User:Noteduck/sandbox

Thank you for being one of the many fellow editors who has raised problems with Springee's editing.

UPDATE 3: ::My claims of partisanship are robust and have been directed against editors who are, well, partisan. For other contentions of Springee's partisan bias, see[1][2][3] for behavorial problems on pages related to conservative politics[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13], including a formal sanction in the area of American politics[14] unwarranted deletion of material[15][16][17] especially misbehavior related to guns[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. Multiple overt claims of firearms advocacy[40][41][42][43] and whitewashing pages of firearms[44][45] are particularly concerning. If you go through these diffs, you'll see that unexplained block reverts and stonewalling are particular problems for Springee. It's worth noting that Springee has been accused of abusing the noticeboards and being overly litigious towards other editors before.[46] Note that these diffs are (a) not exhaustive in terms of Springee's record of misconduct and (b) fragmentary, so may not individually be absolutely damning. While my focus here is Springee, it's worth noting that they often operate as a kind of tag-team with others, invariably backing each other up on topics related to conservative politics.[47][48], [49][50], [51],[52],[53]

Needless to say, dealing with multiple editors making the same partisan arguments is frustrating. You have made made several comments about purported left-wing bias on Wikipedia.[54] Some of Shinealittlelight's claims about obviously reliable sources are frankly quite bizarre - see this extended (and baffling) complaint about a widely-cited report written by a University of North Carolina professor that was critical of PragerU[55] and this attempt to ensure that the term "white nationalist" would not be used in relation to the Kenosha unrest shooting suspect.[56] PragerU has met the criteria for a "repeat offender" of spreading misinformation on Facebook[57][58] and yet "misinformation" barely appears on the PragerU Wiki page. Remarkably, these editors have alleged poor sourcing on a proposed addition to the header that would mention misinformation that contains more than two dozen sources.[59] Absolutely every addition that it critical of Prager gets ruthlessly purged.

UPDATE4: I've perused through the WP:AN noticeboard and Springee appears on a jaw dropping 97(!) different archive pages, usually many times over. Cedar777 and Shadydabs have summed up what the problem is with Springee's editing, over and over: Springee reverts whole blocks of new material on a page related to conservative politics (despite their long history on Wiki, WP:ROWN appears to be unfamiliar to Springee), claims the source is not DUE, claims the source is not an RS, misrepresents the source's contents, and if this all fails Springee then claims there's no consensus, essentially demanding a veto for themselves, ensuring WP:Stonewalling is the result and that the contents of the page are purged of unflattering material. This is not Springee's first rodeo - they know the rules back to front and have made spurious arbitration requests against editors who come up against their whitewashing many, many times. It's late in Australia and I've already lost sleep over this, but I can provide many concrete examples in the morning, as well as many examples of RS that Springee has removed because they were unflattering to conservatives. Noteduck (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, that's a mischaracterization - I did not "accuse" editors of anything. I reminded editors of policy, namely WP:ROWN - here is the source[60] Noteduck (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE5: some of the sources Springee has removed from pages related to conservative politics because they are "biased", "subjective" or some other feeble reason: the Southern Poverty Law Center,[61][62][63][64][65][66] The New York Times and CNN,[67][68] National Review(!),[69] The Washington Post,[70] Newsweek,[71], The Washington Post and NBC,[72] The Washington Post and Bellingcat[73], Vox and The Daily Beast[74], the Los Angeles Times,[75] The Intercept,[76] the [[BBC],[77] Rolling Stone, Jacobin and Columbia Journalism Review[78], BuzzFeed News,[79] The Guardian(including restoring grammatical errors!)[80], Salon (website),[81] Forbes,[82] the Seattle Times,[83] Reports sans Frontieres,[84] New Republic and NBC News,[85] the Chicago Sun-Times[86] Politico and four other sources,[87] The Independent,[88] Daily Dot,[89][90][91] Reuters and Fox News(!)[92] Middle East Eye,[93] The Huffington Post,[94] Mother Jones,[95] and smaller-scale newspapers like the 8-time Pulitzer Prize winner Kansas City Star,[96][97]Des Moines Register[98] and The Arizona Republic(known for its conservatism!)[99][100] and academic articles[101]. These are almost all going back to November 2020 alone! There are simply too many of them to list, as Springee's pattern of deleting material unflattering to conservatives has become increasingly brazen. Springee also fought a protracted rearguard action to keep a Harvard University study about promotion of climate change denial out of the ExxonMobil page in favor of an article from a fossil fuel lobby group,[102] as well as contesting at length the inclusion of an article from the New York Times on the same article.[103] Concerningly, Springee seems to have a record of whitewashing the pager of powerful climate-change denying groups[104][105][106][107][108] - Wall Street Journal here[109][110] The consistent feature of absolutely every one of Springee's reversions is not evidentiary weight but ideological bent - the material challenged is always something reliably sourced, but arguably unflattering, to a conservative subject. I've provided around 50 diffs as evidence. Here are some accusations of "whitewashing" by other editors levelled towards Springee.[111][112][113][114][115][116] Springee will throw the book at the offending editor in terms of spurious complaints about Wiki policies, frequently launch RfCs in order to contest sources and drag out the process as long as possible. Look back through Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray (author), and PragerU and you'll see this pattern play out time and time again. The results are horribly whitewashed pages representing powerful, moneyed conservative interests - consider that on the current PragerU page, a flattering paragraph given over to the company's unsuccessful lawsuit against Google has 3 paragraphs and 310 words, while just a single sentence is dedicated to PragerU's well-documented[117][118][119][120][121][122] record of misinformation on climate change.

Record of Springee's spurious edits and reversons: 2021

[123][124]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_Assumption,_Aglona

[125]

bht^{[i dont get it]}

PragerU has promoted false and misleading information about climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. It has been criticized for inaccuracies, anti-Muslim sentiment, promoting views associated with the alt-right, and hosting speakers with far-right ties.

ungus bungus bungus

A number of academic and journalistic sources have linked Murray's ideology and political views to the far right

[126]