to_take_back_one_mean_thing_i_said_about_jill_stein_it_involves.html%7Ctitle=I Would Like to Take Back One Mean Thing I Said About Jill Stein. (It Involves Bees.)|first=Jordan|last=Weissmann|publisher=Slate|date=August 19, 2016|accessdate=August 28, 2016
  7. Cite news|url=http://wtvr.com/2016/08/18/jill-stein-i-will-have-trouble-sleeping-at-night-if-either-trump-or-clinton-is-elected/%7Ctitle=Jill Stein: I will have trouble sleeping at night if either Trump or Clinton is elected|author=CNN Wire|publisher=CBS/WTVR|date=August 18, 2016|accessdate=August 31, 2016
  8. cite web|last1=Johnson|first1=Adam|title=Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours|url=http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours%7Cwebsite=fair.org%7Cpublisher=Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting|accessdate=10 September 2016|date=8 March 2016
  9. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".