This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
Request help in regard to editor Muboshgu deleting any entry setting forth the other side, defense of Thomas Farr in controversy. Current article does not have an NPOV. Current article will use sources such as local progressive Weekly Independent to publish attacks on Farr, but Muboshgu deletes sources from other side. The Washington Examiner is “conservative,” which is why it is an appropriate source for “conservative media” criticizing Sen. Tim Scott’s opposition to Tom Farr. But surely Wall Street Journal is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.118.130.10 (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu/Snooganssnoogans (sockpuppet same person?) gives no reason for deletion of entry on controversy caused by Sen. Tim Scott's opposition to Farr judicial nomination, other than Wall Street Journal is "unhinged, loonie, fringe.” And purpose of source is that Scott’s action on Farr has caused controversy. Wall Street Journal is major main stream national publication, same as Washington Post and New York Times. Just because Muboshgu/Snooganssnoogans apparently thinks anything he disagrees with is "unhinged," or contrary to the point of view he is pushing on the Tim Scott and Thomas Farr pages, does not justify deletion. Muboshgu/Snooganssnoogans will not discuss on talk page, but just repeatedly deletes. Obviously I am a new contributor to Wiki, but is not Muboshgu/Snooganssnoogans conduct and repeated deletions violation of multiple Wiki policies? Do I need to refer to each policy violation? Assistance, comments and guidance by other contributors most welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.118.130.10 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons have been given. These are op eds written from a POV, they do not "exonerate" Farr from anything. Snooganssnoogans is not the same person as I am. Funny how you can't imagine that two experienced editors might have the same opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The content in question is sourced to op-eds. One is written by Ed Whelan who has a record of promoting conspiracy theories on the topic of judicial nominees. One is by a failed Alabama politician. The WSJ op-ed appears to be a "letter", though I can't fully access the piece. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
