| Revision as of 16:20, 9 June 2020 editNetoholic (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users39,916 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:50, 29 June 2020 edit undoNetoholic (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users39,916 edits time capNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| *] | |||
| In the evidence below, I will demonstrate how GorillaWarfare, who created the article initially, has: | |||
| *] | |||
| # Used the article to push a particular POV about the subject in ways not supported by the sources available at the time she used them; | |||
| # Edit warred almost continuously with multiple editors to preserve that POV; | |||
| # Exhibited ] behavior over the article; | |||
| # Has used AN/I to further ideological ]. | |||
| ;POV pushing "far-right" in initial creation | |||
| GorillaWarfare and worked on it for a couple of hours until . It included the phrase in the lead line {{tq|"a loose American far-right extremist movement"}} and supported that line with citations to , , and . GorillaWarfare herself has evaluated many of the sources in the article and saved it at ]. In that she acknowledges that NPR do not describe the broad movement as "far-right". | |||
| * NPR only discusses the "boogaloo" slang/meme (not the movement), but the main part of the article says {{tq|Today, boogaloo has seeped out of the gaming community and found fertile ground in militant fringe movements. That includes anarchists and others on the far left. But it's especially popular among right-wing militias and self-described patriot groups"}}. | |||
| * The Times uses the phrase {{tq|"a growing movement of armed anti-government extremists"}}, explicitly leaving out any terms of the ideological spectrum like "left" or "right". | |||
| * GorillaWarfare claims The Economist calls the movement "far-right", but the actual quote is {{tq|"Some among the far-right style themselves as 'Boogaloo Boys'..."}} - "Some" - and in the same article {{tq|"a strange marriage of Marxism and neo-Nazism"}} (clearly far-left and far-right ideologies). | |||
| * According to her own evaluation found (]), there are NO other sources as of May 30 which describe the movement as "far-right". | |||
| It would appear that in writing that lead sentence, GorillaWarfare ]'d together The Economist (vague references to "far-right") and The Times (using the term "extremist"). The lead sentence lacks the nuance of the articles which either don't mention "far-right" (The Times) or mention both extremes (NPR/Economist). This omission is at the core of GorillaWarfare's later edit warring and other actions. | |||
| ;Edit warring on day 1 (May 30/31) | |||
| The first edit to the article by another editor was at May 30 22:28 to change the "far-right" definition, it was immediately reverted by GorillaWarfare, and over the next ~6 hours she clearly reverted the new article a total 5 times. | |||
| * clear revert ("far-right" reinserted) | |||
| * clear revert | |||
| * (at , GW reverts the lead along with making other edits with summary "name cites", but then she self-reverts at noting "3RR") I include only for the incomplete or misleading edit summary for 22:37 and to show she is thinking about 3RR. | |||
| * clear revert ("far-right" reinserted) | |||
| * and sequential clear reverts | |||
| * clear revert | |||
| ;Edit warring June 4/5 | |||
| * revert of content added | |||
| * partial revert of content removed | |||
| * clear revert ("far-right" reinserted) | |||
| * clear revert ("far-right" reinserted) | |||
| * clear revert ("far-right" reinserted) | |||
| ;Edit warring June 17 | |||
| * clear revert | |||
| * clear revert ("far-right" reinserted, "left-wing" removed) | |||
| * clear revert | |||
| * clear revert (same content as 01:17) | |||
| * clear revert ("far-right" reinserted, "left anarchist" removed) | |||
| * clear revert | |||
| * clear revert | |||
Revision as of 04:50, 29 June 2020
In the evidence below, I will demonstrate how GorillaWarfare, who created the article initially, has:
- Used the article to push a particular POV about the subject in ways not supported by the sources available at the time she used them;
- Edit warred almost continuously with multiple editors to preserve that POV;
- Exhibited WP:OWNERSHIP behavior over the article;
- Has used AN/I to further ideological WP:BATTLEGROUND.
- POV pushing "far-right" in initial creation
GorillaWarfare created the article on May 30 20:47 as a stub and worked on it for a couple of hours until 22:24. It included the phrase in the lead line "a loose American far-right extremist movement"
and supported that line with citations to The Times (May 16), The Economist (May 23), and NPR (Jan 10). GorillaWarfare herself has evaluated many of the sources in the article and saved it at User:GorillaWarfare/Boogaloo sources. In that she acknowledges that NPR do not describe the broad movement as "far-right".
- NPR only discusses the "boogaloo" slang/meme (not the movement), but the main part of the article says
Today, boogaloo has seeped out of the gaming community and found fertile ground in militant fringe movements. That includes anarchists and others on the far left. But it's especially popular among right-wing militias and self-described patriot groups"
. - The Times uses the phrase
"a growing movement of armed anti-government extremists"
, explicitly leaving out any terms of the ideological spectrum like "left" or "right". - GorillaWarfare claims The Economist calls the movement "far-right", but the actual quote is
"Some among the far-right style themselves as 'Boogaloo Boys'..."
- "Some" - and in the same article"a strange marriage of Marxism and neo-Nazism"
(clearly far-left and far-right ideologies). - According to her own evaluation found (User:GorillaWarfare/Boogaloo sources), there are NO other sources as of May 30 which describe the movement as "far-right".
It would appear that in writing that lead sentence, GorillaWarfare WP:SYNTH'd together The Economist (vague references to "far-right") and The Times (using the term "extremist"). The lead sentence lacks the nuance of the articles which either don't mention "far-right" (The Times) or mention both extremes (NPR/Economist). This omission is at the core of GorillaWarfare's later edit warring and other actions.
- Edit warring on day 1 (May 30/31)
The first edit to the article by another editor was at May 30 22:28 to change the "far-right" definition, it was immediately reverted by GorillaWarfare, and over the next ~6 hours she clearly reverted the new article a total 5 times.
- May 30 22:30 clear revert ("far-right" reinserted)
- 22:34 clear revert
- (at 22:37, GW reverts the lead along with making other edits with summary "name cites", but then she self-reverts at 22:38 noting "3RR") I include only for the incomplete or misleading edit summary for 22:37 and to show she is thinking about 3RR.
- May 31 00:58 clear revert ("far-right" reinserted)
- 02:22 and 02:23 sequential clear reverts
- 04:43 clear revert
- Edit warring June 4/5
- Jun 4 05:43 revert of content added Jun 3 16:10
- Jun 17:53 partial revert of content removed Jun 3 22:46
- 20:47 clear revert ("far-right" reinserted)
- 20:48 clear revert ("far-right" reinserted)
- 20:51 clear revert ("far-right" reinserted)
- Edit warring June 17