User talk:Sprinkler Court

Welcome!

I'm Sprinkler Court. I am happy to discuss my edits with you all. Thanks. Sprinkler Court (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, SC: Understand if you want to be circumspect about editing the Bruce Braley page, was going to search for better refs, but figured I would shortcut by asking you here. The video that was released - it wasn't actually GENERATED by America Rising, was it? My understanding was that someone found it on a Braley supporter's personal site. Just trying to find a better wording. Prefer if you respond on my Talk page (I'll be sure to get it that way). Plus, if you want to send items which you think should be in article space, but are reluctant to post due to COI, feel free to send them along. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits to John Walsh page

You're right that Senator Walsh was an Army Colonel. He had a state commission as a Brigadier General. It's not unusual for state adjutants general to have one federal rank and a different state rank. Usually it's because they're waiting for federal recognition of a promotion to the next higher rank. I had meant to make that edit myself, but had not gotten to it yet. If anyone questions it, I can cite references about Walsh specifically, or give other examples of state rank versus federal recognition. Billmckern (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest

First of all, I want to thank you for your honesty and forthrightness about your conflict of interest. That said, I'm uncomfortable with your editing here, which I think contravenes the practices described in our conflict-of-interest guideline. You state you are employed by a partisan "research firm" which appears to specialize in producing political attack ads. Your editing here seems to be a direct extension of your paid work, since you've focused exclusively on adding negative material about political candidates on the opposite side of the partisan fence. I think what you're doing falls under the rubric of "paid advocacy", a practice which is either "strongly discouraged" or completely forbidden here. Even if one disputes the "paid advocacy" characterization, there is clearly something unsavory about a political operative dedicated to adding political attack-ad material to Wikipedia biographies. I suppose it would be reasonable for you to continue to contribute to article talk pages, so long as you use them appropriately, but I think it is clearly inappropriate for you to directly edit articles—particularly biographical articles of living people whom you are paid to disparage. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Beyond uncomfortable - October 2014

This goes beyond uncomfortable. Wikipedia is not a political website. Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. You stated that you are editing where you have a conflict of interest, and where you have a vested interest. Since you recognized both situations but continued editing (a wrong decision), I have blocked your account.

While I am not sure whether you are paid for your edits, you should know that paid editing is forbidden. Please don't continue with a different account or "pass the baton" to another person in your office.

Should you wish to edit Wikipedia for your personal pleasure, you may request that the block be lifted. Should you want to do that, I would only agree on condition that you stay away from editing that could be viewed as political advocacy.

Thank you, and I apologize for the inconvenience. Jehochman ^Talk 16:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Directly editing articles is allowed, you just have to completely disclose your conflict of interest, which this guy did. This block is absent any community consensus. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 02:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That still doesn't excuse the disruptive editing/POV pushing/paid editing part. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the policy-based reason for this block, Jehochman? Just curious. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing for the purpose of violating NPOV and BLP. If you want to have a community discussion, go for it. Using Wikipedia to attack political opponents is way out of bounds. Jehochman ^Talk 00:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion with Sprinkler Court

To clarify, yes, I do work for a Republican research firm. However, I have never been paid to make any edits to any pages. America Rising, the firm that I work for, is not paid by its clients to make edits to Wikipedia. It's not part of our job description. I am just genuinely interested in politics and current events. All of the edits that I made were widely reported and up to Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in my view. I always disclosed my COI or vested interest though so that others could judge my edits properly. I do plan on challenging this block, as I believe it is a rush to judgment and not merited. Sprinkler Court (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I'd like to discuss this with you without distractions from third parties, so I moved the comments below to another section. It sounds to me like some of the Buzzfeed reporting and other commentary about your activities, including your own COI disclosure statement might be exaggerating the extent of COI. If you are saying that you only edit on your own time, not at the direction of anybody else, the situation might be resolvable. Can you comment on what sort of line you would draw for yourself to avoid COI and avoid the appearance of COI? For instance, if you would agree to refrain from editing articles about candidates in races that your firm is working on, I would feel much better. I think you need to create a boundary, stick with it, and add it to your disclosure statement. In my own case, I have clients that come and go, and while working for a client I avoid editing their articles, whether or not they are paying me or directing me to do so. It would just create a bad appearance, which is I think what's happened in your case. Please let me know if that's agreeable. Because you responded so politely, I'm going to unblock you on your honor, trusting that we can come to an agreement. Jehochman ^Talk 05:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman I appreciate your decision to unblock me and your suggestions re: my disclosure statement. Perhaps I have overstated my COI. If I have, it was an error on the side of caution. As I said before, I am not paid by America Rising to make edits to Wikipedia. As for the boundaries I plan on setting for myself, I plan on continuing to operate as I was: operating within Wikipedia guidelines, norms, and community consensus. I am going to add verified, properly sourced information where I think it is missing in an effort to create a better encyclopedia. America Rising has a wide range of clients with interests throughout the country. Suffice to say, I do not work directly with many of those clients. Where I do work directly with a client, I have and will continue to avoid making edits to pages where that client may have a vested interest or COI. Sprinkler Court (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just keep in mind that you, like me, will be watched closely and people may jump to conclusions. If you err, err on the side of caution. Happy editing. For what it's worth, I strongly recommend you follow MastCell's advice below, that you learn the ropes by editing topics that aren't related to candidates. If you love politics, try editing topics rather than biographies. One of my favorite areas is Wikipedia:In the news. Perhaps you'd like that. Jehochman ^Talk 22:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by others

• Jehochman, I'm highly uncomfortable with a single admin making a block of this nature, especially when it's an admin who runs a marketing firm, and especially when your original block message simply isn't true. Paid editing isn't forbidden; paid editing without disclosure is forbidden. From what I can see of Sprinkler's edits, he pretty clearly complies with our disclosure requirements. If his individual edits are problematic they can be dealt with individually, and if his pattern of edits as a whole is untenable than he can be taken to AN for a community ban, but my gut instinct tells me that banning open political operatives will mean we'll simply see even more under the radar operatives than we already do. Please note that I'm not trying to imply wrongdoing by pointing out that you run a marketing firm, just that we should really trying to operate beyond the slightest potential shadow of appearance of impropriety. In full disclosure, I frequently speak with Ed off-wiki about topics related to paid/pov editing, and he brought this to my attention. Please reverse your block, or reflex it to WP:AN for community review. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing, even with disclosure, is forbidded, especially when it's slanting WP:BLP articles for political gain. User:Jimbo has made that very clear, as has the community time and again, by banning those discovered doing paid (or unpaid) advocacy editing. As for your personal attacks against me, every editor who isn't unemployed has a job doing something. So what. My actions here are not sponsored by anybody, nor are they political. You, can go to WP:AN if you want to stir up drama and risk a backlash against this editor. I see no benefit in that course at present. Jehochman ^Talk 05:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, the days of the god-king are over, and you know it. As long as the terms of use are followed, paid editing is currently allowed on the English Wikipedia. If you disagree, please go block every paid Wikipedian-in-residence. Pointing out that you run a marketing firm is not a personal attack on you; Wikipedia administrators should seek to avoid even the potential shadow of an appearance of impropriety in their actions, and suggesting that you should seek a second opinion isn't attacking you. Incidentally, please don't break talk page guidelines by unnecessary reformatting on other users' pages - Sprinkler can do that himself if he wants to. And as one last side note: although I'm glad you don't edit for currently active clients, I would be quite disappointed if you were making major edits to former clients' articles.

Sprinkler: as long as your edits stay within WP:NPOV, WP:V, and follow the WMF's terms of use, you don't need to come to a more strict voluntary agreement with Jehochman, although you could if you wanted to.Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• To be clear, you are employed by a Republican opposition-research operation which, by its nature, is dedicated to collecting, disseminating, and promoting negative talking points about Democratic candidates. Your edits to Wikipedia have consisted solely of efforts to disseminate and promote negative talking points about Democratic candidates. It would take an extraordinary suspension of disbelief (or a complete lack of critical-thinking skills) to view your editing to date here as anything other than an extension of your paid work. It is categorically inappropriate for a partisan political operation to use Wikipedia as a platform for its attack ads or talking points. Such editing completely undermines this site's fundamental goal of producing a serious, reputable, neutral reference work.

  In accordance with our conflict-of-interest guideline, you have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to American political candidates. Specifically, your employment depends upon your ability to portray candidates from the opposing party in the worst light possible. Editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged by our site guidelines; in the setting of the additional consideration due living biographical subjects, who have been the target of your edits here, I am going to upgrade that discouragement to a prohibition. Please do not edit any articles or material dealing with politicians or candidates for office in the U.S., broadly construed. If you edit such articles, I will block your account. You may comment on the associated article talkpages, so long as you avoid overwhelming them with verbiage and respect the time and effort of other contributors here, who are volunteers. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

MastCell I appreciate your input. Can you point me to which specific policy you are basing this on? Thank you, Sprinkler Court (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes; in fact, I already linked two in my post above. Specifically, the conflict-of-interest guideline (which strongly discourages COI editing), and the fundamental policy on biographies of living people, which states—among other things—that individuals with significant off-wiki rivalries, hostilities, or conflicts with individuals should not edit those individuals' biographies. But let's be a little more honest and less legalistic: this is a matter of simple common sense. Do you really believe that a serious, reputable biography of a politician should be written, in whole or in part by opposition researchers paid to discredit that politician? Keep in mind that your conflict of interest, while admirably disclosed here, will not be disclosed in any way whatsoever to the casual reader of this encyclopedia. There will be no disclaimer stating: "By the way, parts of this article were written by an oppo researcher whose job is to discredit this candidate by any means necessary". This is not a rhetorical question: I'm interested in whether you think this practice is acceptable for an aspiring serious, reputable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 00:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to state that none of my edits were inappropriate. They were all verified and widely reported. If I have made mistakes, they have been just that: mistakes. I am not trying to troll anyone or push my view onto anyone. I have always abided by community consensus and have made an effort to work with other editors at all times. I am committed to bettering the content of this encyclopedia. I disclosed my work background and affiliation in an effort to be open and honest. I appreciate that some are concerned by my work background. I am sensitive to those concerns and have made - and will continue to make - a good faith effort to work with Jehochman and any others to address those concerns. To suggest that my work background makes me dishonest or inherently tainted though is somewhat offensive and also disingenuous. Everyone has a background and opinions. It seems that some want to punish me simply because I'm admitting that I have opinions and work for people with opinions. Sprinkler Court (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that you were dishonest or "tainted". I suggested that you have a conflict of interest, and should not edit in areas where that conflict exists. You don't need to play the victim here. You're not being victimized; you're being asked to abide by the same rules as everyone else. There are topics where I have a conflict of interest—financial, professional, or personal. I don't edit those articles on Wikipedia (nor, for that matter, comment on those talkpages). That seems like a simple, very basic, and not particularly burdensome expectation for people who are interested in contributing to a serious, reputable reference work. I'm not clear why it's such a sticking point here. MastCell ^Talk 01:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to play the victim. I'm pointing out a fact. I'm being singled out, not because of the edits that I've made, but because I've stated that I work for a Republican research firm. It seems to me that I could have avoided a lot of hassle had I just not disclosed my COI since that is the only reason any of this has happened in the first place. By the way, it's awfully easy to say you avoid editing pages where you have a COI when you don't publicly state what your COIs may be. Sprinkler Court (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Mastcell, you can't unilaterally topic ban someone unless you're invoking an arbcom or community passed sanction, and even then it would be silly to do so without diffs. I don't think I've ever seen someone try to impose a unilateral topic ban with no diffs. If you want to invoke AE BLP sanctions, please take this to an appropriate message board. I'm not saying I'm a fan of having paid political operatives on Wikipedia, but a topic ban of a declared COI editor needs a stronger consensus than is here. If this topic ban stood intact, it would allow any administrator to easily get rid of any paid editor simply because they don't like paid editing. I take it that you're not trying to invoke AE here since you didn't mention it, in which case I'm going to go ahead and say that if you block Sprinkler Court without an explicit rationale with diffs that would hold up to a block if he were an unpaid editor, I'm going to be awfully tempted to accept any block appeal from Sprinkler (which is perfectly within policy unless you're invoking AE, since contentious administrative actions need consensus.) I'm not saying I like his edits - I don't, at all. But I'm not okay with trying to unilaterally ban someone with no diffs who is trying to do the right thing and declare when he could just as easily have not declared and gone unnoticed. We can monitor the edits of declared COIs. We can't monitor the edits of undeclared ones. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't topic-ban anyone. I indicated that I would block this account for continued violations of the conflict-of-interest guideline or the biographies of living persons policy. That's a basic administrative function and does not require any complicated quasi-legalistic framework. You're welcome to do whatever you think is best, according to your judgement. I will tell you that if Wikipedia in 2014 is the kind of place where no one sees a problem with an opposition researcher using our biographical articles as platforms for attack-ad material, then this place is no longer worthy of my time or participation, and as such I don't really care what happens to my admin bit. MastCell ^Talk 00:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Gamaliel (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• ... congratulations on ensuring that no editor working for a political firm ever declares their affiliation again. I'm shocked that people don't see the value in being able to know who has a COI, and being able to track their edits and correct inappropriate ones. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who suggested that MastCell needed to invoke the arbitration committee sanctions, all I did was provide a notice about them that is clearly marked "This message is informational only". If you don't like the procedure, then take your complaint to the committee. Gamaliel (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't suggest MastCell invoke AE, I just pointed out hadn't. If we block all open political editors, we're going to have the same number of political operatives running around, we just won't know who they are. We're going to have paid editors one way or another. I'd prefer to know who they are so I can mitigate any damage to the encyclopedia they cause. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand it's a good sentiment to encourage disclosure. That's why I unblocked the user and afforded him every benefit of the doubt once he responded to me so politely. On the other hand, we shouldn't compromise our principles just because people can evade them. My advice is to start editing some other topics; surely multiple things interest you, SC. Once you get more experience you may have an easier time seeing how best to edit. It's generally a good idea to highlight both positive and negative aspects of a subject or biography. If you find yourself writing all negative or all positive, that's a bit of a red flag. Jehochman ^Talk 01:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As Kevin Gorman has pointed out, MastCell does not have the power to "upgrade that discouragement to a prohibition". I become very concerned when admins begin asserting authority beyond their remit. I think this harassment of Sprinkler Court is unfortunate, although not surprising. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Friends, please don't get worked up needlessly. Wikipedia is not merely a collection of "true" facts. It is a reference work that presents topics from a "neutral" point of view, in proper proportion. When a political operative starts adding lots of true facts (all of them negative) to a political opponent's biography, that's a problem. If you see anybody doing this, whether they are liberal, conservative, Marxist, Peronist or something else, please let me know and I'll do my best to educate them. MastCell has the ability, and the support of the Wikipedia community, to take whatever action is necessary to prevent persistent violations of the neutral point of view policy. Please don't mislead any editor by suggesting otherwise. I strongly recommend that anybody working on an article, especially a biography, present both positive and negative facts in proportion to how those facts are represented in reliable sources. Happy editing, Jehochman ^Talk 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I came here to state that I find that the editor does not edit war over material and has used the Talk page when challenged, and that's still true. But I am troubled by the fact that the editor has inserted only negative material used in attack ads by Republicans in BLP articles of Democratic politicians. Sometimes the claims are out of context and are purposefully so. Also, I saw the link to 'The Hill' article at the top of this page, and the statements by Tim Miller, the executive director of America Rising Pac are troubling. He states:

    "We've consulted long-time Wikipedia editors, don't believe the blocking will stand, and are going to appeal," he said in an email. "Nobody has produced an example of a disruptive edit made by an America Rising researcher and we are not being paid to edit Wikipedia. Every edit our researcher made was accurate, relevant to the topic at hand, met the Wikipedia standards, and flagged for other editors the potential conflict of interest."

    That seems like a twisting of words and an attempt to state they are not 'paid to edit Wikipedia', but are still being paid to advance the causes of their Republican clients. So in essence, they most definitely ARE being paid to edit Wikipedia. Whether it's being specified in the contract or not, Tim Miller is taking this up as a cause for the PAC and his employees are directed to make edit to Wikipedia. So while I still state the editor has not been edit warring and used the Talk page when I reverted one of their edits, this type of SPA, POV advocacy is at the very least unseemly, and probably can be called paid advocacy. Dave Dial (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Some thoughts:
  1. I was reminded of Newyorkbrad's "blue people" thought experiment: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop#A_thought_experiment. While that thought experiment was about a hypothetical editor adding consistently negative material about members of a racial, religious or ethnic group, one could easily argue that the same principles should apply to political groups. Note that the thought experiment was reflected in several ArbCom principles: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Bias_and_prejudice, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Remedies_for_biased_editing. So if admins cannot come to an agreement here, one option would be to present the case to ArbCom to let them examine Sprinkler Court's edit history and decide whether or not their bias is so pronounced as to warrant a topic ban.
  2. I sympathise with Kevin's view expressed above that effectively punishing people for making a disclosure seems like a spectacularly bad idea, since it simply drives partisan editing underground.
  3. I am aware of several administrators and editors in good standing whose editing pattern with regard to US politics is, I believe, at least as skewed as Sprinkler Court's, but in the opposite direction (I hasten to add that I am not a US citizen ...). In other words, I believe one would have trouble finding any edit in their edit history that praised a prominent Republican politician or candidate, or would seem apt to reduce the standing of a prominent Democrat, while edits in the other direction are common. It's at this point that admin-initiated efforts to constrain Sprinkler Court's editing may suffer a potential credibility gap. Any admin contemplating whether or not they should block or topic-ban Sprinkler Court for biased political editing, while exhibiting a demonstrable bias of similar proportions in their own political editing, should consider that they may end up finding themselves the subject of a request for arbitration if they go ahead, asking ArbCom to assess whether or not the bias in Sprinkler Court's political edit history is indeed more pronounced than that in the blocking or topic-banning admin's own.
  • TL;DR: Hold your horses. Kick it up to ArbCom if you think the editing history is problematic enough to warrant it. Andreas JN466 11:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Hamby has been accepted

Peter Hamby, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Tim Miller has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tim Miller. Thanks! JSFarman (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tim Miller (July 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tim Miller and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Tim Miller

Hello, Sprinkler Court. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Tim Miller".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)