User talk:Springee

Comment by Eidschun

I have a high-resolution photo of the designer, Robert E. Eidschun, working on the full-size clay model of his early design of the Pinto in a studio at Ford. I also also have six high-resolution studio photos of the full-size clay model of the designer's final design, which went into production albeit with minor changes. I would like to provide these photos to whoever would care to incorporate them into the Wikipedia article about the Ford Pinto; it seems that Springee has contributed the most to that article in the recent past. I am the designer's son, Robert W. Eidschun. Please contact me at eidschun@yahoo.com, (585) 350-4105. I live in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eidschun (talk • contribs) 02:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

[[1]] [[2]] [[3]]

Comment by Anmccaff

I was wondering if you could take a look at my talk page. Now that there is at least one other participant looking at streetcar-decline from a reality-centered perspective, I might want to get active on it again myself.Anmccaff (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made enough changes that I'd appreciate an extra set of eyeballs taking a look at 'em, if your time allows.Anmccaff (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Engagement with Streetcar conspiracy article

Thank you for your input re General Motors streetcar conspiracy article. I would however encourage you to engage with it by making small changes to the current article, well researched and referenced, rather than getting into a rewrite. I say that for a number of reasons:

• It is much easier to make many small changes than one big one.
• It allows you to test your ideas, while getting feedback and building trust with other contributors.
• It is much more likely to be successful - do remember that major changes can be made with small steps.
• and... very importantly, it will avoid you getting sucked into conflicts that Anmccaff, who has now reappeared, and who has created discord independently on two separate WP articles recently with different people (see Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy: and Talk:Trolleybuses in Greater Boston).

I say this because I genuinely want to encourage further work on this article. This is also how I always approach major rewrites; start by engaging on small issues, get to talk with, and understand the other contributors, and then get bolder with their support or if necessary then get more pushy if you are confident that you are right and that others are in an indefensible position!

-- PeterEastern (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Spring

Are you looking for the old content of a redirect just click on history of the article. You can create a new entry at http://automobile.wikia.com/wiki/Autopedia and cut and paste the material, there is a template to add to the article that satisfies the transfer of copyright from the original authors, but I cannot remember it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Thanks Richard, I did find that. Do you have a suggestion for the best way to deal with my desire to fix rather than blank the content of the page? Luke is right about the article lacking in citations and the format being essay like. I would like a chance to fix it, ideally with the input of others (something that can't happen in my Sandbox). Do you have any suggestions? For that matter where the content might best live?Springee (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, just saw your edits. I will copy things over there as well but I'd like to keep the basic content alive here even if it moves to a merged article Springee (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater

Good job reworking the Barry Goldwater article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Addressing NPOV problems with MJ article

I admire your patience at The Heartland Institute and FreedomWorks . I think the ANEW discussions make it clear that patience alone isn't going to resolve the problems.

I hope you don't mind if I try to discuss here with you my questions about how to properly address the NPOV/UNDUE problems. Since the focus recently has been at the talk page for The Heartland Institute, could we focus on that article? Can we discuss it here a bit then summarize back at the article talk page?

I wrote, "If it is simply undue, then additional references and rewording to emphasize the most important aspects would solve the problem per NPOV, correct? --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"

You responded, "Adding the facts that MJ used to make their claim would be reasonable (assuming they aren't already cited). Adding the statement that MJ thinks they are one of the top 12 is not. Springee (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)"

I was trying to discuss how to resolve NPOV problems in general, but you responded with specifics about the source, which makes me wonder if you really think this is an NPOV problem but something else instead (like reliability).

NPOV tells us that all significant viewpoints should be included. Can we focus on this? My perspective is that issues of significance can be resolved by improving the sourcing and rewording the proposed content so that it contains the most important points from the reference(s) that are directly related to the subject of the article, The Heartland Institute. Do you agree? --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, not at all! Actually I welcome the discussion. I'm rather frustrated that it appears that some editors see this as, "you don't like the article thus you want to whitewash _____". Or at least that is how it feels. I am happy to discuss the topic and would like to come up with a constructive way to address it (that can include adding the complaints that MJ lists). I think that generically stating that MJ said something negative about the organizations isn't meaningful. If we work together on the meaningful part of the content then I think we get a better article overall. I think we will have to customize each entry of course. Would you make the first suggestions? Springee (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I do like to discuss policies first, but most people prefer to focus on specifics (sources, proposed content, etc). Can I assume from what you've written so far that you'd rather go straight to the specifics? --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually I really don't mind discussing policies. I think it can be quite helpful. In part because there are a lot and I certainly don't have all of them committed to memory. Sometimes when you read an entry it just feels wrong but you can't always find the correct policy if you don't know all the ropes. In this case I think the MJ entry is being used to demonize rather than inform. As this is an encyclopedic article I think we should lean heavily way from editorial opinion even when that opinion comes from sources that provide reliable content. What is much harder if figuring out the correct way to cast that in Wiki guidelines. It's even harder when the first assumption of others is that you are trying to suppress information vs trying to make the article more fact based Springee (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So concerning the significance of the topics brought up in the MJ article: How do we resolve this? As I've been saying, a combination of improving the sourcing (or perhaps just demonstrating the strength of the sourcing, which is what editors have been focusing on doing), and ensuring that the most important points from the source(s) are being emphasized (which editors have also been doing to various degrees). Do you think these two approaches in combination are a general solution to NPOV/UNDUE problems and that their application would resolve this specific dispute? --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a good question. Part of what myself and several other editors felt was problematic was citing the MJ opinion/statement as something that should be noted within the consideration of WP:UNDUE. Here we have an article that is about an organization that is likely involved in many things, one being information about climate change. Criticism of their climate change positions would be reasonable. The more I read the MJ article the less I like it. The language is that of someone who is trying to demonize rather than inform. I don't think that makes for a good encyclopedic source. A Google search for the article name turns up one reference in a university press book (that's good) but I can't find how it is actually discussed in the text (that's bad). Other than pages on the MJ site the rest seems to be blogs and forums. Given that this list was published in 2009 I would say that basically no one else has picked it up as significant. The opening sentence of the page on the Heartland Inst starts with, "The Heartland Institute has a long history of shilling for corporate lepers." They did mention some information but it was very vague. "Heartland, which has received $670,000 from ExxonMobil and its foundations since 1998, views itself as a bulwark against a leftist domino effect. " I'm not sure how we could go about checking that fact or many of the others in that section. Given the difficulty in verifying the claims MJ is making and the obviously disdainful view of the reporter towards his subject I think we should look for other sources. I think it would be best to avoid a rating system. Even stating that they are "one of the worst" is still subjective. Interestingly the MJ article doesn't give any actual examples of thing THI has advocated that MJ things are factually incorrect. Given that the MJ article says they are spreading disinformation I would hope they could provide an example.

However, articles such as this one by CNN [[4]] came up when I searched for "the heartland institute climate change". I think the tone of the CNN article is more to the point. It seems quite reasonable to report that THI has advocated for ExxonMobile and the Koch brothers on the topic of climate change. I'm sure we can find other similar articles. These avoid reporting an opinion in Wikipedia's voice but do offer the source information that MJ used to create their own opinions on the subject. Would such an entry work for you? Can we focus on examples where they were proven wrong?

BTW, how do you feel about the other references that are in the same paragraph as the MJ entry (well where the MJ article was placed)? The NYT's view seems like someone has taken a statement made in passing as part of a bigger article and presented it as if it were the focal point of the article. It feels like it's overselling the NYT's actual statement. Clearly "The Economist" reference is sound and gets the point across. I think ones like that should stay Springee (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've not looked closely at the article and its references.

You're not answering my general question about the approach, so let's try specifics:

I think this demonstrates significance of the list, "Who are some of these groups? The folks at Mother Jones last fall offered a helpful list of 12 corporate climate-deniers, including FreedomWorks, the Koch-infused group." Do you agree that this shows MJs list is significant? --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that does add to the significance of the list. I think I was trying to do the same thing but the search term I used above didn't return much. Note that I was searching for THI, not FWs. That said, the Atlantic article does not indulge in the name calling that was part of the MJ article. I think, given that we are writing in an encyclopedic voice we should not use the dirty dozen label but take The Atlantic's lead in how the list is referenced. Do you have other reference examples? What about a reference like "[organization] was identified by MJ as a corporate climate change denier." That removes the value laden label. That said, given the language of the MJ article I think it's hard to take it seriously as a factual source. Bias is one thing, vitriol and seething with contempt should always give us pause with regard to using it as a reliable source vs an opinion, especially when MJ is just saying the same thing we can get from other sources... including in this case, THI's own web site. Springee (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a follow up on my thoughts above, I think the "dirty dozen" or even similar label would be a violation of WP:LABEL. It tells us that we should avoid using value laden labels. Yes, in this case we would be quoting MJ but we can just as easily say that MJ singled this organization out without using their label. In this case even if we agree the list is notable, the label does not appear to be. Quoting the label is a way for an editor to claim they aren't applying the label while still applying the label. In this case it infers a value judgment without conveying facts. I think/hope we are in agreement there. Springee (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic article is the best reference I've found.

Yes, MJs presentation is over the top, plus the THI article already includes a great deal about climate change denial.

"[organization] was identified by MJ as a corporate climate change denier." Seems very hard to argue against. I think we're ready to summarize at the article talk page. What do you think? --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think so. Do you think this statement would work for the other pages that reference the same article (assuming no obvious reasons to deviate)? Would you like to propose it or should I? Also, thank you for taking the initiative on this discussion. Springee (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and take it to THI. Hopefuly, it will be easier with additional articles, but we'll have to look at the relevant content in each. THI is easy because there's already so much on the topic. FreedomWorks seems to be the other extreme. I've barely glanced at the other articles. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And it was promptly removed... Actually I think it was removed because of the added inline citation text. I agree with Dmcq's comment that it adds little given the other sources that say basically the same thing. If you want to dispute the removal I will support you. I would tend to agree with Dmcq's post in this case. Should we try on the next article? Springee (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on the Monckton talk page

Hello,

I believe your comments on the hristopher Monckton talk page might contain errors. 1. It seems to me that the RfC was not started by HughD, but by JzG/Guy, see here. 2. Your edit here moved the signature of Fyddlestix, making it appear that it is you who wrote the irrelevant-looking comment beginning "There is no consensus that using this source would be a NPOV violation in that discussion. ...".

If I am mistaken, please just ignore this.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right about my sig Peter, I already moved my sig back to its correct place though. Thanks for noticing! Fyddlestix (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Easy as Pie!... 3.1415926535897932 AnønʘmøưṨ 02:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No link for your rfc request

There is no link provided for your rfc request on the admin board which you posted (only red link): ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers. Could you fix it. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Fountains-of-Paris, Fixed! Springee (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Response

Yes, it's important to be measured, careful and respectful -- and I'm trying to see where this is going to fall out.

Seams reasonable. As a point of reference, HughD and I don't have a good editorial relationship and I believe he came to the Pinto article because I was working on it.Springee (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hot cars

	A Chrysler PT Cruiser for you!
	Thank you for your constructive edits on chrysler. I appreciate it! FixCop (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Election maps

Thank you for your comments on our talk page on the Washington Presidentiak election. I believe Dennis, while trying to aid Wikipedia, has over stepped the boundaries regarding biases in showing counties in the maps. I believe the pie chart to be a poor use of space in the infoboxes, but I fear he will have me blocked for speaking out. Can you help me make sure the mos are restored? Thanks PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@PalmerTheGolfer:, thanks. Sadly it also resulted in the notice just above your comment. Springee (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@PalmerTheGolfer:, this might be thrown at me later there are a lot of claims of hounding going around. Those claims are problematic because wp:hounding isn't just, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." It also includes this important sentence, "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." (emphasis mine). If an editor is making a series of changes to a number of articles then it isn't hounding get involved with those additional articles. It's unfortunate that a generally good editor is edit warring and throwing out such accusations (I've been on the receiving end as well) simply because others don't agree. Even worse when local consensus (of just a few editors) is clearly against the change. Anyway, I would suggest created a RfC to address the issue. Springee (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of General Motors into General Motors. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC by sock

Since these guys insist on playing this charade, it's probably worth it to put your !vote on the discussion so that later on, *cough* someone doesn't claim you didn't oppose it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• New IP editing that RfC....from Amazon hosting. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, typical of HughD. I've mentioned it to The Wordsmith and Fyddlestyx. Fyddlestyx and I rarely agree but he is a good and reasonable editor. He is also aware of HughD's history. Note that The Wordsmith has said on his talk page that he believes the IP is Hugh. I think second SPI request may be in order. Springee (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Motor vehicle ranking

In the spirit of WP:BRD, can we all agree to stop editing/reverting articles concerning the ranking of motor vehicle production and to try to discuss it instead. After we have some form of resolution from the discussion (or at least an edict from the administrators), then we can make the articles match to whatever the discussion resolved.

Furthermore, a discussion spread out over many talk pages is hard to follow and mostly results in the same arguments being repeated for no benefit. If it failed to convince anyone at one talk page then why would it convince the same people at another page?

I suggest we put the majority of our discussion at Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production.

This message has also been placed on the talk page of the other editors involved.  Stepho  talk  01:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Stepho, I think that is perfectly reasonable. The previous conversation seemed to have died out with 3 editors supporting the changes and one against. I don't count the IP troll. I was hoping the NOR discussion would have addressed the question and I tried to phrase the question neutrally. Perhaps with your clearer phrasing we can get an outside opinion and put the issue to bed. Springee (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Please do not refactor or remove other editors' comments at talk pages as you have done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. There is no proof yet that the present IP is a sockpuppet of HughD, although the duck test would seem to indicate it. But that is not relevant, because removing comments possibly (or even probably) made by blocked users is not an exception to WP:TPO, which is a behavioural guideline that we are expected to follow for good reason. You may be confusing the situation with the practice of automatically reverting contributions of site-banned users, but there is a very real difference between that and doing the same with a suspected sock of a blocked user. I hope you'll understand that the text I've restored is content that I think is useful, as well as content that had already been replied to by Doc James. For those reasons alone, I hope that you won't attempt to remove that content again. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS:, I understand your concern. However, I also fear that restoring the blocked editor's content will simply encourage more IP jumping and disruptive edits. The content you restored wasn't disruptive per se but the long series of edits by this IP editor has included a number of disruptive edits ([[5]], [[6]])). Regardless of if we have proof that this is HughD, the SPI discussed here [[7]] did conclude that we are dealing with one editor (most likely HughD). Regardless of if this is HughD, the editor has been declared WP:ILLEGIT, [[8]]. As an illegitimate editor again it's best to not encourage and remove contributions. Other editors should know who they are replying to. Springee (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Nevertheless, the talk page guidelines are important to observe and I did do the research into the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive, before concluding that the question raised by Doc James was legitimately answered, and that it was more important to preserve the debate in this case. I have to say that WP:ILLEGIT is not a label to be hung around an editor's neck like an albatross; it is a policy designed to prevent the use of "alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus." I do not accept that it is appropriate to apply that to the dialogue that occurred at WT:MED. I do understand your frustration with this editor and respect the investment you have made in attempting to prevent disruption from him. However, my experience is that automatically reverting contributions by blocked (not banned) users without any consideration of the value of those contributions is counter-productive more often than not. You only have to look at User talk:HughD to see a previously constructive editor who got a "bee-in-his-bonnet" about US politics and went off the rails. You need to ask yourself what long-term outcome you're looking for? If you want to play "whack-a-mole" with an inexhaustible supply of IP addresses in the hope that he'll get fed up, you're on the right track. On the other hand, if you'd prefer to see his energies diverted into useful editing, you need to stop discouraging the contributions that have some potential value, and reserve the WP:RBI treatment for the clearly unconstructive ones. You've been here very nearly as long as I have, so you'll have your own experiences, and your assessment of what's best may differ from mine, but I hope you can accept that I'm trying to give advice that I feel is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS:, Unfortunately the SPI page doesn't mention the third, offline SPI. Blanking the additions made by this IP has been the practice of at least one involved admin (I posted some examples at the project medicine discussion). I was following that example. The long term outcome I would like is for the IP editor to stop hounding my edits. Beyond that I would accept HughD's return if he would change his behavior and actually work with other editors (some of what you are seeing is the behavior that has been around for many years and resulted in a topic ban that evolved to an edit block. In any case, this may end up in ANI though I'm not optimistic that would result in much. At best he would be a banned editor and then his edits could be reverted once the next IP was identified as his (a real problem here). I don't believe his recent edits were all that productive. Taking an article that needs help and dumping a strongly biased presentation of the facts, isn't really improving things. Anyway, I didn't realize his edits had been replied to when I removed them. Springee (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Pintography

Is that HD, ya think? Anmccaff (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff:, smells like it. Look at all the IPs I dealt with a few weeks back. This one is doing some of the same things. We have tagging vs fixing. IP address that is hard to trace. Starts by creating a user page as an ip. Clearly knows their way around Wikipedia. Not certain like some of the previous cases but smells none the less. Springee (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for this [9] DN (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your pal HughD is back...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ECarlisle 174.198.16.92 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that Sockpuppet Investigation

I see it was declined Checkuser but the behavior pattern does seem clear enough to me as well. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ford Pinto

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ford Pinto you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Power~enwiki -- Power~enwiki (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ford Pinto

The article Ford Pinto you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ford Pinto for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Power~enwiki -- Power~enwiki (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays

This user wishes you a very Happy Holiday season.

Marquardtika (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

AFP IP revert

Thanks for your edit on Americans for Prosperity. Still, your edit comment was a bit off the mark. VOA News is a unit of Voice of America, and the particular story was sourced to the Associated Press. The real problem with the IP edit was its basic inaccuracy. While Koch is chairman of AFP, the story does not say AFP spent the money, or even planned to spend it. So there was inaccuracy in the story and in the way the IP presented it. – S. Rich (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realize that but good to know. Given the very political nature of the article I'm always suspicious of IP editors that add one line paragraphs. It's good to have a second set of eyes review things. Springee (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Apparently you're famous, just thought you should know. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 20:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, Sigh... It's not even as classy as The Daily Kos [[10]]. Thanks for letting me know. Springee (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, I've opened an WP:ANI for OUTING and NOTHERE.Springee (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

NRA poll

The poll, which you insist on deleting from the NRA page has the following preamble detailing the sampling;

To examine these issues, we conducted two national public opinion surveys between January 2 and January 14, 2013, with the survey research firm GfK Knowledge Networks, using equal-probability sampling from a sample frame of residential addresses covering 97% of U.S. households. The surveys were pilot-tested December 28 through December 31, 2012. The order of the survey items was randomized. We fielded the gun-policy survey (n=2703) and the mental illness survey (n=1530) using different respondents to avoid priming effects. Survey completion rates were 69% and 70%, respectively. For the gun-policy survey, to report national rates of policy support and compare rates stratified according to respondents' gun-ownership status, we oversampled both gun-owners and non-owners living in households with guns. We reported the gun-policy results at the Summit on Reducing Gun Violence in America at Johns Hopkins University on January 15, 2013.

If you wish to remove that poll again then do so by explaining on the talk page what part of this preamble you disagree with how the poll was surveyed. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC) @Darrenhusted:, this should be discussed on the NRA page since it's content related. That said, thank you for offering the explanation. Now that I can sit down a bit I'll post a reply on the article talk page. Springee (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you!

Thanks, i was working on it, Kvalin (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

HEADS UP!

We are being targeted by Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:

https://twitter.com/Lightbreather --Limpscash (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

FedEx

Hi Springee, I've noticed that you reverted my good faith edits on this article. This is another example that you have demonstrated a potential advocacy at National Rifle Association Curious as to why you feel your the arbiter to remove my edits when they are a material fact? Well scoured and relevant. It is not appropriate for you to have done so and am reverting my edits as they are correct.

Also, would like to remind you of the three revert rule. Jimgerbig (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jimgerbig:, in the edit tag I noted the material was WP:Undue. An accusation of advocacy can been seen as not WP:AGF. Remember that RS doesn't mean sufficient Weight. I will add a NPOV yeah to the second when I get a chance to add the appropriate material to the talk page. We both should be discussing the edits there vs here. Springee (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI

BullRangifer has been given notice of the Arbcom Gun Control Sanctions, so there should be no more edit warring after this. I saw the series of edits to AR-15 style rifle and that was edit-warring. He's lucky you didn't report him. Anyways, just though you should know, and also, you can place this Arbcom notice on the talk page of any editor that contributes to any firearms-related article. Thought you should know that too. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 07:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oops! I just noticed you already rec'd the same notice above. Oh well. FYI still applies... - ^theWOLFchild 07:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Slightly different topic, but I'll place this here. Something weird happened. I just noticed that my previous 3rr warning was copied (time stamp and all) and restored by some idiot Australian IP. That was NOT me. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, no problem my friend. I was confused at first but saw the IP address. It's a troublesome IP editor from down under. In going to request some IP blocks shortly. Thanks for the note. Springee (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a block would be good. They are NOTHERE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Looks like another Single Purpose Account has popped up. User:CaraL14.

Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: Bingo. Springee (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And, another one, too. User:AlainaP14. Persistent sock puppeteer. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification on Wikiproject Firearms

Hello, could you notify the folks at Wikiproject Firearms about the new RfC on the NRA and black gun owners[11]? Thank you. I'm prohibited from making the same edit on more two than two pages, so it could count as a violation of my ban to notify that Wikiproject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC) @Snooganssnoogans:, sure thing. Springee (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

HughD socks

There's not much point blocking if they've already changed IP addresses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for American politics post-1932

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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.

- these alerts need to be renewed each year. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, understood. Please make sure you provide the same warning to the other involved editors.Springee (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

HughD sock

I think user:73.208.149.126 is another HughD sock--RAF910 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@RAF910:, there have been a number of those socks recently. I pinged NeilN a few times. It's clearly wack a mole. Springee (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. However, he has only been blocked for 31 hours, so he'll be back.--RAF910 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

(Removed)

Good questions. I'd be very cautious about removing such templates. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's a serial sockmaster with a fixation on the topic area adding these templates then there's no need to encourage or accommodate them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, remember that sock editor I was talking about? The IP address above is from Chicago. Springee (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Emails

Hi, please do not post the content of emails that other users have sent you on-wiki. I have redacted the text and hidden the content under RD5. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, sorry, I will remember that in the future. Given the accusations being leveled at me I felt it was significant. Note I didn't include the name of the editor who sent the email. Springee (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. I talked about it with an oversighter, and we've both emailed ArbCom to ask for advice. In general, the best policy anytime there is off-wiki communication is to email it to the committee. They have the ability to look handle potentially private information that other users do not have. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Gun use

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Gun use. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. –dlthewave ☎ 22:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Question

Just out of curiosity, was the spacing on this edit deliberate? I ask because the the top half that you added an hour earlier looks like a separate, unsigned edit now, and the bottom half you added later, but with your earlier signature, is now highlited, but It's not clear why. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 04:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia effect

Hello Springee, in order not to have to much details on the RFC page some edits / changes which can show how it works:

a australian ip eliminates a misinformation in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=prev&oldid=831764809

BilCat reverted in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=next&oldid=831764809

Stewartsoda adds a reference in L1A1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle&diff=next&oldid=831817374

just so fine to have reference ... what can we do?

Stewartsoda adds a reference in Port Arthur massacre: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=831872773

Bingo. Self referencing by Wikipedia completed. Now we traced one single point ... how much more cases of wikipedia effect are existing?

A single case is not the problem ... systemically sowing invented facts without proves over years ... that is a real problem. People whose mission it is to distort perception just laugh at how easy it is. Making a hoax disappearing out of the world is much harder. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ｔｏｍ:, I think it's worse than that. I think the HuffPo got the idea that the the L1A1 was used based (directly or indirectly) from the Wikipedia article. It's easy to find pre-2012 references to the AR-15 but not the SLR. Springee (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Exact that's what I mean: " HuffPo got the idea that the the L1A1 was used based (directly or indirectly) from the Wikipedia article." Following this HuffPo could be identified als non reliable source for firearms info? See one HuffPo more found in Talk:2014_Moncton_shootings#Weapon_types. Now for the RFC ... I don't know what to do with this thing. It seems clear so far that the proposed section is based on wrong information ... hm ... embarrassing somehow. But how to handle this RFC now ?? And how to to harvest results for similar RFC's in future? Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Finally I found a source mentioning 3 guns! "AR15 semi-automatic .223 calibre rifle and FN, commonly called an SLR military style semi-automatic .308 calibre rifle and a semi-automatic Daiwoo twelve gauge shotgun" + " He changed weapons this time taking out of the boot a semi-automatic point 308 F.N. or commonly called an S.L.R. or self-loading rifle. This was a military style weapon, he had taken that with him along with ample ammunition," mentioned in court. Protocol (19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996) Hm ... for me this gives the idea that the court was not interested to identify any submodel of this weapons, as f.e. given in List_of_Colt_AR-15_&_M16_rifle_variants#R_series_models or this --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Conerning sources/RFC i just leave this here because i'm afraid it is too much info in one step. Simon Chapman: Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, ISBN 1743320310 (275 Pages),(read online). --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Concerning the "Wikipedia effect" and the IP I left comment at User_talk:NeilN#Good_&_bad_news_.... Perhaps you find the info useful. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:DENY

You've reverted a number of edits by sockpuppets on the basis of WP:DENY. The DENY essay advocates reverting vamdalism immediately and without fanfare, however I don't see anything about routinely deleting content simply because it was contributed by a sock. I've come across a few of these edits [12] [13] [14] [15] that are potentially constructive and certainly not blatant vandalism. In particular, I would consider this to be a well-written and helpful addition to the project.

Is there a policy or common practice that supports this type of wholesale reversion? I don't often deal with sockpuppets and would appreciate it if you could enlighten me. I understand that you're dealing with a persistent sockmaster but just want to make sure that we're not losing valuable content in the process. –dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: The relevant policy is WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. "Edits by the editor or on his or her behalf may be reverted without question..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. I'm going to have to change the tag from DENY to BLOCKBANDIFF. Too bad DENY is so much easier to write... Springee (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably use WP:EVADE. It has the same thrust: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I now understand the reason for the reverts. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please ...

Hello Springee, please have a look at Gun_laws_in_Australia#Evolution_of_Gun_laws_in_Australia. I did my best. Minor faults on talkpages can happen ... but it should not in Articles ;-) Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. there is a lot of overhead and "fairytales" in other Parts of history - if you can shorten some of it ??

@Ｔｏｍ:, thanks for the ping. I'll take a look but honestly it's an area I know very little about beyond it getting mentioned as part of the US gun control debate. In general I'm going to try to stay out of those articles. Even the NRA article is on the overly political side for me. I have an interest in the gun control debates and arguments but at some level it becomes too much to fight over every article detail. Springee (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah Ok I understand. Normally I also keep my hands off those articles. It's just around this RFC etc. and this new Wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics. I thought it would be somehow nice to show good will for collaboration. Hm (idea) why not ask a collegue from there. Thx --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

just fyi: [16] --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	WikiProject Firearms Barnstar
	The unauthorized WikiProject Firearms Barnstar is hereby awarded to Springee for their support of the Project and their dedication to firearms-related articles. – Lionel(talk) 07:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussions at 2A talk page

I would like for you to comment at ongoing discussions at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I think you're input would be valuable. SMP0328. (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

just some classic music

Hi Springee, I can not follow this discussions which in my opion are almost self repeating. Some parts I have read ... almost fatigued. For you as a gift this classic music. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

HughD sock

Please see Talk:Handgun page for another 96.68.58.179 sock--RAF910 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind...NeilN just blocked him.--RAF910 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Indent gap

MOS:INDENTGAP Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:, did screw up an indent somewhere (recently)? Springee (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No. I was confused You included a space before your reply at RSN, but it was needed as you were "outdent"ing. I meant to inform the editor after you. Sorry for the confusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Springee. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

How to do the star thing

Good question. Instructions are here: Wikipedia:Barnstars Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

Happy holidays.2018 Holidays (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hue Dee

I’ve just noticed a certain decline in the quality (if not the volume) of the socking. Hadn’t been following him for a bit. When exactly did it get totally doolally like it is now? Qwirkle (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Qwirkle:}, it was very recent. I'm confused by it since HughD's sock behavior was very consistent for a long time. Not sure why there was a shift. I'm still confused by some of this. In the SPI archive you can see that in early December I was confused by the view that HD and 72bikers were the same editor. Anyway, it's quite possible that HD just decided that their normal efforts were getting reverted without question so attacking those who otherwise would have been "on their side" was the plan. There might have been a bigger plan but I also might be giving HD too much created. It's possible it was just to have fun and stir the pot. Springee (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

speaking of pots, potted another one: user:Lifeclime. Qwirkle (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

AE discussion notice

An arbitration enforcement request concerning you has been opened here. –dlthewave ☎ 05:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm already at the word-count limit, so I'd rather not get into a back & forth. I'd be happy to discuss later. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, OK, I'm likely over the word count limit. However, I do find it very frustrating that you have made accusations but then when I ask you aren't backing them. I can see how you feel the "forum shopping" statement is incivil. I hope you can see things from the other side. We had a quality RfC with a large number of participants. It was being ignored. Would you be frustrated in a similar situation?

You have accused me of POV pushing but I can acknowledge you did that on my talk page, not on an article page. One of the great frustrations I have with things like ARE is that often it takes quite a bit of effort to lay out a timeline to explain why accusations are wrong. I dealt with this a while back when an editor accused me of all sorts of things related to the F-650 and Chevy Caprice crime inclusion discussions. To show the accusations were wrong I had to try to lay out a timeline of when things happened to show that at the time the alleged transgression occurred events were as I claimed. Anyway, even if it goes a bit over the line I would appreciate some, a reply to my concerns even if it's simply to say not enough space to adequately reply.

Finally, what do you think of my question regarding reciprocity of weight? I don't mean, do you agree or not, but do you think some sort of decision on the matter might help stop so much of the back and forth? Springee (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the matter to close, now @ ARCA -- would be happy to discuss then. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, thanks for the note. This chain of ARE->ARCA discussions is quite interesting but I also want to stay out of it (other than my comment about Dlthewave's warning). Springee (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

As a result of the recent arbitration enforcement request to which you were a party, I am warning you not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Should such problems reoccur, you may be made subject to blocks, topic bans or other discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 07:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC) (Withdrawn, see below. Sandstein 22:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC))

@Sandstein:, how do I go about protesting this warning. I was not accused of any of the above so I'm not sure why I would be sanctioned/warned for any of the above. Springee (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:AC/DS#Appeals. Sandstein 11:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein:, rather than start with an appeal, would you help me understand what I was warned for? I do get the idea of "kids are making noise so all get the same punishment" but I'm not sure what I did wrong which then leads to the bigger issue, what shouldn't I do in the future. The warning noted POLEMIC and attacking/vilifying other editors/groups of editors. I don't believe I did either of those. Thanks for you thoughts (and I do get that sometimes it's easier to mildly punish all vs deal with the minutia). Springee (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. To be clear, the problems here on the part of all involved are rather mild as these things go; hence my decision not to impose sanctions. Still, your statement "...there are too many anti-gun editors who are pushing a political agenda, and doing everything in their power to gang-up on and ban pro-gun editors. So, despite our best efforts, I'm afraid there is very little we do about it at this time" evokes, in my view, a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to content disputes that we particularly don't need in the already tense topic areas subject to WP:AC/DS. Of course, it is a reality that in many topic areas there are groups of editors who share the same point of view and seek to make Wikipedia reflect it, in violation of the expectation of WP:NPOV that each editor should edit neutrally rather than to promote a point of view. Much of WP:AC/DS exists to address such problems. But, even in the face of what may seem to you organized POV-pushing, the expected response of experienced editors is not to form an opposing group to promote the opposite POV, but to seek consensus to arrive at a neutral wording and to resolve disagreements civilly through discussion in each individual case. Basically: two wrongs don't make a right; don't fight fire with fire. Yes, I know, it's easier said than done, but that's what I understand, based on our policies, our community expects of us. Sandstein 21:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein:, thank you for the reply. I definitely agree that statements like that can be problematic per battleground. But that was a statement in reply to my post, not one I made.[[17]] Springee (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That is the case. I apologize; I should have read the enforcement request more carefully. I'm withdrawing the warning above and in the log. Sandstein 22:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I was scratching my head as well when I read that. While perhaps not explicitly forbidden, it's certainly not standard practice to open an AE report on three editors at the same time. I skimmed through AE archives and did not find bundled reports. The standard AE report form also deals with reporting users individually. This is undue process in my view, because if there is AE action, it should be judged individually and not collectively. You should mention this in your appeal. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate you thanking me via WP:Echo for the revert at the Human sexual activity article. Feel free to weigh in at Talk:Human sexual activity#Lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn:, no problem. I saw a number of other edits by that editor that seem questionable to me but honestly, that's one of those areas that I don't think I want to wade into even though I do see advocacy issues. Springee (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Car classifications

Hi Springfree. Just letting you know that I'm not trying to remove content about station wagons, just have it located in the right article. Station wagon is a body style, so (like sedans, coupes, convertibles, etc) it is covered in car body styles instead of car classifications. Having it in both is unnecessary duplication and can lead to WP:FORK. If you prefer the version of the summary that's in the Car Classification article, feel free to move it to the Car Body Style article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	[18] Could I have your blessing to help improve the SS article? DN (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple issues

You appear to have just put a notice on the page of User:Snoog on his Talk page. This appears to be his 3rd incident over five days, first with Peter Navarro, then Mitch McConnell with another editor, and now on your notice to him regarding another page he is editing. Did you see this? CodexJustin (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

CodexJustin, this is the edit I found problematic [[19]]. I don't know the backdrop other than this edit focuses on the editor and contains a personal attack. I certainly disagree that the article is worse for the other editor being there. If you were referring to the other comments on Snoog's talk page I wasn't involved so I didn't want to comment. Springee (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

His referring to you as 'creepy' has to be unpleasant. He did something similar to me on the Talk page for Peter Navarro with aspersions over the weekend. Several editors there believe that the Peter Navarro article has Quotefarm problems which need some tending. Any thoughts on how to make progress on the Quotefarm issues in that article? CodexJustin (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

CodexJustin, the comment wasn’t directed at me. I just find it very problematic. As for the quote farm, well I don’t see an obvious answer. This is something a number of editors are guilty of. More eyes and consensus to oppose that type of text, even if the general material is due, is a first line answer. That doesn’t always work. Ideally would be policy or guideline that could be cited. Less effective is an essay. Take a look at this discussion [[20]] Springee (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That was really an impressive link with admin participating. To bring this into a single point for the article, this is the comment that was made regarding Peter Navarro which stated: "Views on trade - the first para looks OK, but the next 3 paras seem a quotefarm just collection of critics that are UNDUE and just is non-BLP, nothing to do with him or affecting his life, from Markbassett". Can this Quoteform be fixed since other editors are requesting it? CodexJustin (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

CodexJustin, for what it's worth I feel this comment [[21]] has the appearance of not being motivated by the topic. Springee (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Vexatious indeed...

and that's that... Buffs (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs:, yeah, I felt the agreement with "vexatious" unfair. There was simply too much evidence to ignore. Also, the tban of the other editor was not a factor other than it help validate my own suspicions. 6Years acted like I only talk about the sock aspect. In fact outside of user talk pages the only time I mentioned it was the one post at ANI and never on article talk pages. Yet another vexatious charge against those who were suspicious/right ;) Springee (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes...we're SO terrible... #sarcsm Buffs (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving your comment on RSN

Hello, I just wanted to inform you that I've moved one of your comments here[22], since you seemed to be replying the main heading and not the subheading. Please undo this if you oppose it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the Finns party over whether or not the party should be listed as “ultranationalist” in the ideology section. I have been asked to invite users to come on and comment on the issue. Please come and join the talk and give your opinions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finns_Party#/talk/13 Victor Salvini (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This is an area that is outside my knowledge base. Springee (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability

Hi Springee, I haven't read through the discussions completely, but thought that these [23][24] and the associated discussions at WP:BLPN & WP:NPOVN might be an example of what was discussed at WT:V - Ryk72 ^talk 05:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC) @Ryk72:, thanks for the suggestion. I've been slow getting back to that discussion and I haven't figured out if the Jack Posobiec page works well or not. I guess the bigger issue is I'm not overly familiar with the material. Other than the questionable claim of "internet troll" in Wiki voice I really have no knowledge of the subject. I would welcome advice or suggestions that you might have. Springee (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "in the West", so, prior to seeing the BLPN discussion, was not familiar with the subject at all. But there was something in one of the discussions that resonated with the discussion at WT:V. I spent a bit of time searching and think it might have been this at WP:NPOVN: The content you proposed on the talk page does not include any reliable sources to assert non-association with the alt-right and conspiracy theories, merely Posobiec's own denials. Your attempts to equate the significance of Posobiec's denials with the claims of apparently every reliable source represents a false balance. On review, however, this seems a minor aspect of the discussions there and at the article Talk page. The discussions also seem highly politicised so it might be a muddier example than desired to clearly demonstrate the points raised at WT:V. - Ryk72 ^talk 04:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw this and thought I'd leave a note. I took a look at the discussion at WT:V and it seems to me that the concerns I have over sources are in line with the concerns expressed there. I'm new, so my attempts to contribute to the discussion were pretty much ignored. I've never had anyone attempt to address anything with substance. My last attempt to describe a problem is diff'd here. The consensus seemes to be threefold -- 1: "The sources are reliable" [without addressing any concerns]; 2: "The status quo will be maintained"; 3: "Go away" I have learned a lot about policies that can be used to get one banned in various fashions by trying to raise RS issues. If you provide too little detail, you're dismissed outright; if you provide any amount of real detail, then every possible conduct policy will be cited to you to make you go away and the issues raised still won't be addressed. I'm done. Good luck, and best wishes. Ihuntrocks (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ihuntrocks:, that is an issue which looks wrong to me but I don't understand the subject enough to want to weigh in. However, you might think about how that could be used as an example in the WP:V discussion. I would be happy to help clarify thoughts on the subject but since I really don't know the subject I don't want to use it as my example. Springee (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I may condense my argument and bring it up at WP:V. The very short version is that a term is applied to the subject and 3 sources are cited: One is a single passing mention; one has the term only in the headline; one is very clearly labeled as an analysis piece and is written as an opinion piece. The sources are nonetheless insisted on as RS in order to keep the chosen term. Other sources used in the subject's page provide a full description and a rebuttal of the term from the subject, but including anything about that is refused on the grounds of ABOUTSELF and UNDUE. Seems very similar to what you were discussing. Ihuntrocks (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice about Climate change. It seems that the number ofarticles with discretionary sanctions is endless. A cynic might think that such were a way of controlling and directing outcomes. I don't expect to stick my nose in much, at my age whatever happens, happens and will have zero effect on me.Oldperson (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC closures

How do you get someone to close an RfC? There are a couple that we've both participated in that have been open for months. What the heck? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight:, look at the AN/RfC page. [[25]] Springee (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Glad they're listed there, but why do you suppose it's taking so long?Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight:, everything here is based on volunteers. Many people don't want to get into a contentious RfC closing so it just doesn't happen. Springee (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hm. I've seen quite a few prompt and contentious closures. I'm afraid that other explanations do occur to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme Talk 📧 18:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Tesla editing

Hi there, I saw that you chimed in on some topics related to the current discussion on my talk page -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stonkaments#Tesla%2C_Inc. -- about editing the Tesla, Inc. article, and you seem to be a very experienced and knowledgeable member of the community. So I thought you might have some valuable insight as to the best way to proceed with edits, whether it's important to discuss all edits beforehand or if WP:BRD is better? I'd appreciate any feedback, thanks! Stonkaments (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Electrek and CleanTechnica now have articles for some reason

Also, Lklundin looks to be behind much of the edits. Thoughts on how to address? QRep2020 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Electrek article seems reasonable to me. I don't see an issue but perhaps I'm not looking hard enough? Springee (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

My concern is more that these entries, if allowed to stay, will be used to lend credibility to these publications that we know to be biased. Now, if the truth about the sites were to be a primary point in the articles, that would be a different story but as of now both read like reactionary to specifically your allegations, e.g. the line in CleanTechnica about the editor purportedly divesting. QRep2020 (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You can always nominate them for deletion. My feeling is, at least Electrek, would pass WP:NOTE. That means the article can stay. That said, when we look at the body of articles about Electrek they are often about the conflict of interest and questionable behaviors. I'm not sure how much has been written about CT. Either way, we need to do what RS's say. That means that many of the Seeking Alpha articles that make strong cases against these sources are not likely to fly. It's not always great but it is what it is. Springee (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Electrek's article has also been around for a while unlike CT's. I'm thinking about AfD for CT could work though and we'll see if it comes to that. QRep2020 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus?

'Allo, me again. It was my understanding that a consensus on an issue under deliberation on a Talk page doesn't have to be unanimous, only "rough". Would you say that a rough consensus has been reached on the TSLAQ inclusion matter on Talk: Tesla, Inc.? Maybe I'm missing something despite having reviewed Wikipedia:Consensus, but it looks to me like there's three votes in favor of some sort of inclusion and only one opposed. QRep2020 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@QRep2020:, here is my general feeling. First, consensus should be #1 based on policy not the number of editors who favor option A vs B. But sometimes we get into a case where there is no clear policy. In those cases we do start looking at the general opinion of editors. In cases like that numbers do matter. So assuming we are in a numbers game I generally use a rule of thirds. If more than 2/3rds have the same preference, that's consensus. If the breakdown is in the middle third (say 60% in favor), I generally call that a no-consensus. That is my rule of thumb only. I suspect others might feel that say 60% for is consensus. In the case of adding the see also link, I wouldn't be in a hurry. If the Tslaq article was really robust and the criticism (or similar) section in the Tesla Inc article was robust I would include it. Otherwise, it's not the fight to have at this time. Editors will think you are a POV pusher if you try to fight to link a weak, critical article on to something like the Tesla article. Concernsely, if TSLSAQ is robustly written and sourced and the connections are clear via RSing and the critical information is also in the Tesla Inc article, I would be more inclined to push at that point. Personally, I think there is a lot of stuff, such as the doxxing of critics that could be in the parent article at this time but I'm not interested in that fight. Springee (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sound advice. QRep2020 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Please note, I am only doing this notification as required by AN, I am asking for a self-review of my actions related to the above and only because I've mentioned you I have to notify you to be legit, I am not asking for any AN action towards you or others. --Masem (t) 00:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Indef

I don't want to comment in the thread, but re: "I think a different label vs 'indef' might be helpful when looking at block logs", what do you think of "temporary block" that is actually the same thing as an indefinite block? Which to use would be up to the blocking admin, and the person would still have to appeal, but it would send the message that if you edit productively for enough time, you are likely to be unblocked. I can see this as being especially useful with partial blocks. Please consider proposing something like that. I can see no downside to giving another option to the blocking admin. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:, I think that's a good idea. I also thought about the term "pause" but I think "temporary block" is better. The idea is this shouldn't be seen as an editor did something so egregious that they were told "you may not come back for at least 6 months". Instead it's "when you understand what you did you can come back". I'm not sure I understand what you mean by editing productively. That sounds like a tban where you can edit in unrelated areas and that is generally seen as evidence that you can be productive. I think I will bring this up as a separate topic so I would like to make sure I understand your comments. Springee (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

In the old days, when all we had was an indefinite ban, a timed ban or a topic ban (which really isn't a ban in the sense of automatically preventing disruptive edits), you could edit productively on other projects while indeffed and point to that in your (typically six months or longer) appeal. Now we have the ability to ban from just one page or from a handful of related pages. With the new partial bans, editing productively on Wikipedia becomes an option. But even if we want to sent that "you may not come back for at least 6 months" message, calling it a temporary ban might be a good thing in some situations. It depends on the editor.

Consider two editors:

Bob comes in here ranting about Jews and promoting holocaust denial, and refuses to accept that Stormfront isn't an acceptable source. In the immediate appeal he calls the blocking admin a "fucking jew lover" and explains how Hitler was misunderstood. The blocking admin is 99% sure that even after six months Bob will still be a neo-nazi but of course we allow him to try to convince us otherwise after six months. Bob would be a good candidate for an indef called indef.

Alice comes in here and is just as disruptive as Bob was, but clearly from being deeply hurt. Nonetheless Alice says things like "Just admit you hate us and think we should die" and "Scumbags shouldn't have edit privileges". Let's throw in some legal threats and doxing just to drive home that the actual behavior is as bad as Bob's. The very next day she posts what looks like a sincere apology and a says that she shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia. In such a case the blocking admin might want to apply a block that is technically identical to an indef but called a "temporary block" because in this case the blocking admin has a feeling that they will stop being disruptive after six months of not being able to edit.

Of course both Bob and Alice are actually allowed to, say, appeal after a day and again after a month. Everyone should be allowed to have an uninvolved admin review and endorse/overturn a block at any time. This avoids the kind of abuse we see from moderators on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. Those web sites allow a single admin to kick you off with no review ever, and that can lead to moderator abuse. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Question re !voting in 2020

Hi there Springee, I'm bothering you because I've lately found myself agreeing with everything you say, and because you witnessed the recent Sashi ban supervote. I've been noticing that over the past 4 or 5 years, insistence that !votes are seen as monumentally different from a raw headcount, and that weighing arguments as they relate to PAGs was the only acceptable way to close any discussion, has been declining/nonexistant. I noted this on 1 June, (showing this present concern isn't related solely to any particular case or editor). However the Sashi incident is beyond the pale, with an admission that only numbers were considered. And because this is a flawed system, the ruling stands today and an editor is site-banned. My concern is that letting this slide marks a turning point at WP, where we as a community have officially accepted this new reading of the PAGs, which state:

• WP:NOTVOTE Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus — not voting (voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee). Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

• • Voting, per Wikimedia: Wikipedia operates on discussion-driven consensus, and can therefore be regarded as "not a democracy", because a vote might run counter to these ends. Some therefore advocate avoiding votes wherever possible. In general, only long-running disputes should be the subject of a poll. Even then, participants in the dispute should understand that the poll does not create a consensus. At best, it might reflect how close those involved are to one.

• WP:CON Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If indeed we are going to accept this new normal, the policies need to be amended to reflect this change -- so that editors can decide if they want to continue participating in this project. I've asked for advice on where to take this concern so that the community can weigh in, and was told ARCA is the way to go. But this doesn't involve a case finding, so I'm at a loss. I was hoping you or others would be able to help. I'm pinging some of the editors who also disagreed with the head-count close, for good measure: Levivich Rusf10 PackMecEng Pudeo SilkTork Atsme Humanengr

Personally, if this is the direction we're taking (Hey! Win any argument! All you need are numbers!)... I'm out. petrarchan47คุก 19:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Village Pump Policy is the best place. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I though of that too. Thanks, Atsme (and all). petrarchan47คุก 01:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, sorry, I've been meaning to respond to this for a while but the last few days I've gone to bed earlier than intended. I'm not sure things have or haven't changed much. Yes, often we go just by numbers but I think good RfC closings don't just look at the numbers. For example, this one [[26]] was better in terms of looking at the arguments. Other times I think uninvolved number do matter. Consider this one from a while back [[27]]. I didn't even recall that Guy closed it. Anyway, the logic was some decisions are more editorial based as they are either a gray area of policy or we have opposing policy requirements. In that example I think the close was spot on to cite numbers, "The numerical balance is clearly in favour of exclusion, but more to the point, the opinions of independent editors - those with the widest range of editing interests on Wikipedia - is most strongly against. This is an editorial judgment and not a policy matter, so breadth and depth of editorial experience is a significant factor." I think there are two cases where things tend to fall apart. One is on article talk pages when we have just the involved editors. In that case, especially if the discussion is rather partisan in nature, neither side is likely to give ground to the other so numbers are the only solid differentiator. Regrettably that can create a situation such as the one I faced here [[28]]. A long time editor added clear SYNTH to the article. I removed it but it was restored by an admin. To the discredit of the admin they totally ignored BRD since this was new content added by editor A, I removed it as SYNTH, it was restored by the admin with out proper justification and with no answers to my objections on the talk page. Anyway, I was unable to make any headway on the talk page. Thus numbers were might. That raises my second point. If one editor is citing policy (correctly) and a clear majority/consensus of editors is ignoring that argument, who is right? In that particular case I posted to ORN and it was declared SYNTH. Anyway, I don't think things are quite as broken as all that but I do get your concern. I have no idea how to correct it. courtesy ping for Atsme. Springee (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no simple answer to resolving the compliance issues that plague our wonderful project. Our PAGs are purposefully designed with ambiguity in mind - we're short on committment and long on expectations; thus WP:IAR and POV creep. WP's caste system - the one that doesn't exist - tells us who yields the power in our day to day existence as contributors; most of which is based on the logical fallacy that WP has no hierarchy. One would think NPOV would be immune to manipulation as it clearly states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Nope - it looks great as text but in practice....uhm, right. WP:BLP is not immune, despite it having teeth, except when challenged and that's when we discover those teeth are affixed with Polident...but that's just one editor's observations. We have a few admins who (unknowingly or otherwise) push their own perspectives on us hoping we'll change to see it their way, which may be what inspired the author of WP:POV railroad to pen that essay. It makes unilateral actions and sole discretion a rather scary proposition per my Signpost op-ed. But beware...if the lady doth protest too much, guess what? Gentle reminder...we are primarily governed by Groupthink. I've mentioned it here and the included link puts it in perspective. How fair is that? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot to respond to, thanks to you both for the fodder, it's appreciated.

Springee, from your first RfC example, I have not seen this in at least 4 years, but this is what I expect from any close rationale:

...after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.

I agree Guy's close was an interesting one, and it shows there is a good bit of nuance to closing an argument. But at what point does the nuance veer so far it devolves into ignoring clearly stated policy which allows for no nuance: Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It's not a vote per WP:CON and Voting

Your question If one editor is citing policy (correctly) and a clear majority/consensus of editors is ignoring that argument, who is right? ...policy. Always policy. Which leads to Atsme's 'policy cannot be overruled by consensus'. I do see it as rather black and white, while I acknowledge there is precedent for all sorts of closes. I'm wondering about the boiling frog scenario, and whether we're in it. petrarchan47คุก 23:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

– Frood (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Frood:, any thing in particular that caught your eye? I understand these are not specific accusations but it looks like my talk page was the only one you notified. I don't recall us crossing paths on any particular article. Did you see some edits that bothered you? I'm really asking more out of interest than anything. Springee (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Springee, you were already aware (FEB 15, 2020 at WP:AE), so this template should not have been added per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness: #4 In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; It actually forces a warning in edit mode for whoever is adding the template to make sure that you were not DS:Aware in the past year. DS:Alert states: Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You know, I went back and looked and didn't see I had been warned that recently. I'm more genuinely curious why Frood posted that here just because I don't recall us ever interacting. The best I can guess is because I tried to stick up for a new editor related to a BLM topic but Frood wasn't involved with that discussion. Springee (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Your AP2 participation at AE this year: March 4, 2020. See Wikipedia:AWARE #4 - In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; You participated there and if the editor had followed the instructions that come up in edit view whenever a DS Alert template is attempted, they should not have posted this AP2 alert. You can also put an "aware" notice at the top of your UTP as I have done on mine because it triggers a log that lists all the topic areas that I am aware of and it stays on my UTP in perpetuity with an occasional update. See the ARCA case, and GoldenRing's notice that it passed. Awilley, JfG, and Galobtter each contributed brilliantly to the coding and triggers. It's really pretty cool. I am aware that some editors don't mind the alerts while others are irritated by them. There are also times when the DS ALERT notices are used disruptively per DS Alerts: Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I know this is over a month old but came across it saw something which I think could be confusing. In particular, the statement "if the editor had followed the instructions that come up in edit view whenever a DS Alert template is attempted, they should not have posted this AP2 alert" seems to depend on what you mean by "follow the instructions". The instructions given by Special:AbuseFilter/602 say "Search elsewhere (optional): in AE • in AE contribs, so searching in AE or in AE contribs is optional. The only compulsory step is searching in the edit filter log and the user talk page. While I always search at AE, if a step is explicitly marked as optional it's IMO at a minimum confusing saying someone didn't follow the instructions just because they didn't do it.

I'm not certain why this step is optional but I suspect one possible reason is because while giving someone an alert when they have received one is explicitly said in both WP:ACDS page as well as in the edit filter as something that shouldn't be done, nothing suggests this extends to giving someone an alert when they are aware. While again, I don't know for sure why this is the case, I suspect in part it's reflective of the fact it's easy to miss the more unusual awareness criteria and expecting someone to check them all in every case is seen by some as unreasonable. (E.g. working out if someone successfully appealed a sanction in the last 12 months if it wasn't via AE.)

Even previous participation at AE could be difficult. I mean in Springee's case it looks like it was easy. But if someone very regularly participates at AE in the climate change area, and there are hundreds of recent contribs, searching through them all to find that one AP2 one seems a bit unreasonable. Toolforge can also be slow and I imagine even goes down at times when Wikipedia is working, while it's harder to search for recent contribs with the internal search and people's skills vary (again think about an extreme case e.g. if someone has many historic AP2 AE participation, finding that one recent one may be difficult).

IMO it's reasonable treat it that way. If someone has the aware template or was given an alert in the last 12 months, then anyone giving an alert is clearly in the wrong. If someone is aware because of AE participation and it's easy to find, then ideally this should have been picked up but if it's not that big of a deal. If someone is aware by some other means then again it would have been good if this was picked up but even more no biggie. Of course if the person giving the alert was aware the awareness criteria are met and decided to give an alert anyway simply because it wasn't clearly forbidden, then this is clearly disruptive.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem on the timing, Nil Einne. From my perspective, it is an issue that should be discussed, and I hope Springee doesn't mind that we're discussing it on his UTP but if so, I'll be happy to move it to my UTP. What we've seen demonstrated here is the reason I went to ARCA to request an amendment to DS Alert, although Springee is such a pleasant, mild-tempered editor that he didn't make a fuss - if only we could all be that way! I've noticed that many of our PAGs could use more clarity and fewer open doors to WP:POV creep. I tried to present a simple request but as you are probably aware, a lot of what we think should be simple on WP simply isn't, and the latter is as simple as it gets. I was optimistic that ArbCom would take the baton from me and race to the finish line. I was pleasantly surprised when they did and, by golly, it actually works most of the time, were it not for a few unaware editors who feel obligated to alert others before becoming more aware of the alert process themselves, as I've had happen on my UTP. Of course, the alert filters may need a bit more tweaking in order for editors to be more efficient, starting with the elimination of the ambiguities which leave the door open to POV creep. What I mean by the latter is that while Template:Ds/alert specifically states (my bold underline): Special rules govern alerts. You must not give an editor an alert if they have already received one for the same area of conflict within the last twelve months. When you attempt to save the template to a user talk page, you'll be prompted to check the relevant logs and page history, with links to them.

You also should not issue alerts to editors who have posted a

notice on their talk page for a particular topic area, thus declaring they are already aware of the topic sanctions. If that is the case, the filter will remind you that leaving an alert for this user is not necessary.

It is also stated in the Awareness and alerts section that Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.

The latter clearly places the onus on the editor adding the alert. See the "DS Aware Notice" at the top of my UTP. It advises editors that I'm aware of every DS listed in the log, (I try to edit every article like it was subject to DS) so adding a DS Alert on my UTP is probably not something that was done innocently, unless of course the filter fails; regardless, we should always AGF even in the face of bullying-type instances or last warnings. If an editor chooses to pursue the alert as disruptive, blindingly so or not, the final decision is in the hands of the overseeing admin(s) and their particular POV; therefore, you may or may not be the benefactor of a reprieve (2 examples: potential POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, that creates a boomerang, or it may simply be dismissed by an even-tempered admin). WP is fortunate in that the majority of editors we have granted the mop are unbiased, pragmatic thinkers with admirable critical thinking skills who are able to leave their biases at login, but unfortunately, we also have a small number of rather aggressive admins who do not quite fit that description, so we take the bad with the good, AGF and leave the rest to karma. And Nil, if you're of the mind, please feel free to attempt adding an AP2 Alert on my UTP and see what happens (we can simply delete it as a test edit if the filter fails but it will help to know). It should trigger a filter that pretty much lists everything on the DS list, but let me know if it doesn't work for you. If my memory serves, the filter will fail if you attempt to add it a 2nd time or something along that line. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Modification of your indentation

As per my edit summary, I have modified your indentation here [29] to ensure it complies with MOS:INDENTMIX and therefore maximises accessibility while also not producing a significant visible difference with most set-ups. Although you are not the only person to mix indentation styles in that thread, I wanted to reply to Jayron32 but could not do so without either following you in mixing indentation styles, or making things worse by trying to go back to the old style (which would produce visual weirdness and I assume also not be any better for screen readers) or fixing your style. So I chose the last option. Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: thanks for the explanation. I know this is something I've messed up in the past and would in the future absent your link to the proper procedures. Springee (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Turning Point USA

An article that been involved with (Turning Point USA ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Charlie Kirk). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. MaximusEditor (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey Springee, This is my first split so any comments regarding protocols would be appreciated. MaximusEditor (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

MaximusEditor, I don't think I've personally split an article. I think you can just create a new article for Kirk then copy the content from TPUAS to the new article with a link in the edit note that points to the old article. It's important to make it clear when you copy the content from one article to another than you leave pointers in the edit summaries so people can see that you 1. didn't delete the content from the old article (vs relocate it) and 2. that the new article allows editors to follow the edit history of the text back to it's origins in the earlier article. Other than that I don't know much else about the process. Springee (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah these are great tips, I appreciate it Springee! Thanks for the help MaximusEditor (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Tesla founders

Hi, I'm curious if you have any input on the discussion here, or any advice on how to proceed? The other editors seem to be ignoring the consensus understanding shown in reliable secondary sources, and are focused on irrelevant distractions like demanding a "formal definition of what a founder is". Stonkaments (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo

1RR doesn't apply to vandalism or sloppy edits by IPs. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not true. Neither created accounts or IP should be doing sloppy editing but IPs are not held to a higher standard and should not be reverted simply for being an IP editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

AE (Jorm)

I was looking at your post at AE and was wondering if you were referring to Jorm as an admin?[30] Because as far as I can tell they are not. PackMecEng (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng:, you are correct. As such the basis for my comment is invalid. I have self reverted. Springee (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It happens. They used to be WMF staff until late 2014 but that is about it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Should Dave Rubin be called right-wing in the intro?

Please check talk:Dave_Rubin for my comments on our editing dispute. Cosmopolismetropolis (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Undue paragraph tag

You should understand that the editors removing the cleanup tag are the ones inappropriately edit-warring, not you. WP:CLEANUPTAGS are appropriate to indicate where material is challenged, under discussion, or subject to an RfC. Ideally the tag should remain as long as the RfC and discussion is ongoing. The purpose of such a tag is to draw attention to that discussion. I support re-insertion of the tag. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I agree but I'm going to try to keep a lower profile with article related reverts. Three editors said remove the UNDUE tag so I'm not going to restore it. BTW, as for the lead changes, I see serious problems with the same things you are concerned about. A lot of the edits used the extreme negative case. However, the structure is actually an improvement in my book. The details just need to be made far more neutral/impartial. I see that lead as a better opportunity to fix the lead vs what we have now. Springee (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Be careful not to express approval for changes you don't really support. The recent changes in fact violated BLP by suggesting he "falsely accused antifa" for his assault. The sources note he blamed antifa and that the assailants haven't been caught, it never says this. You know that and I know that. If by "structure" you mean that three paragraphs is preferable to two (MOS:LEAD recommends a maximum of four) make sure to be explicit about that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. I tried to be very careful to support the structure of the lead change but not the details. I think this structure makes it easier to get some of the other lead changes the article needs. Springee (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that three paragraphs was always the better option for the length of this article. That's why I think the third paragraph is such a useless add-on. But I can never support changes that introduce false information and other mischaracterizations. Make sure not to give implicit support for changes that detract from the neutrality of the article in service of structure. Our priority has to be accuracy and neutrality, not stylistic preferences. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If this were the final text I would agree. However, I figured it was easier to have a lot of the changes I wanted made as part of this wholesale change then go back in and clean up the issues that you are worried about. For instance, take the 'falsely accused antifa' and make it more like 'attack by activists' or similar. Springee (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm just reacting to the text that was inserted into the article. Presumably the editor meant for that to be the final version, because there was no specific proposal preceding it. I'm just saying be careful not to sanction content that you don't agree with and to make sure your comments can't be construed otherwise. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Slow as Christmas!!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 04:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing issues with PragerU page case request declined

The case request Ongoing issues with PragerU page, which you were a party in, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but a permanent link to the declined case request can be accessed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Charlie Kirk inciting the insurrection in a now-deleted Tweet. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Tripping over Wikipedia

Hi Springee. There is something strange going on that, suddenly, a lot of the pages that I've worked on are being attacked and then out of nowhere a [COI] is levied by someone that I haven't even had issue with. I would not discredit the idea that there is some coordination happening. Any insights or recommendations would be much appreciated. QRep2020 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

BLP Talk Page

Not sure how you managed to warn him over 10 minutes before I did. I noticed their behavior on the PragerU page and then at RSN. I took a look at their contributions and I found the same tedious arguments repeated ad nauseam. They seriously need to learn to WP:DROPTHESTICK or else I would report them to ANI or somewhere else. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, yeah, this is getting a bit over the top. I'm working to try to help them understand this isn't meant to be personal [[31]] but I don't think it is working. Springee (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee, And now they started yet another loquacious thread @ WP:VPP?!?! Springee, this is ridiculous. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Andy Biggs

What an innocent looking IP who magically found their way to the talk page of some obscure congressman. And, who magically decided to disagree with your argument and "support" the other fellow. I'm sure this IP doesn't belong to anyone in that talk page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Tim Pool ping

Thank you for the invitation at Pausing RFC to the prior RFC participants, but... I have been topic banned indefinitely from post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

CPAC

Would you say this is canvassing or not? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, I don't think so. It looks like a new user frustrated with the system but I don't think canvasing applies. Both editors are involved and the new editor is asking the experienced editor what can be done. Springee (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It seemed to me like he was asking an extended confirmed editor to edit on his behalf (by reverting your revert). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Since all were involved I don't see this as a canvasing violation. Springee (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'll AGF and say that wasn't his intention. But the "questioning your motives" stuff is a no-go. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, do you mind if I tweak your proposed question a bit? From, "should the article mention that some sources noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal and that this symbol was used by some Nazi units?" to "should the article mention that some Twitter users noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal and that this symbol was used by some Nazi units?" Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Normally I would say yes but in this case is this still just Twitter users? They were the origin but it appears that a reasonable number of news stories have talk about it so I don't think it would be reasonable to just say Twitter. Springee (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, That's the thing. Sources have picked up the story, but the sources are not the ones making the observation. They attribute the observation to Twitter users:

• Reuters: "A photo of the CPAC stage went viral on social media on Saturday, with thousands of Twitter users sharing posts comparing its distinctive design to an othala rune..."
• US News: "A photo of the CPAC stage went viral on social media on Saturday, with thousands of Twitter users sharing posts comparing its distinctive design to an othala rune.."
• Snopes: "Internet sleuths noticed the stage at the conservative gathering resembled a symbol that has been used by hate groups...Eagle-eyed social media users claimed that the stage where Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump Jr., and others made speeches looked eerily like a Nazi or white supremacist symbol."
• The Independent: "Hyatt Hotels said they had "deep concerns" after Twitter users compared the stage design of the Conservative Political Action Conference to a Norse rune used by Nazis during the Second World War."
• Business Insider: "Twitter users noted the design of a stage at CPAC closely resembles a symbol used on Nazi uniforms."
• The Guardian: "A photo of the CPAC stage went viral on social media on Saturday, with thousands of Twitter users sharing posts comparing its distinctive design to an othala rune, also known as an odal rune," Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I think you convinced me but that might be a better defence vs setting if the question. Stating that the high quality sources are reporting on the Twitter noise vs making the claim themselves is a good point. Springee (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I may add this to the discussion at the bottom of the RfC. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, it's probably best to just let the discussion play out and not reply to everything Radio says. I admit I'm often bad and knowing when to just let things roll. Clearly you aren't going to sway some editors so no reason to argue with them. Editors who are undecided are likely to just read the first few posts but not level after level of back and forth. It just opens you up for a bludgeoning ANI. It certainly is easier to preach this vs practice it but that's my suggestion. Springee (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You are quite right, Springee. My last comment was gonna be my last. I know that there are plenty of editors itching to start an ANI thread on me. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, lol Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I saw a lot of articles said the same thing. Regardless of any ill will directed at Design Foundry, I think this confirms my original belief that this was unintentional and that most people wouldn't have recognized this had it not been pointed out. This should put to rest any argument that this was an intentional dog whistle (which is similar to a reason for inclusion from the survey). Springee (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Since it's been a week since the last !vote, I think we should post the CPAC RfC on WP:ANC. Closers usually take a while, so it's better to post it now rather than later. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, I would just leave it open. The typical RfC is 1 month and I think we are inside that. This isn't a SNOW case. I do think its surprising how different the Odal rune article results have been vs the CPAC ones. The Odal article is currently over 2:1 in favor of inclusion though I am suspicious of the motives of a few of those who voted. Still, the contrast is interesting. I do wonder how many of the votes on CPAC would change in the other RfC. Springee (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Ok sounds good. There hasn't been any sustained coverage of the stage (like I predicted) so I think the argument for inclusion is even weaker now. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Springee It looks like the RfC template was just removed by the bot. I would say there's at least a rough consensus for exclusion. There's definitely no consensus for inclusion. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I requested a formal close at WP:ANC. You can find that request here. There's normally a high back log at ANC, so I think it would take at least a week before we get a close. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that the RfC had been recently been closed. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies

A few months back you tried to encourage my to cool it down in a heated content dispute. You were right, but I blew it off. Just wanted to say I actually now appreciate what you were trying to do and I apologize if I came off as dismissive. I admire how you've been handling editorial disputes on this site and hope you keep up the good work. Best, Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, thanks I appreciate that! Springee (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard#Yahoo!_News_article_for_PragerU pings

Hi Springee. Just FYI, Hipal is pinged in the second paragraph, so you might consider removing your comment for redundancy reasons and to save space for the ensuing discussion. Not a big deal either way. Looking forward to resolving this issue. Hope you're doing well! Jlevi (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

New user

I wouldn't take it to ANI, I would take it to AE, since it comes under discretionary sanctions for post-1992 politics and the editor has been warned. TFD (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Keeping it on topic

Just an observation: in topic areas where people often become dismissive, combative, or take discussion in counter-productive directions, I appreciate that you seem to make an effort to stay on topic and be civil. It's helpful, even if we disagree on a few things. That's all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, thanks for that comment. I try and comments like yours make it easier. Springee (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Refactoring of Talk:PragerU discussion

Heya Springee. Hope you're okay with this refactor I did. That discussion was becoming quite long, and the RS/DUE question on Y!N/Athelea/the individual article seems separate from how to integrate that detail once if consensus has emerged for inclusion. To improve flow of discussion and avoid tangles, I think this refactor makes sense. Given that your responses include statements about both, I recognize that this might be tricky for you. Depending on your preferences, feel free to: 1) leave as is, 2) refactor your own responses and add those responding to the DUE/RS question to the earlier subsection, or 3) just revert my refactor. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Jlevi, not a problem. I understand what you are trying to do and it makes sense. Springee (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

TC page

Hi Springee, just want you to know that I edited a comment on the Tucker talk page that you responded to previously, because it might have been unclear earlier. Letting you know here so you aren't taken by surprise. Llll5032 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Springee, I just wanted to say, I was fully convinced after reading your thorough, logical, and civil comments on Talk:Andy Ngo. Your dedicated commitment toward improving the neutrality of WP is greatly appreciated. Great work! Thomas Meng (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Awarded for integrity in the process of debating and discussing questions surrounding the CPAC stage shape and the subsequent RfC, and for accepting the consensus with good grace. With respect, *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

–== Well there you go ==

There is a list of at least one thing on which we are in complete agreement :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 12:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, how do we expand that list as well as how do we reduce the amount of blow by blow crap in articles? I think you and others are right that if we cut down on so much of that stuff the number of content disputes would drop as well. Springee (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Springee, good question. How about coming up with a list of the top 10 hot button BLPs that we think are overwhelmed with cruft? I'd suggest Jordan Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for one. Also Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but you have to take on the fanbois there. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't even tried to look at the Assange page. It would be good to come up with a list that has blue and red heros/villans. BTW, I'm just as happy to apply my standards to blue villain pages of you have any suggested problem pages. I don't like to see any pages look like we are vilifying. So how do we decide what doesn't pass the test on any of these pages? Springee (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson Page

Hi Springee, I was wondering if you had a quick synopsis of the long conversation that is going on over there. I stumbled on it because the IP is active on a page I monitor and has, in a lot of ways, replicated that discussion on several pages. I think he wants it to be a WP:FORUM rather than constructive editing. Any insight you could offer would be helpful. Squatch347 (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Squatch347, to be honest I'm not entirely sure what the IP editor is arguing and I agree with your concerns. I've posted to the IP's talk page. Looking at their range of IP addresses it looks like other editors have raised concerns in the past. My best understanding of the current two discussions is the IP editor (and some named editors) want to include content that draws a line between Peterson and fascist ideas. The other issue is inclusion of a quote (from an op-ed I think) that says people who say Peterson is a conservative are wrong. I'm not sure any of this should be in the article since it's all rather subjective. Springee (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, i would agree with you that we should be wary of any Opinion articles, especially those that are an individual opinion along relatively weak logical lines. Squatch347 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Squatch347, you might have a look at this [[32]]. I've looked as some of the other involved articles and I do feel the editor has a borderline case of RGW and BATTLEGROUND. Springee (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I had missed that one. What is the remedy for something like this? I rarely get involved in these kinds of larger disputes (aside from a sockpuppet and one mediation). It would be nice if this stopped polluting my watchlist. Squatch347 (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Squatch347, ANI is the best I can think of. I've watched their actions at the Carano page and it does look like they are trying to push a POV and many of their comments are needlessly antagonistic. Springee (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, the POV pushing is definitely consistent, and the antagonism is pretty universal. I know myself and probably another editor on sowells page would probably support ANI actions. Squatch347 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I would support a warning though the exact phrasing needs to be worked out. I don't think they have crossed the line into topic ban territory. Springee (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Another editor has stepped in on one of the discussions. I'm hopeful this will help the IP overcome the learning curve. Squatch347 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the other editor started an ANI discussion. In case you'd like to weigh in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#46.97.170.0/24 Squatch347 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement in Wiki voice

Springee, I was surprised to see this edit which describes a group of people "surrounding" Strickland in Wiki voice, even though that claim came from a quoted tweet by Ngo within the source. You're usually quite attentive about attributing this type of claim, particularly when it comes from a questionable person in a questionable source, so you should be well aware of why it would be necessary in this case. Please try to be more careful in the future. –dlthewave ☎ 12:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, I appreciate your comment about care regarding attributed claims. I would be happy to make that attributed. I basically copied the text of the Don't Shoot Portland article. Springee (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That's where the "please be more careful" piece comes in. Wouldn't you agree that it would have been a good idea to check the source to make sure it actually supported what was being said before copying it over? –dlthewave ☎ 13:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I appreciate the good faith comment. Note that I added The Hill as an attributed statement to the DSP article. I think the content is not DUE for the Ngo article at this point. Springee (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

• News and notes: Elections, Wikimania, masking and more

• In the media: Boris and Joe, reliability, love, and money

• Disinformation report: Croatian Wikipedia: capture and release

• Recent research: Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology, Black Americans vastly underrepresented among editors, Wiki Workshop report

• Traffic report: So no one told you life was gonna be this way

• News from the WMF: Searching for Wikipedia

• Humour: Wikipedia's best articles on the world's strangest things

• WikiProject report: WikiProject on open proxies interview

• Forum: Is WMF fundraising abusive?

• Discussion report: Reliability of WikiLeaks discussed

• Obituary: SarahSV

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna step away for a few days. Got alot going on.

When I come back, I look forward to taking the AANES entry up to Good Article status. Outside of professional Kurdologists (I actually know the two leading authorities on Kurds from the West... providing the one hasn't recently karked it on us!), and those currently on the ground now with access to physical Ottoman, French, and Ba'athist documents, I reckon I'd be right up there among the top dozen or so people in the English-speaking world who have all the possible resources on this (and other related articles). Out-of-print books that are very hard to find... It might even come to the point where I'll need to translate some documents myself! Plus I have access to JSTOR, etc. TomReagan90 (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Expanding the awareness

Hi Springee, would you mind adding "covid" to the DS awareness notice at the top of your talk page? In return, I won't add my usual blue notice! All the best! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

your accusation

This, in suggesting "sock", is pretty unbecoming. Got any particular reason for posing that, even as a question? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, the behavior is consistent with a sock, IP with no other edits, copied the edit summary of another editor. Springee (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Pages777

Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pages777. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 21:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

• News and notes: Wikimania and a million other news stories

• Special report: Hardball in Hong Kong

• In the media: Larry is at it again

• Board of Trustees candidates: See the candidates

• Recent research: Gender bias and statistical fallacies, disinformation and mutual intelligibility

• Traffic report: Football, tennis and marveling at Loki

• News from the WMF: Uncapping our growth potential – interview with James Baldwin, Finance and Administration Department

• Humour: A little verse

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks for pointing out my comment that was a second vote. That RfC got so long I completely forgot I voted in the beginning! Appreciate you pointing it out. ––FormalDude(talk) 23:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo "journalist"

I was wondering if you'd be interested in challenging the recent RfC close regarding inclusion of "journalist" in the lead at Andy Ngo. I know you're an advocate for omitting contentious content from BLPs when there's no consensus, and the conclusion "Now, there is no consensus to describe Ngo as a journalist. Nor, however, is there a consensus to obliviate that term from the lead. The status quo should be maintained." seems to go against that. Perhaps we could come up with something together to bring to the closer? –dlthewave ☎ 12:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

dlthewave, I would generally take the outcome of this RfC to say no consensus to change the article text or no consensus to change the prior RfC. However, I'm open to discussing your concerns. This does present an interesting case. Does this new RfC mean there is no longer a consensus about the content (ie old consensus is replaced with a new no-consensus) or does it simply mean we don't have a consensus to overturn the old consensus. This would be potentially precedent setting. Consider a case where a RfC from a few years back found consensus to put content in an article lead. Now a new RfC comes along and the result is no-consensus. Does that mean the content no longer has consensus or just that there is no consensus to change? Since this was a non-admin close I think you could start with objecting and requesting an admin close. Springee (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

• News and notes: Enough time left to vote! IP ban

• In the media: Vive la différence!

• Wikimedians of the year: Seven Wikimedians of the year

• Gallery: Our community in 20 graphs

• News from Wiki Education: Changing the face of Wikipedia

• Recent research: IP editors, inclusiveness and empathy, cyclones, and world heritage

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Days of the Year Interview

• Traffic report: Olympics, movies, and Afghanistan

• Community view: Making Olympic history on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Tim Pool article

I have been reverted by both Grayfell and NorthBySouthBaranof just this morning, and both provided false reasonings for doing so. Does anyone spend two minutes making sure they are correct before undoing others' work anymore? Am I just old fashioned? Matza Pizza (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Matza Pizza, see my post on your talk page. Springee (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to explain things to me.

Matza Pizza (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

• News and notes: New CEO, new board members, China bans

• In the media: The future of Wikipedia

• Opinion: Wikimedians of Mainland China were warned

• Op-Ed: I've been desysopped

• Disinformation report: Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages

• Discussion report: Editors discuss Wikipedia's vetting process for administrators

• Recent research: Wikipedia images for machine learning; Experiment justifies Wikipedia's high search rankings

• Community view: Is writing Wikipedia like making a quilt?

• Traffic report: Kanye, Emma Raducanu and 9/11

• News from Diff: Welcome to the first grantees of the Knowledge Equity Fund

• WikiProject report: The Random and the Beautiful

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Change to Candance Owens

Hi Springee. Regarding your recent revert of my edit at [33]. I think the edit is relevant, as it shows her attitude to the covid response. I can see your point about the wording, so how about something like this:

In October 2021, Owens called for the "US to invade Australia to free people from 'tyranny'" (of the government COVID-19 response). Australian's response was negative of the comments, with the majority of Australian's very happy with their Government's handling of the pandemic.

Owen's wording though is just quoted, and I don't think it is rhetorical, given the context, and other statements, she, other Fox News presenters, and Ted Cruz have made about Australia. Owen's statement, as reported, was "the U.S. military should invade Australia because it has turned into a “police state,” comparing the country’s government to the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.", which is pretty strong. This op-ed piece gives some useful perspective. [34]. The refs are strong, too - news.com.au is one of Australia's prime news sources, time.com obviously strong, and the Lowy Institute very well regarded for research.

It is recent, but I don't agree that it's WP:UNDUE (only two short sentences) or subject to WP:RECENT to be not included (directly relevant to paragraphs above).

Let me know your comments with the revised wording. peterl (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Peterl:, the comment appears to have been a flippant comment made by Owens rather than any sort of serious proposal. If this were presented as evidence that Owens uses flippant rhetoric to get the attention of others I think this would be a good example. Presenting only the statement without context and without showing that it has some sort of higher level significance in an article that is meant to summarize Owens it, in my view, a violation of DUE (or more truthfully WP:BALASP). All that said, the best place to discuss this is on the article talk page. Even though I don't think it so, my take may be wrong. Getting more views can be helpful and, when things work best, sometimes a 3rd party editor can help find a compromise edit. Springee (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering if this content had been discussed previously, and indeed it has! I believe it's a BLP violation without proper context(aka Owens was joking). This content is being re-added(as well as my talk page discussion on the matter being deleted). Maybe have a look if you get the chance. SmolBrane (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I've restored your comments. I would assume it was accidental. Personally I think the mention of her joke is Undue since it isn't clear why this would be included. Is it meant to show how she is using hyperbole? Is it meant to suggest she is actually advocating for this? Sadly another example of quote farming. Springee (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Great thanks. Whether it's DUE or not isn't even my primary concern, it's that wikivoice needs to be pretty clear on the whole Invading Australia/Joking about Invading Australia thing. SmolBrane (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

• From the editor: Different stories, same place

• News and notes: The sockpuppet who ran for adminship and almost succeeded

• In the media: China bans, and is there intelligent life on this planet?

• Opinion: A photo on Wikipedia can ruin your life

• Discussion report: Editors brainstorm and propose changes to the Requests for adminship process

• Recent research: Welcome messages fail to improve newbie retention

• Community view: Reflections on the Chinese Wikipedia

• Traffic report: James Bond and the Giant Squid Game

• Technology report: Wikimedia Toolhub, winners of the Coolest Tool Award, and more

• Serendipity: How Wikipedia helped create a Serbian stamp

• Book review: Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality

• WikiProject report: Redirection

• Humour: A very Wiki crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha unrest shooting

When the mod is biased af, there's no point in trying to change the article anymore. Waste of our time. so sad when even wikipedia is stuffed with bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N432138 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

N432138, it's east to assume such things but, true or not, it's best to assume good faith just in case. At least a few times when, in my head, I had already given up on good faith I ended up surprised when the other editor did something that showed they were in fact acting in good faith. Moments like that convinced me I'm better off not saying something snarky in case this is that 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 case where my instinct was wrong. Beyond that, while it short term can feel good to call someone on their BS, it's never going to convince them and might end up coming back to haunt. Anyway, the argument that RSs talking about Rittenhouse because of this shooting have mentioned these facts isn't without some basis in policy. However, as editors we can argue about the DUE weight of the volumes of information that were found. It looks like consensus is against inclusion so I wouldn't worry about it. Springee (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Dennis Prager discussion

I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss your opinion here, away from some of the less civil discussion on the page. I personally haven't been around the political wiki enough to see problems of people adding random controversial quotes to pages of people they don't like. I wanted to point out the page Political positions of Donald Trump, it uses his policy decisions and articles on his certain views to form his political positions. But sometimes it uses quotes, likely in areas that garner less attention, hence fewer articles to give their interpretation of what the quotes mean. An example would be the California drought; they added a few quotes - establishing that one of those was incorrect - then gave some context behind what he was commenting on. It seems that the lack of attention given to this opinion forced them to use a style closer to the one used on Prager's page (enough attention to establish notability, but not enough to expand on the quotes' meaning). Do you think that it's still inappropriate on Trump's page? In terms of the climate change quotes used on Prager's page I think it should stay. Using some OR we can see that the effect of climate change is in fact not idiotic or irrational when consider its impact on hunger and general health, rising sea levels and more intense weather events. We can also see that he misrepresents the science when he says that concern about the climate crisis is in anyway fear of extinction of the biosphere, when in fact none of the science argues for extinction. It argues for biodiversity losses.[35][36][37] An extinction of the biosphere entails all living things dead, I have only heard about such a thing proposed in things like when the sun swallows the earth in roughly 5 billion years As we can see, despite not denying climate change, his opinions on the impacts of climate change or almost equivocal to denial of climate change. It's essentially like moving the goalposts, first it was that climate change was not real, now it's that it will not have any impact. The stated claims are just as wrong as denial of climate change in my opinion. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Pabsoluterince, thank you for reaching out. I've frequently found that some of the best wiki output comes when people step aside and discuss things off line (well off article pages). It doesn't always work but I agree it's far better than acrimony on the talk page.

I've almost entirely avoided any Trump articles. In part I don't find him that interesting and in large part I think it's just too sensitive and ugly. In the case of Trump I would think/hope there is enough legitimate analysis of his actions and policies he actually supported as well as analysis of his methods for getting things done so that we can find RSs that actually talk about not just what he says but what he supports in action and policy as well as how we tried to get people to go along with his objectives. That last one leaves a lot of room for discussion of his... can we euphemistically call it colorful rhetorical methods?

Prager is harder because we don't have as many sources to help us sort out the substance from the noise. It also makes it harder to decide which parts of his statements are meant to be the message vs the rhetoric. One of the editor's posted a comment regarding Prager's concerns around 2 weeks into the general shutdown in the US (mid March 2020). It does look like Prager was wrong regarding how many people would die from the illness (the US toll was small at the time). However, it also looks like Prager's concern about the impact of the protective measures also proved to have foundation [38]. Personally I think many of these cases aren't the black and white issues that often are presented here. Instead they are far more likely to be gray. However, many of our articles present things often as white or beyond black. It would be nice if the stories about these people were better at presenting these details. Anyway, I appreciate you reaching out and would be happy to discuss things further or give you my take on some other pages even if I won't edit them (I will try to avoid basically all Trump, and Biden specific pages). Springee (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah after reading through your arguments on the talk page I was understanding your concern. I can definitely see how easy it would be to fall into the trap of writing down everything controversial someone says, just because you think they are a bad person. Also in this day of intense media scrutiny it seems easier than ever to paint a person a certain way. Well... happy editing. (not sure how people sign off on wiki) Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

References

A cookie for you!

Indeed. Thanks for the catch! Was on a bit of a tear earlier with reverting vandalism. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 03:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive by

It doesn't belong in the Maytag...

In response to your last post...Atsme 💬 📧 14:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Tim Pool

Finally straightened out that situation. Took too long, but here we are. Thank you for all your help. Matza Pizza (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

• In the media: Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography

• WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2021

• Deletion report: What we lost, what we gained

• From a Wikipedia reader: What's Matt Amodio?

• Arbitration report: ArbCom in 2021

• Discussion report: On the brink of change – RFA reforms appear imminent

• Technology report: What does it take to upload a file?

• WikiProject report: Interview with contributors to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

• Serendipity: "Did You Know ..." featured a photo of the wrong female WWII pilot

• News from Diff: Content translation tool helps create one million Wikipedia articles

• Traffic report: Reporting ticket sales on the edge of the Wiki, if Eternals should fail

• Recent research: Vandalizing Wikipedia as rational behavior

• Humour: A very new very Wiki crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Help

Would you please provide the excellent advice you gave here to Ivan VA? His comment here shows he needs your help to understand this business about Greenwald and other SPS. "Credentials" don't mean anything here. Heck, we have even indeffed a Nobel Prize laureate, and he presumably might have known his subject better than anyone else on earth at one time. Talk about credentials! They mean nothing here without RS. People change, sources change, and consensus changes. -- Valjean (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, I gave it a shot and I appreciate the shout out. Don't eat any fermenting meat this weekend! Springee (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

• From the editor: Here is the news

• News and notes: Jimbo's NFT, new arbs, fixing RfA, and financial statements

• Serendipity: Born three months before her brother?

• In the media: The past is not even past

• Recent research: STEM articles judged unsuitable for undergraduates below the first paragraph

• Arbitration report: A new crew for '22

• By the numbers: Four billion words and a few numbers

• Deletion report: We laughed, we cried, we closed as "no consensus"

• Gallery: Wikicommons presents: 2021

• Traffic report: Spider-Man, football and the departed

• Crossword: Another Wiki crossword for one and all

• Humour: Buying Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Please self-revert at Lee Chatfield

I think you are wrong reverting me at Lee Chatfield. For a former politician from the religious right to be accused of sexual abuse (including rape) by his current sister-in-law is a major development in his life, very likely the last incident in his political career. It is being investigated by the Michigan State police with the cooperation of the Michigan House of Representatives. She was a minor when the alleged abuse began, and he was her school teacher. It's not going away. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones, I don't think I'm wrong to remove that from the lead but we should discuss it on the article talk page. If nothing else, other editors might help sort things out. My personal feeling is this is an alleged crime that may amount to nothing. Until the charges stick or he is forced to resign due to these claims etc they should stay out of the article lead. Especially given the short length of the lead. If you start an article talk discussion I would be happy to make the same case there. Springee (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

• Special report: WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment

• News and notes: Feedback for Board of Trustees election

• Interview: CEO Maryana Iskander "four weeks in"

• Black History Month: What are you doing for Black History Month?

• Deletion report: Ringing in the new year: Subject notability guideline under discussion

• WikiProject report: The Forgotten Featured

• Arbitration report: New arbitrators look at new case and antediluvian sanctions

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2021

• Gallery: No Spanish municipality without a photograph

• Obituary: Twofingered Typist

• Op-Ed: Identifying and rooting out climate change denial

• Essay: The prime directive

• Opinion: Should the Wikimedia Foundation continue to accept cryptocurrency donations?

• In the media: Fuzzy-headed government editing

• Recent research: Articles with higher quality ratings have fewer "knowledge gaps"

• Serendipity: Pooh entered the Public Domain – but Tigger has to wait two more years

• Crossword: Cross swords with a crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Reply

Hello Springee, sorry for the delayed response of your notification, I'm quite busy off-wiki. On the issue, I think you've made your point to Soibangla, and so has VQuakr in their response to Soibangla. If there are further issues, I would suggest AE/ANI. On another note, I'm trying to stay out of the politics topic area indefinitely, just a heads-up to you. Commenting on editor behavior should be fine though. starship.paint (exalt) 03:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Autocorrect

Your phone has such a one-track mind.[39] Dr. Freud | talk 12:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

Bishonen, To be fair, for many editors here my phone might have suggested the thing that would make them feel better :D (but I was kind of mortified I made that edit!). Springee (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

• From the team: Selection of a new Signpost Editor-in-Chief

• News and notes: Impacts of Russian invasion of Ukraine

• Opinion: Why student editors are good for Wikipedia

• Special report: A presidential candidate's team takes on Wikipedia

• In the media: Wiki-drama in the UK House of Commons

• Serendipity: War photographers: from Crimea (1850s) to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022)

• Technology report: Community Wishlist Survey results

• WikiProject report: 10 years of tea

• Featured content: Featured Content returns

• Deletion report: The 10 most SHOCKING deletion discussions of February

• Recent research: How editors and readers may be emotionally affected by disasters and terrorist attacks

• Arbitration report: Parties remonstrate, arbs contemplate, skeptics coordinate

• By the numbers: Does birthplace affect the frequency of Wikipedia biography articles?

• Gallery: The vintage exhibit

• Traffic report: Euphoria, Pamela Anderson, lies and Netflix

• News from Diff: The Wikimania 2022 Core Organizing Team

• Crossword: A Crossword, featuring Featured Articles

• Humour: Notability of mailboxes

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

On AE

I'm not sure you should use the word "bitch" there. Please remove that word as a completely unnecessary and unwarranted insult. You might have had issues with Hob, as I have, but calling him a bitch cannot be mistaken for anything but an insult, and therefore a personal attack. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

A._C._SantacruzThat was a miscopied cut and paste. I've already removed it. Springee (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Springee, fair enough. I was really shocked to see the word as I do not remember you as the type of editor to swear so suddenly. Quite a relief to hear it was a misquote. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hey Springee, was checking through the Edit filter log like I normally do, and I stumbled upon an account a few days ago that triggered the filter New account suspicious activity. I try to keep an eye on those accounts... one of them being IMiss2010. I'm not sure that there is any violation they've made, but I did call them out on their excessive edits to their sandbox (they were indeed, excessive). Further, they were experimenting with fonts and what not, but perplexingly are choosing to focus exclusively on Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians—which I can't see any reason why a new editor would be exclusively fixated with that topic. Seems suspicious to me, wanted to have another set of eyes on their contribs. Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

PerpetuityGrat, I don't know what to think about it. I typically presume editors dip their toe in first, make a few edits to a topic they are interested in. I do wonder when I see them start by working on back end stuff. It's like seeing someone learn to drive by tearing the engine down first. Some of the editors who work WP:SPIs might be able to help more. You can keep an eye on their edits but I can't see anything they are doing that is harmful to Wikipedia at this time. Sorry, that's not really a clear answer but it is the best I have. Springee (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

• From the Signpost team: How The Signpost is documenting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

• News and notes: Of safety and anonymity

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Kharkiv, Ukraine: Countering Russian aggression with a camera

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Western Ukraine: Working with Wikipedia helps

• Disinformation report: The oligarchs' socks

• In the media: Ukraine, Russia, and even some other stuff

• Recent research: Top scholarly citers, lack of open access references, predicting editor departures

• Wikimedian perspective: My heroes from Russia, Ukraine & beyond

• Discussion report: Athletes are less notable now

• Technology report: 2022 Wikimedia Hackathon

• Arbitration report: Skeptics given heavenly judgement, whirlwind of Discord drama begins to spin for tropical cyclone editors

• Traffic report: War, what is it good for?

• Deletion report: Ukraine, werewolves, Ukraine, YouTube pundits, and Ukraine

• Gallery: "All we are saying is, give peace a chance..."

• From the archives: Burn, baby burn

• Essay: Yes, the sky is blue

• Tips and tricks: Become a keyboard ninja

• On the bright side: The bright side of news

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:Battle

We seem to be in a pattern of wasting each others time. Perhaps we should give each other a little more WP:FAITH on talk pages in which we both seem to be involved. What do you say? DN (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Darknipples, I appreciate the outreach. Agreed and apologies that the comments came off that combatively. Springee (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I had a chance to read your last comment. I am concerned you are using Wikipedia:Don't take the bait. You have been around long enough to know the rules. I will seek administrative advice moving forward. DN (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Darknipples, I really don't get what in this post [40] was an issue. I mentioned bringing your concern here because, to be honest, I appreciated that you reached out when you, I presume, you felt things might turn from civil to not. I did not assume you felt I had, to this point, done anything uncivil and I didn't feel you had done anything uncivil either. We were disagreeing. It's easy to slip from disagreeing into incivility so I did feel that your comment here was actually a good way of saying, "hey, we disagree but we still shake hands and have a virtual beer". I think that is a good idea and I've been pleased in the past when someone who I was certain had to be a POV pusher etc was actually quite reasonable after we had a chance to understand what the other person was saying. I felt that was very conscientious of you and I appreciated it.

Given I thought we were on good footing were we could disagree with respect I admit I was taken aback by your followup suggesting battle[41]. I felt/feel like I was making a consistent point. Yes, some articles that are topic specific might mention the censure but as a general thing it has quickly faded away. When it first happened we had stories about the censure. What we are seeing now is articles that are about some other aspect of the Jan 6 topic mention the censure somewhere down in the article as background. We aren't seeing new, follow on results nor new stand alone stories about the significance or further impacts etc nor how this is changing the GOP. That is my point. I don't see how that is battleground or anything other than on topic commenting. I do get that my follow on where I specifically mention battle was off topic. I did that only because, as I just mentioned, taken aback that you mentioned battle on the talk page and I did feel compelled to defend what I said. I'm more than willing to remove all of the non-topical part if you are willing to do the same. Even if we don't agree, I would much rather a have a friendly user talk discussion with a virtual beer at the end. Springee (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(I will not read your response at this time) I kindly ask that you no longer try to contact or ping me. I will speak to an administrator and have them help resolve this issue for us. Please respect my request. DN (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Darknipples, I apologize for this last ping. What issue are you referring to? I think I'm missing something. Springee (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} DN can simply mute your pings if he no longer wishes to engage with you. Of course, disengaging makes it difficult to reach NPOV, but hey, as Lincoln once said, “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time”. All DN has to do is adjust his User Prefs and mute your pings: Help:Notifications#Muting users Atsme 💬 📧 14:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE

I am ok as far as interacting with you on article talk pages, but let's try our best to leave it at that. Also, I will no longer receive pings from you or TFD, so stick to article talk page sections where I am involved and ask other editors (besides TFD) or mods to ping me for immediate attention if something extremely important comes up. Have a peaceful day. DN (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Bruce Bostelman

Hey Springee, was hoping you could take a look at Talk:Bruce Bostelman. I don't think I'm in the wrong with my input, but was hoping you could provide your own two-cents there. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

David Freiheit

Could you make a note to that effect on the talk page? Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Eww. The article People's Party of Canada calls it far-right. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

compulsory shots

I'm not as far-left as Stalin, but I have IRL been called a "libtard." I'm also a retired nurse. I believe in the "right to refuse." So I cannot agree with mandating or compelling vaccines. Thanks for pointing out the fallacies of labelling. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

John Lott TP

Sorry to bug you but I need to make sure I'm clear on your view here [42], because I find it extremely odd. The editor said "For all we know, his enemies are actively editing his WP article under pseudonyms to say bad things about him.". You believe that type of discourse is indicative of WP:AGF? I recall you actually said something similar [43], after I had previously responded to one of your replies on your TP [44]. I ask because I feel we are still in need of work in agreeing on the definition of AGF so that we can understand and work with each other in a more productive manner. If at all possible, please stick to simple yes or no, I understand there is a spectrum and context to it, but I have a difficult time sorting through some of the complexity of your answers. This is purely for my edification and future reference when it comes to understanding what to expect in engagements and discussions in which you are involved moving forward. You do not have to answer, but in fairness to you, this question is very much on my mind. DN (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I missed that. I was looking at the earlier part of the discussion where they were suggesting removing the content as UNDUE. Yes, we should not be making claims his enemies are editing the article since that would impugn Wiki editors. That said, I think you might be reading too much into what he said. I would take his comments as an attempt to illustrate a point rather than a claim that he actually believes that. Still, since it implies we have COI editors on the article it should be struck or otherwise clarified. My claim is different in that I'm stating some who are seeking to find fault with his work may be motivated by, for instance, a strong feeling that we need more gun control. In general setting out to prove someone wrong isn't the best way to produce quality research.

BTW, I didn't want to bother you about it but I did think your comment to SPECIFICO was quite kind [45]. I am sorry that I've caused you stress. Springee (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to answer. If I seem out of line I apologize, but part of my issue is that from my POV your responses tend to contradict the intent in what the end result seems to be in an almost predictable fashion, no offense. I realize I can be quite predictable as well, and I'm working on that, as well as acknowledging and listening to others when they point it out (hopefully with a soft touch). For example, I was hoping for a simple yes or no here, but somehow that option either did not appear on your radar or was possibly forgotten. Also, stating that "you missed that" can be perceived as a fairly ambiguous answer with multiple connotations that may lead into a stagnation of faith and productivity. However, if I wasn't clear or did not facilitate such a response for you to be able to oblige my request, then it automatically falls back onto me.

In the spirit of AGF, I would automatically lean towards the latter, except it seems to somehow end up like a clue to an often non-existent mystery. The effect of which resembles Gaslighting, and whether it is accidental or not, tends to have consequences such as my desire to limit engagement. A final example would be when I asked you to stop pinging me. I'm sure you may remember what happened next. BTW after that happened I was not intent, and am by no means intent, on going through any kind of arbitration or punitive recourse. I only wanted advice on how to handle it myself. Hopefully this helps shed a bit more light on where we are and how we got here. We may not seem to agree on content disputes, but more importantly I feel a need to prioritize and keep discussing how rules, tenets and policies should shape our future interactions. That should improve our ability to AGF IMO. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Extra sorry about my comments earlier. I made sure to apologize in the edit summary where I struck those comments. I was tired and cranky but that's no excuse. Give me some time to come back without being in Battlemode with you. I realize I may be solo on this view, and I am considering conceding in hopes of consensus. If I don't try to cover the bases with it, I will have a harder time moving on. Thanks for being patient. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

• News and notes: Double trouble

• In the media: The battlegrounds outside and inside Wikipedia

• Special report: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (Part 2)

• Technology report: 8-year-old attribution issues in Media Viewer

• Featured content: Wikipedia's best content from March

• In focus: Editing difficulties on Russian Wikipedia

• Gallery: A voyage around the world with WLM winners

• Interview: On a war and a map

• Serendipity: Wikipedia loves photographs, but hates photographers

• Traffic report: Justice Jackson, the Smiths, and an invasion

• Recent research: Student edits as "civic engagement"; how Wikipedia readers interact with images

• News from the WMF: How Smart is the SMART Copyright Act?

• Essay: The problem with elegant variation

• Humour: Really huge message boxes

• From the archives: Wales resigned WMF board chair in 2006 reorganization

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tamzin

Hi. With respect to your vote here, did you intentionally indent it? Or did you mean to withdraw it? You may wish to return to it to reformat it in order to make your intention more clear by preserving the numbering or striking it as the case may be. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Eric Swalwell

Hey Springee,may I have your input on this edit,this event happened back in 2019 and made national and international news over the controversy. This edit is already/was technically before I made this edit on this article :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_%22-gate%22_scandals_and_controversies&action=history

But now someone deleted it just now

In November 2019,while in a live interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews discussing the Impeachment hearings of Donald J. Trump,the sound of what many thought to be Flatulence was believed to be heard while Swalwell was speaking. Swalwell repeated denied the allegation,stating he didn't even hear the sound during the interview.The incident was widely reported and covered by Multiple foreign news channels, such as the British breakfast television News channel Good Morning Britain.The Viral incident was Coined "Fartgate" by many.MSNBC later released a statement saying the noise was actually a mug moving across a desk.However, many people dispute the network's explanation, claiming that Swalwell's speech paused for a moment during the noise, and he slightly raised his body as well.

I see this of note as it was covered by many sources and isn't an ongoing saga of events being covered by some gossip page etc. It meets the definition of a gate/scandal.

Conservative cheese ball (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I would delete it as well. Yes, it was embarrassing but it doesn't say anything about his character in particular or his policy ideas/positions. I suspect most who remember it don't recall the person's name, just that it happened to some politician on TV and it was funny. That is the sort of material I don't think belongs in any serious encyclopedia. Think of it this way, if digital data had to be paid for by the column inch like a traditional paper, would people have talked about this? I will note that I feel that some editors would be happy to include this if the BLP subject were on the other side of the political isle. In that case it would still be wrong. In my view this sort of content should be discouraged since as not encyclopedic and not a summary of the person in any meaningful way. Perhaps this is an area where it would be helpful if Wikipedia had a better guide to notability. It's easy to say, "X number of sources covered it thus we should too". But, as I said, if we are talking about a politician then we should stick to content that helps us understand his character, political history, motivations, positions etc. Random moments that happened to be caught on film and don't reflect on any of those core aspects of him as a politician should be excluded. Springee (talk)

TPUK

Hello Springee, Would you say from your experience that this article is an opinion piece? From what I can see it seems very much so.However im looking to see what other people think A user is trying to use it for this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Point_UK

Here is the link:

https://theconversation.com/turning-point-uk-new-conservative-youth-group-doesnt-fit-traditional-understandings-of-the-far-right-111669

According to Wikipedia, the Coversation posts opinion pieces consistently, meaning those particular articles arent to be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Idolator

Basedosaurus (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The way in which the source is being used to make the statement is extremely subjective and is an opinion,the article should instead say something along the lines of at the most "some see the organisation as being affiliated with the far-right" Basedosaurus (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure. This might be a good one to take to RSN and ask. When asking it would be good to make it clear that you are trying to understand and don't have a preference on the outcome. In general I don't quite see sources like the Conversation as Op-Ed. Part of that is because a classical OpEd can include views/opinions etc that the source's editorial board does not approve/accept. The Conversation strikes me more as an analysis source. Where I would be comfortable using it would depend on what fact/claim it is meant to support. At one extreme would be a disparaging claim about a person. In such a case I would want really strong sourcing. On the other hand, a claim that's rather mundane, Mr Smith grew up in Springfield, wouldn't need such robust sourcing.

BTW, just as an aside, since you are trying to edit in the area of politics I'm going to offer some advice/lessons I learned over time. None of this based on things you have done other than you are new and trying to learn the Wiki ropes in an area where people can be short with new editors.

First, is always focus on the edit, not the editor. It's very natural to ascribe intent to the edits of others. The problem is sometimes those ascribed intents are wrong. If you make a comment about the editor vs the edit that can quickly escalate into a civility problem. New editors frequently get bit in those cases. So as a hypothetical example, EditorX adds a disparaging claim to Senator Smith's BLP (I would use MrX as my generic editor but there actually is an editor with that name(!)). You look at EditorX's contribution page and it becomes clear they add negative content about many politicians who are all on the same side of the isle. If on the talk page you were to say, "EditorX is a POV pusher" or "EditorX only wants to insert negative things politicians on the East side of the isle." Both of those would be bad in my book. The problem is they suggest what EditorX's intentions are. Even worse, they suggest the intentions are against NPOV and meant to make those on the East look bad. However, it would be OK to say how that edit may be perceived by people reading the article. We have quite a few articles that read like a hit piece on the article subject. That may be the intent of the involved editors but they also might just be doing what they think is good work. Either way, criticizing what their edits do to the article is great, suggesting their motives are anything other than build a good article is going to be a problem.

Second, the edit warring red line for most articles is no more than 3 reverts in a 24hr period. It's best to self restrict to no more than one. Just to clarify, a revert is undoing someone else's recent change to the article. Recent isn't clearly defined by if people made the change in the last two weeks it's almost certainly going to be seen as recent. Note that it's 24hr, not just the same calendar day. People also frequently confuse what counts as a single revert. It is not the same content reverted more than once, it's any reverted content in the article. Consider this; you revert a change to paragraph 1. The other editor then makes a change to paragraph 3. You then revert that change as well. OK, that is two edits because someone else made edits between your edits. No consider a case where an editor makes changes to paragraphs 1 and 3 in back to back edits. You dislike both changes so you do two back to back reverts. That would count as just one revert since you could have done both changes as a single edit if you chose to. Still, the best way to avoid issues is keep your self to an unofficial 1 revert per day rule. Then even if you revert a second time, no one is going to be able to stick you with an edit warring claim.

Third, it's useful to read things like RSN and NPOVN discussions. You don't need to reply, just read and see what others consider to be important It will help you when you want to make sure your own arguments are solid.

Hope that long post helps Springee (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

thanks for your advice,

The consensus is that Conversation can be used,however articles that are opinion pieces from the TheConversation should not be used.Meaning it should be looked at on a case by case basis-Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The ConversationThe claim is one that would be considered very extraordinary and I think it needs alot of really strong sourcing to back it up. Basedosaurus (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Gun registration bit at NRA

The sources are not about gun registration. They are about NSA surveillance. We need sources that relate this initiative to gun registration. It's also not clear why it is in the legislation section. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you are correct. I corrected the scope of the collaboration as well as moved it to the litigation section. Springee (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

• From the team: A changing of the guard

• News and notes: 2022 Wikimedia Board elections

• Community view: Have your say in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board elections

• Opinion: The Wikimedia Endowment – a lack of transparency

• In the media: Putin, Jimbo, Musk and more

• Special report: Three stories of Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war

• In focus: Measuring gender diversity in Wikipedia articles

• Discussion report: Portals, April Fools, admin activity requirements and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19 revisited

• Technology report: A new video player for Wikimedia wikis

• Featured content: Featured content of April

• Interview: Wikipedia's pride

• Serendipity: Those thieving image farms

• Recent research: 35 million Twitter links analysed

• Tips and tricks: The reference desks of Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Strange highs and strange lows

• News from Diff: Winners of the Human rights and Environment special nomination by Wiki Loves Earth announced

• News from the WMF: The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?

• Video: How the entire country of Qatar was blocked from editing

• Gallery: Diving under the sea for World Oceans Day

• From the archives: The Onion and Wikipedia

• Essay: How not to write a Wikipedia article

• Humour: A new crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

• News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns, blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks

• In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down

• Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?

• Discussion report: MoS rules on CCP name mulled, XRV axe plea nulled, BLPPROD drafting bid pulled

• Opinion: Picture of the Day – how Adam plans to ru(i)n it

• Featured content: Articles on Scots' clash, Yank's tux, Austrian's action flick deemed brilliant prose

• Essay: RfA trend line haruspicy: fact or fancy?

• Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables' "immortality" probed

• Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals

• Traffic report: Top view counts for shows, movies, and celeb lawsuit that keeps on giving

• Gallery: Celebration of summer, winter

• Humour: Shortcuts, screwballers, Simon & Garfunkel

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all your work in ensuring that contentious articles maintain a neutral point of view. Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Twitter

Howdy. I read over 'three times' the Twitter article & can't find any criticism of Twitter, mentioned in the article. Maybe you or another, can find it. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, I haven't followed the Twitter article so I couldn't say. However, with all the recent Elon Musk stuff I'm really surprised that there wouldn't be at least some criticism. Springee (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW - I need to clarify my comment over at Jordan Peterson's talkpage. I do support the total inclusion of his remarks. I was merely pointing out the odds of his remarks being kept in the article. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears there's an editor over at the Peterson page, unilaterally shutting down any post(s), that the editor doesn't like. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I commend you

I commend you for your hard work in trying to keep balance and neutrality here on Wikipedia regarding subjects that need a lot of tip toeing around. Keep up the good work (and may science and common sense win out!) Masterhatch (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

GD, says hello

Just wanted to say 'hello' & that I'm still getting older :) GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks GD! Hope all is going well. Springee (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

All is definitely well. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Matt Gaetz

What is RS and what is DUE material? Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Maurice! wp:RS is reliable source and wp:DUE refers to a section of the wp:NPOV policy. I will admit, like many I cite "DUE" when the correct section is WP:PROPORTION. OK, so the second part means we shouldn't give minor things about a subject too much space (or any) in the article. Another one that might apply here is the wp:10YEAR test. Reliable source is an issue because Newsweek is considered questionable (see WP:NEWSWEEK). If we were using Newsweek for solid facts it may be OK. Honestly, I would trust it for the quote in question. However, I wouldn't use it to establish that this comment is really due for inclusion. Springee (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

• From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something

• News and notes: Information considered harmful

• In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains", FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap

• Op-Ed: The "recession" affair

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3)

• Election guide: The chosen six: 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

• Community view: Youth culture and notability

• Opinion: Criminals among us

• Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors, deletion dustup draws toward denouement

• Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country

• Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile editors, noticeboards for the rest of us

• Traffic report: US TV, JP ex-PM, outer space, and politics of IN, US, UK top charts for July

• Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists

• Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot

• In focus: Wikidata insights from a handy little tool

• On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three (more) stories

• Essay: How to research an image

• Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed

• Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia

• Gallery: A backstage pass

• From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened

• Humour: Why did the chicken cross the road?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Gaetz Article Edits

The second edit was a code correction; the first edit had an appropriate comment, stating that there was a correction about Gaetz’s assertion. The article as it exists is misleading with regards to a key fact about American-Israeli-Palestinian foreign policy. Ðrdak (T) 19:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Drdak, I see my mistake. I've reverted my edit with a comment retracting my previous edit summary. However, that whole sentence/paragraph lacks citations so I added a cn tag. Springee (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate it! Ðrdak (T) 20:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

• News and notes: Admins wanted on English Wikipedia, IP editors not wanted on Farsi Wiki, donations wanted everywhere

• Special report: Wikimania 2022: no show, no show up?

• In the media: Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth

• Discussion report: Boarding the Trustees

• News from Wiki Education: 18 years a Wikipedian: what it means to me

• In focus: Thinking inside the box

• Tips and tricks: The unexpected rabbit hole of typo fixing in citations...

• Technology report: Vector (2022) deployment discussions happening now

• Serendipity: Two photos of every library on earth

• Featured content: Our man drills are safe for work, but our Labia is Fausta.

• Recent research: The dollar value of "official" external links

• Traffic report: What dreams (and heavily trafficked articles) may come

• Essay: Delete the junk!

• Gallery: A Fringe Affair (but not the show by Edward W. Feery that was on this year)

• Humour: CommonsComix No. 1

• From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

• News and notes: Board vote results, bot's big GET, crat chat gives new mop, WMF seeks "sound logo" and "organizer lab"

• In focus: NPP: Still heaven or hell for new users – and for the reviewers

• In the media: A few complaints and mild disagreements

• Special report: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution

• Discussion report: Much ado about Fox News

• Interview: ScottishFinnishRadish's Request for Adminship

• Opinion: Are we ever going to reach consensus?

• Serendipity: Removing watermarks, copyright signs and cigarettes from photos

• Recent research: How readers assess Wikipedia's trustworthiness, and how they could in the future

• Traffic report: Kings and queens and VIPs

• Featured content: Farm-fresh content

• Gallery: A Festival Descends on the City: The Edinburgh Fringe, Pt. 2

• CommonsComix: CommonsComix 2: Paulus Moreelse

• From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 Years ago: September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

How'd you find TJ&S?

Out of curiosity, how'd you find yourself on the page Thomas Jefferson and Slavery? Loki (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to your talk page so I won't have to ping replies. Springee (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Black Rifle Coffee Edit

I was wondering why you would think the two Black Rifle Coffee Companylawsuits came from non reliable source? The source is United States district court 20:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzhou1991 (talk • contribs)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I appreciate your work on the Donald C. Bolduc article! Grahaml35 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The thread is Toa Nidhiki05. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Appreciate your thoughtful engagement on the page. Toa Nidhiki05 20:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

• From the team: A new goose on the roost

• News and notes: Wikipedians question Wikimedia fundraising ethics after "somewhat-viral" tweet

• News from the WMF: Governance updates from, and for, the Wikimedia Endowment

• In the media: Scribing, searching, soliciting, spying, and systemic bias

• Disinformation report: From Russia with WikiLove

• Recent research: Disinformatsiya: Much research, but what will actually help Wikipedia editors?

• Interview: Isabelle Belato on their Request for Adminship

• Featured content: Topics, lists, submarines and Gurl.com

• Serendipity: We all make mistakes – don’t we?

• Traffic report: Mama, they're in love with a criminal

• From the archives: Paid advocacy, a lawsuit over spelling mistakes, deleting Jimbo's article, and the death of Toolserver

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

• News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking banners"

• In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"

• Interview: Lisa Seitz-Gruwell on WMF fundraising in the wake of big banner ad RfC

• Opinion: Privacy on Wikipedia in the cyberpunk future

• Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed

• Op-Ed: Diminishing returns for article quality

• Book review: Writing the Revolution

• Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality

• Essay: The Six Million FP Man

• Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff

• Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk Observatory"

• Featured content: A great month for featured articles

• Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler

• Concept: The relevance of legal certainty to the English Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Musical deaths, murders, Princess Di's nominative determinism, and sports

• From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

• CommonsComix: Joker's trick

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy New Year!

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Springee!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation ousts, bans quarter of Arabic Wikipedia admins

• In the media: Odd bedfellows, Elon and Jimbo, reliable sources for divorces, and more

• Interview: ComplexRational's RfA debrief

• Technology report: Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"

• Essay: Mobile editing

• Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee Election 2022

• Recent research: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes

• Serendipity: Wikipedia about FIFA World Cup 2022: quick, factual and critical

• Featured content: Would you like to swing on a star?

• Traffic report: Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!

• CommonsComix: #4: The Course of WikiEmpire

• From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

• From the team: We heard zoomers liked fortnights: the biweekly Signpost rides again

• Special report: Coverage of 2022 bans reveals editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

• News and notes: Revised Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines up for vote, WMF counsel departs, generative models under discussion

• In the media: Court orders user data in libel case, Saudi Wikipedia in the crosshairs, Larry Sanger at it again

• Technology report: View it! A new tool for image discovery

• In focus: Busting into Grand Central

• Serendipity: How I bought part of Wikipedia – for less than $100

• Gallery: What is our responsibility when it comes to images?

• Humour: New geologically speedy deletion criteria introduced

• Opinion: Good old days, in which fifth-symbol-lacking lipograms roam'd our librarious litany

• Featured content: Flip your lid

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2022

• From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Springee. At one point in your ANI filing, you use the word "antisymmetric/", where I assume you mean "antisemitic". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, "Philo" is probably a more reasonable shortening of the user name. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

D'oh! and D'oh! Springee (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Vizorblaze

Sorry, I was asleep. I've been meaning to look at that editor but just to busy elsewhere. Too big a watchlist. Absolutely unacceptable behavior. But Philomathes does seem to play down antisemitism. The Spotlight, Liberty Lobby, etc are almost defined by their antisemitic views and that should be made clear in their articles.. Bill Buckley, (a nice guy, I met him a couple of times) and National Review (which I disagree with but respect) were right in saying so. Yes, Spotlight was a lot about anti-globalism, a useful code word, that's all. In cases like these we should call a spade a spade. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. I didn't realize admins were allowed to sleep. Is that a new policy? ( :D )

I'm generally not familiar with any of those sources so I can't say for certain. I do think Wikipedia editors are, as a group, too quick to apply labels etc to things rather than laying out the evidence and letting readers see the obvious conclusions. I guess that's something that is easy to do when dealing with 1930s European facists but harder when dealing with topics that never got much coverage one way or the other. Looking into Philo's behavior I see an editor who is acting in good faith but is totally not reading the room. Once they have presumed themselves to be right they seem to assume the rules are on their side. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy might also apply here. I hope they will tone it down and understand wiki etiquette quickly. Take care! (courtesy ping @Doug Weller ) Springee (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I think labels are fine if they are well-sourced. And leads should contain labels where they are significant to the subject. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

• From the editor: New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a decent article search function

• News and notes: Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides, and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan

• Section 230: Twenty-six words that created the internet, and the future of an encyclopedia

• Disinformation report: Wikipedia on Santos

• Special report: Legal status of Wikimedia projects "unclear" under potential European legislation

• In the media: Furor over new Wikipedia skin, followup on Saudi bans, and legislative debate

• Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter

• Opinion: Study examines cultural leanings of Wikimedia projects' visual art coverage

• Recent research: Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Organized Labour

• Tips and tricks: XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles

• Featured content: 20,000 Featureds under the Sea

• Traffic report: Films, deaths and ChatGPT

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic alert

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

FormalDude, no reason for this as it's already covered by my BLP and AP2 awareness tags at the top of the page. Springee (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Chloe Cole and TheTranarchist

I have started a discussion about TheTranarchist's editing. I would clean up the Chloe Cole article myself, but it seems pointless until the root issue has been dealt with. It may be better to just start over. Round and rounder (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

• News and notes: Terms of Use update, Steward elections, and Wikipedia back in Pakistan

• In the media: Arbitrators open case after article alleges Wikipedia "intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage

• Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?

• Essay: Machine-written articles: a new challenge for Wikipedia

• Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK

• Featured content: Eden, lost.

• Gallery: Love is in the air

• Traffic report: Superbowl? Pfft. Give me some Bollywood! Yours sincerely, the world

• From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main Page!

• Cobwebs: Editorial: The loss of the moral high ground

• Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved your comment at ANI

Hey! just letting you know I moved the message you left at the transanarchist ANI out of the "asking for closure" section. I think it's a good idea to leave that section empty except for thetransanarchist's comment and comments about closing the discussion. My reasoning being that if everyone starts leaving a summary of their opinion there we'll probably be here for another two novels. :P --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

• News and notes: What's going on with the Wikimedia Endowment?

• Technology report: Second flight of the Soviet space bears: Testing ChatGPT's accuracy

• In the media: What should Wikipedia do? Publish Russian propaganda? Be less woke? Cover the Holocaust in Poland differently?

• Featured content: In which over two-thirds of the featured articles section needs to be copied over to WikiProject Military History's newsletter

• Recent research: "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events

• From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

What article?

You left me a message to go to the Talk page before reverting in an unnamed article. There are perhaps millions of Wikipedia articles. I may have reverted edits in thousands of them. Can you manage to be a bit more specific? Activist (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Springee. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)