the Doc Hastings wikipedia team
There has been some pretty busy and furious editing on behalf of “Doc Hastings” going on over the past month and a half.  Our trio of editors are an anonymous isp #, Martinstever, and Senor_Island. They broaden their editing a bit, on over to Jim McDermott and Jay Inslee, though the most interesting item with Jay Inslee remains on the Hastings page — a rather spurious partisan deck-stacking “This time Hastings handily won by six percentage points, capitalizing on anger at Inslee’s campaigning as a centrist while establishing one of the most liberal voting records in Congress. (Inslee later returned to Congress as a representative from the far left leaning 1st District.)“ [I should note that Inslee is now seeking the governorship, so as is the wont of political party headquarters, Washington State Republican headquarters will soon have up on the walls pictures of Jay Inslee with a dart-board with a dart board over them.)
isp # removed “which then determined no action would be taken against former Congressman Foley”, citing it as “negative propaganda which really didn’t flush out what really happened in the least“, and has an axe to grind about the organization “CREW”, which in his vantage point is in that “even the New York Times called ‘liberal'” (hence, “propaganda.”)
There is a line of comedy in adding the phrase “As one would expect” to the sentence “Hastings has received criticism from Democrats for inaction as Chair of the House Ethics Committee,”. This is clearly the single most desired categories the Doc Hastings editors had need to edit. In the end, the changing of the word “claims” to “the claim” is quite fair, though we do run into a problem of editorializing with the use of the word and wiki-linking to “urban myth” in “The claim that Hastings fired the entire committee staff to protect Delay has become something of an [[urban myth]].”
The Jay Inslee article sees a changing of the name “Richard (Doc) Hastings” to simply “Doc Hastings. The trio’s editing attempts of “Jim McDermott” bear some observational interest, and are the partisan policy arguments you would expert, but I am fascinated by the desire to start the Jim McDermott article with “added title as knight” “Sir” — they wish to shorten their guy’s name and expand their partisan/ideological opponent’s?
The editors puts some further clarification on the nature of “hasn’t faced serious opposition since“, which strikes me indifferently, but then tosse in the lob “has become the most popular politician from Central Washington” — which I guess was buttressed somewhat by the inclusion of “and recognizable“. The most interesting edit in his attempt to toss in good scores from Conservative Republican supporting activist groups is the phrase “one of the most pro-business pro-jobs representatives in the Congress. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce gives Hastings a score of 94 out of 100 based”, etc… which has seen the “pro-jobs” cut by wise wikipedia editors — the positive spin put on the US Chamber of Commerce in the discussion page falls under the category of “not a general discussion page”. The hastings editors’ stamp is shown in ordering the interest group ratings from their side and than to the “other side”, and referencing union groups and environmental groups with “some”.
The Hastings editors expand on Hastings’ college attendance, in some usual but skewing of phrases (“attended” to “studied business”), and by putting up Hastings’s post-(ungraduated) awards and honors from CBC — he gave a commencement address and was named “alumni of the year”.
Well, it should be interesting to watch their work, I suppose.