Updated: Feb 2, 2021
[Previously Unranked]
Unlike the previous four editors which focus on Israel-Palestine pages, "SnoogansSnoogans" is dedicated to prominent controversial debates between the Left and the Right, particularly involving immigration, foreign policy, President Donald J. Trump, Republican politicians, and prominent conservatives in media from Mark Levin and Sean Hannity to John Bolton and Ben Shapiro. Snoog edits frequently and aggressively for hours at a time and is now the most prominent and effective leftist activist editor on Wikipedia.
Thus Snoog attacks the Jewish state more indirectly but still in a devastating way: by smearing some of the most prominent defenders of Israel as racists. In addition, he has also allied with the anti-Israel editors to illegitimately block pro-Israel editors.
First, the origin of this "Snoogans" phrase is in the character Jay - an immature, sex-obsessed pot dealer - from filmmaker Kevin Smith's comedy movies "Clerks," "Mallrats," "Dogma," and others released through the '90s. Thus a Generation X or Millennial age for Snoog is a reasonable guess.
Snoog is believed to be based in Iceland, an Icelandic immigrant living in the United States, or a descendant of Icelandic immigrants. Evidence also suggests Snoog may be based in Wisconsin, as the Eastern side of the state possesses one of the largest Icelandic-immigrant populations in the country.
Other clues suggest other aspects of Snoogans' identity, notably that he is in his late '20s to mid '30s and that he may be an architect or have a passion for the subject. That he may be an immigrant or especially sympathetic to immigrants is also suggested by the top 10 pages he has spent time editing, all of which relate to immigration. That he may be a leftist immigrant alienated to a degree by America's robust conservatism and the Trump years' "build that wall" controversy would further explain why he would invest so much time to escaping into waging his wikipedia wars. Other clues suggest that Snoog's opposition to conservatives may be influenced by very socially liberal views on sex, drugs, and climate change.
The "Is Known For" Method:
One of Snoog's signature methods is to write in Wikipedia's voice that a particular person or organization "is known for [insert bad thing here]."
Gatestone Institute lead:
Gatestone Institute is a far-right think tank known for publishing anti-Muslim articles.[a][2][3][4][5] It was founded in 2008 by Nina Rosenwald, who serves as its president.[6] Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and former[7] national security advisor, John R. Bolton, was its chairman from 2013 to March 2018. Its current chairman is Amir Taheri.[8][9][10][11]
Gatestone is an anti-Muslim group.[a][12] The organization has attracted attention for publishing false or inaccurate articles, some of which were shared widely.[13][14][15][16][17]
Mark Levin lead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=969721238
He is known for his criticisms of Democrats and encouragement of primary challenges to congressional Republicans that he considers to be "[[Republican In Name Only]]" (RINO). (Remove word "harsh" as it seems opinionated)
He is known for his incendiary criticisms of Democrats and encouragement of primary challenges to congressional Republicans that he considers to be "[[Republican In Name Only]]" (RINO)
(the right word should actually be incendiary or inflammatory, per citations to peer-reviewed research in the body)
Vanessa Beeley lead:
Vanessa Beeley is a British activist and blogger.[1] She is known for her pro-Bashar al-Assad advocacy, and for promoting conspiracy theories and falsehoods about the Syrian Civil War, in particular the White Helmets who she falsely claims are a terrorist organisation.[2][3][4][5][6]
More of SnoogansSnoogans edits
One common smearing tactic used by Snoog is to cite attacks on conservative figures that have been published in "reliable source" publication, and to then refuse to include the figure's answer to the charge because it was supposedly printed in a non-reliable source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=913868484
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/913868484
''Vox'' describes Shapiro as a polarizing figure, in part due to tweets such as "Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage" (2010).<ref name=":2" /> In response to renewed criticism of this tweet in 2018, Shapiro said it has been "taken completely out of context" and that he "was specifically tweeting about Arab leadership in the Arab-Israeli conflict," "referring to the Palestinian terrorist governments of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and their political supporters, who have shifted tens of millions of dollars from building up the lives of their citizens toward terrorism and bloodshed."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Shapiro |first1=Ben |title=The Left Idiotically Takes An 8-Year-Old Tweet Out Of Context To Slam The 'Intellectual Dark Web.' It's Utter Nonsense |url=https://www.dailywire.com/news/30487/left-idiotically-takes-8-year-old-tweet-out-ben-shapiro |website=The Daily Wire |accessdate=June 17, 2019 |language=en |date=May 10, 2018}}</ref><ref name="dumb"/>
On the page of classical liberal podcaster Dave Rubin, Snoogans insists that Rubin's own description of his ideology is irrelevant, that "let's use what rs call them."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=871954066 (Rubin describes himself as a classical liberal, not a conservative.)
yes that's what these guys like to call themselves, but let's use what rs call them)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/879167597
classical liberal is just a hip label that some of these folks apply to themselves. stick to what rs say
wash times and the objective standard are not rs. classical liberalism is thing, but if Rubin is one it needs to be reliably sourced
On the page of pro-Israel journalist Bari Weiss, Snoog insists that Weiss be described as a conservative even though she describes herself as a left-leaning centrist:
Undid revision 879621167 by Wumbolo (talk) these are RS. it is conventional to describe ppl in Wiki voice with RS, even if they themselves dispute how they're described.
(reverted) Undid revision 880926267 by 124.171.75.196 (talk) as a poli sci grad student, you may perhaps be aware that sometimes ppl claim to hold certain political beliefs which they do not really hold. stop edit-warring. there's a talk page discussion which have yet to join: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bari_Weiss#RS_describe_her_as_conservative
(reverted) Undid revision 881428680 by 124.171.75.196 (talk) we don't add tweets, youtube videos and other primary source content where individuals ramble on about their views. Per WP:DUE, we cover what reliable sources cover, not random cherrypicked items from primary sources. an op-ed by David French is not RS. stop edit-warring.
(reverted) Undid revision 882610268 by 124.171.75.196 (talk) nope, this is not how this works. we do not fill wikipedia pages with cherry-picked primary source rubbish and there's no compromise to be found on that.
Quotes on SnoogansSnoogans's Wikipedia Userpage:
Examples of racial bias on Wikipedia[edit]
The lead to Donald Trump's article cannot mention that he led the birther movement and came to prominence in modern US politics by arguing that the first black president was not born in the US
The Ronald Reagan article cannot mention anywhere that Reagan referred to blacks as "monkeys". Editors who opposed the inclusion of the content argued that calling blacks "monkeys" is not necessarily racist and that a president using racist slurs is not of any importance
The Reagan article cannot mention in its lead that Reagan opposed sanctions on South Africa over its apartheid system (even though it led Congress to take the rare step of overturning his veto)
The same set of editors try systemically to block the addition of any content related to race and racism on Wikipedia. Attempts to add race-related material to Wikipedia (and overcome the systemic omission of content related to racial and ethnic minorities) frequently needs to jump over arbitrary and purposely-unreachable hurdles erected by these editors.
For some editors (and admins), the big problem on Wikipedia is not racial bias, but editors who call out racial bias[1]
Under "Some of My Endorsements"
Sharyl Attkisson: A "one-man-Wikipedia-agenda-editing machine. He has left his biased mark on my Wikipedia biography as well".[7] One of the "agenda editors related to pharmaceutical interests and the partisan blog Media Matters control my Wikipedia biographical page, making sure that slanted or false information stays on it."[8] "He edits my page too with false and libelous info".[9] Paid editor or just a kooky ideologue?[10]
Mark Levin: The "person assigned to [Mark Levin]"[11]
Brigitte Gabriel: "Anyone can say anything they want in Wikipedia. Never believe Wikipedia because it's a bunch of lies. We talked to them. We try to change the profile, they would go back immediately, some leftists, and they would change it to whatever they want."[12]
Part of "the left" which "has controlled wikipedia for a long time now"[39]
"He essentially removes anything from Wikipedia that doesn't agree with his liberal fantasy world."[73]
a "fanatic", " far-left political [activist]" who "edits pages of conservative politicians pretty much 24/7 and never stops until the articles look like attack pages, using "Reliable Sources", such as Buzzfeed News and others."[75]
Coverage of SnoogansSnoogans Outside Wikipedia
Breitbart: "Wikipedia Discourages Editors From Using Fox News as a Source on Contentious Content"
Liberty Sword: "Five Cases of Wikipedia Editors Smearing Tucker Carlson"
SnoogansSnoogans's Wikipedia information
Wikipedia User Groups: extendedconfirmed, user, autoconfirmed
SnoogansSnoogans Top 35 Most Edited Pages: