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)

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 [[1]] 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)

March 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD Wikihounding

HughD, you previously accused me of wiki-hounding (here for example [2] and in this complaint [3]). You asked that I not be allowed to follow you around and you cited Callanecc as "an admin" asking me to stop. Since March 2nd you have followed me to the [Ford Pinto] topic, a topic I've been involved with for some time. You have, until earlier this month, no history of editing automotive topics. Your behavior on that topic has resulted in a page lock and frustration among other editors Greglocock in particular. You have since followed me to the Chrysler article and directly reverted one of my edits (my edit, [4]: your reversion [5]). This reversion was made without talk page comment. Given your claims of wikihounding it is now clear you are trying to wikihound me. I would suggest you follow Fyddlestix's advice[6], avoid each other. Following me to topics I've edited certainly is NOT avoiding. If this continues to other articles I will open an ANI. Springee (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please focus on content, WP:FOC; thank you. Regarding your recent section blanking of the "Product recalls" section from our article Chrysler, is it your position that Chrysler has had no noteworthy recalls? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hugh, this is my talk page and the subject of this discussion is your disruptive editing and following me to various automotive articles. If you disagree with the Chrysler edit perhaps you should join the talk page discussion where I started a topic related to the material you are adding against WP:Project Automobile guidelines. Springee (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Springer, I found this info. on Wikipedia's WP:NPOV page, which "clearly" states Jimbo Wales commenting about having an editor having a minority point of view and placing its information on Wikipedia.

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

I hope that the above info. will help with the disruptive editing done by HughD and placing an unnecessary NPOV tag on the main Chrysler article page.

Advice

Given your long history of disputes with HughD, I recommend heeding the counsel given at the recent ANI regarding the two of you. Even though an IBAN wasn't officially imposed, I think you should act like one was (even if HughD isn't). HughD is likely facing an expanded block or ban at WP:AE, and that will happen regardless of any actions you take. So my advice is to take a break from any articles the both of you have been editing on, wait for him to face his sanctions, then clean up the mess later. There is no deadline. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86, thanks. I was taking the bait wasn't I. It was disappointing to see that he felt it was perfectly OK to return to old topics and start fighting again. I had intended to fully disengage (auto topics excluded). I'm sorry that Hugh wasn't willing to do the same. Please note I have not made any article edits, only limited comments on talk pages (Pinto edits excluded) Springee (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Believe me, I understand your pain. I can only guess the user in question sees the writing on the wall in terms of future anticipated blocks/bans and has decided to go a bit kamikaze as a last hurrah. That's the only motive I can think of for the recent behavior. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86, for an traveling editor he certainly has a lot of time to campaign... [7], [8] Springee and try to stack the deck [9] (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I doubt any traveling is taking place, except to newer and more distant forms of logical fallacies. Or maybe a car show, given the newfound interest! I suspect it's a WP:TEND attempt to copy you (when you said you were traveling and away from the internet in this ANI thread, he openly guffawed). In any event, looks like he'll soon be blocked for 30 days so I'd continue to wait it out before reengaging on articles where he's active. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86, I had similar thoughts about the travel part. Springee (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86, this seems a very bold claim [10] given this [11] and the strong suggestion here [12]. Springee (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. If his most recent trip to AE doesn't sufficiently chasten him (and it doesn't appear it is going to, unsurprisingly), I am prepared to file an ANI report based on his long-term harassment of me, starting with him copying my user page and continuing with his frequent unfounded claims that I'm some sort of self-appointed gate-keeper of conservative articles on Wikipedia. Only one of us has a topic ban in that area and yeah, it's not me. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86, I have no doubt a disruptive editor will be reading this shortly. Regardless, any suggestions on how to get him to respect the community consensus and leave the automotive space? [13]

Safehaven86, do you think this addition is information or politics? [14] Springee (talk) 16:29, 25 April 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)

Talk:SIG MCX

Springee - I didn't want to clutter up the thread too much, but I didn't understand your point about the initial media reports that the gun used was an AR-15 rather than a SIG MCX. My general view is that all journalists make mistakes, however those who correct their mistakes are better than those who don't. Were you suggesting that the Washington Post and other sources that reported the police chief's incorrect identification of the weapon are therefore unreliable?

Regarding the firearm project's advice page, it's interesting advice but it was agreed upon by a group of about seven editors several years ago. I don't think it should bind our editing decisions today. If the principle is sound then we don't need to refer to that advice page - we can just refer to the basic Wikipedia policies to reach the right conclusion. That's my view, at least. Felsic2 (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs), you have elected to cut off communication on your talk page. Until such time as you are willing to discuss what ever issues you have with me on your talk page you are prohibited from posting on my talk page. I'm sorry it has come to this and hope that we can put these issues behind us in the future. Springee (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs), I would note that despite your attacks on my character related to the exclusion of material from the F-650 and Caprice articles, it appears the community strongly supports the same view I had. Please keep that in mind the next time you accuse an editor of malice because they don't see things your way. (PS: You may reply here to this topic) Springee (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:HUSH and WP:POLEMIC. You've been told to cease bothering me with your talk page warnings. Don't come to my talk page to announce what you think I've done wrong, and don't use your talk page for the same purpose. Using Template:User to trigger a ping, as a transparent ploy to work-around your being banned from my talk page, is harassment. Either make your case at a noticeboard, or stop following me around, criticizing me and complaining about me. If you would spend your time building an encyclopedia, instead of obsessively fighting these narrowly-focused battles, you wouldn't have personal conflicts of this nature. Do you see any other editor who literally has nothing else to do on Wikipedia except fight over this F-650 thing? You're the only one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You should probably review HUSH and POLEMIC a bit more carefully before throwing out another accusation of bad faith. I certainly can't understand why you are fighting over "this F-650 thing". You are trying to tell others to just accept the content as not worth fighting over (yet you went to 3RR in 1 hour due to this content). You are almost trying to shame the majority who doesn't agree with you into dropping the topic. You have made a lot of ugly accusations against me as part of this process. I would ask you to look in the mirror and see just how many apply to your behavior in this matter. Springee (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs), I don't want to continuously argue with you. Please drop it. Springee (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:50, 16 October 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)

Vandalism

The edit you reverted here was not vandalism: [15]. Please review the Wikipedia definition of "vandalism" at WP:VANDAL. Basically, if the edit was intended to improve the encyclopedia then it isn't vandalism, even if you disagree with it. Falsely labelling an editor as a vandal is a form of personal attack. Felsic2 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually I would say that was vandalism. The edit wasn't intended to improve anything. That IP editor is hounding me (note that the IP followed me from the Mini-14 article). Also note that there was no discussion before restoring the material and that much of that material was already added to the article thus restoring as was results in a great deal of redundant text. That isn't an attempt to improve, that is a trolling editor. Springee (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that following an editor is evidence of bad intent? If so, I'd encourage you to look at your own behavior. And no, \adding well-cited, factual, relevant material is not "vandalism", even if you don't like it. If you're not sure on that point we can ask an admin. Felsic2 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That depends on the nature of the edit. In this case the IP editor was likely unhappy that I had the page semi protected and thus followed me to Eddie Eagle to revenge revert. The Chicago based IP editor was not revenge reverting but I think you can admit the UK based editor was not trying to build rather was simply trying to be a pest. If that IP wanted to build the talk page was there and you even asked that he join the conversation. Has he? Springee (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:28, 13 December 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)

Template:Spa

Hey Springee, so if you look at Template:spa, you'll notice that it says it should be substed whenever it is used. I actually do understand that it might look a little underhanded to be substing a template that's nominated for deletion, but I explicitly said on the deletion page that I was going through the transclusions per the template's instructions. Please be more careful--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:12, 8 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 ([[16]], [[17]])). Regardless of if we have proof that this is HughD, the SPI discussed here [[18]] 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, [[19]]. 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 [20] 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 [[21]]. 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)

Alert

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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, 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.

Merely a formality -- it does not look like you've been notified in the past 12 months. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

3RR

It looks like this was your 4th revert in the past 24 hours [22]; please consider self-reverting. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, you are correct. Sorry about that. I still think the changes need to be made. Let me know what you think of the updates. Springee (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting. I will comment further about the raid, etc on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 24 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)

Potential advocacy at National Rifle Association

Hi Springee, I'm referring you to these two threads:

• Talk:National_Rifle_Association#The_ATF_and_Senate_confirmations
• Talk:National_Rifle_Association#Somewhat_off-topic_discussion_on_neutrality

These edits and positions look like WP:SOAP, which is not allowed per the AE gun control case that you've been alerted about. Please consider self-reverting and discussing the challenged edits further on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC) @K.e.coffman:, I disagree. Removing the information results in a NPOV issue. Telling one side without telling the other isn't OK. Perhaps we need to get some additional eyes on the article. Springee (talk) 04:26, 26 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)

Advocacy concerns at AR-15 style rifle

Re: this edit, if you wish to impune motives to a sources, please use WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN. The comments that I have a concern about were:

• sourced to an article that is clearly arguing for restrictions on civilian ownership
• The NYT article is clearly has a POV etc.

I've already alerted you to similar concerns earlier. Please keep the DS restrictions in mind. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, in this case I stand by those statements. I can add the NPOV tag to the article if that would help but it is clear the NYT article is not a neutral telling of the differences but is an article making a case for restrictions. Those are topics that are within the scope of the talk page discussion. Springee (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that you consider an expert source (C.J. Chivers) to be non-neutral, while you have recently advocated for using NRA's statements in articles :-). Could you explain this apparent contradiction to me? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, let me start with an assumption of good faith. I know we don't agree on some of this but I do trust that you are trying to make the article better for our readers. That is my goal as well. I'll apologize up front if any of my tone comes across poorly. OK, to your questions, Chivers may be well informed but we should keep in mind the nature of the work vs the stated purpose of the section. The NYT article is clearly trying to make a case that the differences between the military and civilian ARs are insignificant and that they are both very deadly etc. Mentioning the recent school shooting before that clearly sets the tone for the article. So if we were just asking Chivers to tell us the differences that would be one thing. However, both the NYT article and much of the information in the the Wiki article is not an apolitical description. You are also correct that I advocated (and still do) citing the NRA directly in the NRA article. However, in that case I'm saying the article should state the NRA's stated position on relevant topics. If the article discusses the "gun show loophole" then summarizing the NRA's stated position on the topic (cited to the NRA) is neutral. It is neutral to say reference a statement of a political candidate from their campaign website (ie John Doe said X in response to Y on their website).

I guess to some extent I'm having trouble seeing why you see these as inconsistent position. I see the AR-15 article as apolitical. Yes, mass shootings are political (among other things) but a statement and link to the shooting covers that. Since the AR-15 is the focus of gun control efforts right now it also makes sense to have a dedicated section to that topic in the article. It shouldn't advocate for or against but just state and link to other articles. The rest of the article should be technical or fact based and decidedly apolitical. My issue with the differences section is isn't apolitical.

The NRA article is another matter. Much of what the NRA is involved with is very political. In that case we should strive to present both sides of a debate. Using my gun show example from above. Lot's of articles have criticized the NRA for not wanting to close the GSL. Well it would make sense to include the NRA's statements saying why they don't want to close it. The NRA's view should be presented as neutrally as possible (ie no messengers altering the message) hence citing the NRA itself (with clear attribution).

I hope this helps you see where I'm coming from. Springee (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Springee, I'd like to return to this diff posted at the beginning by K.e.coffman. In it, you write:

• "The NYT article is clearly has a POV. The basic facts it presents could be sourced to any number of neutral sources."

Am I to understand that you object to use of non-neutral and/or biased sources? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, I think this is a question that should be discussed back at the article talk page. To answer your question, it depends on context. Springee (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that there is no policy which requires sources or content to be "neutral". NPOV expressly allows non-neutral and biased sources. "Neutral" in NPOV refers to editors, not content or sources. Editors are supposed to edit in a neutral manner, and thus they must preserve and reproduce the bias in a source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:, I don't think you are correct in this regard but this is really a comment about the edits at the AR-15 article so we should have the conversation there where others can weigh in. Springee (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Springee, I believe you may be misinterpreting how WP:NPOV works. Here's a supplementary essay that you may find useful: User:MjolnirPants/Academic Neutrality. Your editing on the NRA and the AR-15 pages have not been neutral, I'm afraid. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral." Source: WP:Neutrality of sources

For an in-depth exposition on this, read my essay: WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Since these are content specific questions they should be discussed on the article page where other editors can weigh in. Please move the discussion there. Springee (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is not a content related discussion. Please refer to these two sections of the Arbitration Request decision:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Neutral_point_of_view
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Advocacy

The recent editing has come across as non-neutral and promotional, that's why I'm raising these concerns here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. The questions are content related noting that neutrality can be a content issue. If you think a specific edit had a neutrality issue it should be discussed at the article talk page. I have real trouble understanding the claim of promotional. Anyway, please move this discussion back to the article page. Springee (talk) 05:49, 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[23]? 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)

Self-published sources

You've been around long enough to know the difference between what we call self-published, specifically " self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." and something like the SPLC. We wouldn't call the New York Times self-published either. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, looking through the RSN archive it appears that the SPLC intelligence reports are disputed as a RS. But they might be a notable opinion so I used a season to try to establish weight with respect to the topic. I found no external sources noting the SPLC's opinion. When I get the chance I'll bring this up in the talk page. Springee (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the SPLC is considered a reliable source but in general should be attributed. Sure there are editors who dispute that, but as I said, they are considered a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I need to review it more... I'm doing this from my phone... The threads I saw seemed to say reliable for somethings and opinion for other. Since I couldn't find external sources repeating the claim weight came into play. The best thing to do, and my plan after the edit was reverted, was start a talk page discussion. If nothing else, the group's response to the accusations should be added. Springee (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a RS, also for opinion. If there is any doubt, then attribute the opinion in a neutral manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:53, 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.

Template:Z33 - 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)

Truck bomb vs firearm

Continuing here so that not to clutter the Talk page...

On the topic of truck bombs, imagine if Ford manufactured an F150 series of truck bombs for, I dunno, target practice by civilians. But what if one of its truck bombs was used to firebomb a church? And then some more? We'd surely talk about the prevalence of church bombings on the F150 truck bomb page.

Related to WP:GUNS#Criminal use, I recently became aware of how the last sentence - "Therefore, the addition of said information should be limited to a simple link in the 'See also section" - came into being. Woah, that was quite a leap. If you compare with WP:GUNS#Popular culture, it does not say "a single link". I actually like WP:MILPOP that's cited there; it works well in the area of military history that I edit. I believe that WP:GUNS#Criminal use should be more akin to WP:GUNS#Popular culture / WP:MILPOP.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on these two matters. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up: nothing at WP:GUNS has authority at Wikipedia. PAG come first. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, thanks for the engagement. I think I get what you are saying. A truck is basically just something designed to move a heavy load and rarely would that load be a bomb while the gun is designed to shoot things and we shouldn't be surprised when the targets are people. However, we do have cases of trucks/cars being used to hit pedestrians and we don't add that to the truck articles. I admit I think that part of the sensitivity in the gun area is the politics involved. Most editors just want what they think will make the encyclopedia a better work (even people who disagree) but we also see agenda driven edits (on both sides). Anyway, as I see it we have two topics, the crime and a device used as part of the crime. The question is does the mention of one in association with the other go two ways. Since the consensus is largely no in the case of cars used in a crime I'm not sure why it should be yes for guns. Bonnie and Clyde is an interesting case. They have a two way association with both the Model A V8 Ford coupe and the Browning BAR. But articles about the car and the gun often mention Bonnie and Clyde. I don't see that when reading articles about many of the guns in question. I also don't see that when reading about Chevy Caprices and the DC sniper attacks.

I agree that I'm not comfortable with the "see also section" comment. I understand why it was put there. I'm not sure what the right balance is but I'm fully behind the general concern that resulted in that line. That said, if you make a suggestion for a change on the project talk page I will take a look. I think your point here is valid and the current text could use work. Springee (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"I do not wish to reopen that RfC but I think there is firm grounds for a challenge..."

Sorry, that is weasel: [24]. If you do not wish to reopen the RfC, then it may not be a good idea to disparage the close and the closer; see WP:ASPERSIONS. If you believe that you have grounds to vacate the close, then please request a review, instead of posting such comments on a Talk page. I suggest you either remove the comment or notify the editor. Talking about them behind their back is not appropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, I'm not but consider this this from the other side. I suspect you have a feel for what you think my views are on many of these issues. So assume I hadn't edited in this space but I closed one of the close RfC's on the topic. Then I made the edits you seen since. Would you feel, in retrospect, that I was an unbiased closing editor? I tried very hard to pick my words because, as I said, I do think MrX was trying to close based on policy but when it comes to close calls I think honest biases (mine, yours, any editor interested in the topic) come through. Based on your suggestion I will ping MrX. I'm not OK simply removing the comment since you are using the results of that RfC in a way that suggests these RfCs should be a forgone conclusion. Springee (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If I disagreed with a close, I would request a formal review, not go around someone's back to complain about it on Talk pages of unrelated articles. Would you not want to have the same courtesy afforded to you?

If you wish to retain this comment, please notify MrX about it. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, see my edit to the comment. It now pings MrX. Springee (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I had failed pings before when doing it this way: [25], so it's not 100% certain. Help:Fixing failed pings discusses in more detail; you might also want to to leave MrX a TP message to notify them. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, good call. I'll leave a talk page comment just in case. Springee (talk) 03:35, 5 April 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)

Warning

Reverting my fix of your personal attack title is very inappropriate. [26] Such activity adds to the list of problematic edits and attacks against editors who push you toward policy compliance. Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: The header was acceptable for ANI and should not be refactored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I have a strict policy that prevents me from lying, but I could likely craft a pretty mean header about Springee's activity. If he keeps dragging out his baseless ANi by posting to prevent archiving I may need to do some creative writing :) Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, you are welcome to make civil comments on my page that are related to articles of interest. If you wish to continue to discuss refactoring my ANI please do it on either your own or @NeilN:'s page. Springee (talk) 03:36, 9 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 [27] [28] [29] [30] 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: [31] --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)

Edit war

You are close to breaching 3RR.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC) @Slatersteven:, Thanks for the heads up. I'm aware and verified before the last revision. Springee (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing

Looking back through your talk page history, it appears my warning for canvassing is at least the third you've received. All warnings were subsequently reverted by you. At this point, I am considering reporting you to the administrator's notice board. Had this been your first violation I wouldn't do that (after all, you could easily be unaware there is a policy against it), but since it's clearly not, it may be appropriate. Do you have an argument that I should not do this? I'm asking this in good faith. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, in what capacity do you think I was canvasing? Springee (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I posted this already on my own talk page in response to you, but here you are again. The definition of WP:votestacking:

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

That is precisely what you did here, following your comment here. You knew or believed that group of editors had a "predetermined point of view or opinion" and "selectively notified" them to "encourage them to participate in the discussion". Textbook. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, Ah, I see the confusion. No, that isn't canvassing. Per WP:APPNOTE, "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". I'll add more detail on the article talk page. Springee (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be the case if the editors you notified were non-partisan. However, it appears the editors you pinged all had a "predetermined point of view or opinion", and your earlier edit makes it clear that you were fully aware of that. That sure looks to me like it meets the textbook definition of WP:Votestacking. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, I think you will find I notified all editors, not just those who agreed with me, who were not already involved in the current discussion. Springee (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears that all editors who voted "oppose" were notified. I participated in that discussion but was not notified. I'll go ahead and ping the others. –dlthewave ☎ 19:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. See my talk page - there's no point in having two parallel discussions. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It does look like I missed Dlthewave. I confused editors involved with the two AR-15 discussions. I didn't notify those involved in the Port Arthur discussion because it wasn't related and could be seen as cavassing. Springee (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Be aware that this could well look like canvasing, in future you should be more careful (it's one reason why I tend not to ping users to new discussions, it avoids forgetting anyone). The warning is valid, and as long as you acknowledge your mistake I think we can drop this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: It turns out Springee has had multiple previous warnings for canvassing on his talk page. He reverted them so you have to check the history. So this is not the first time, and I'm still considering making a report. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Then this needs to be taken to ANI, as an ongoing problem related to a DS page.Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Will do. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, Other than Dlthewave, who didn't I fail to notify? The Port Arthur editors were not notified as that was unrelated. Springee (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing in the topic area should generally be avoided. See for example, Arbitration Enforcement discussion from March 2018: "Canvassing amongst project members or by using project pages will be heavily frowned upon". Given that the "oppose" votes in the prior Colt AR-15 discussion came largely from WP:GUNS members, pinging them may be "frowned upon" if taken to AE.

With your penchant for advocacy in the topic area (User_talk:Springee#Advocacy concerns at AR-15 style rifle and User_talk:Springee#Potential advocacy at National Rifle Association), this is close to getting into a disruptive territory. Especially when combined with the edit warring from earlier today. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, sorry, that doesn't fly. Disagreement isn't advocacy any more than your removal of firearms information from many pages is advocy. Springee (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter how many you did not notify, the fact you failed to notify one edd you had every reason to assume would be in opposition to you is the issue. It might have been an oversight, but if (as been suggested) this is part of a pattern it needs to be looked at.Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It does matter because intent matters. Are you comfortable taking an honest mistake to ANI? Missing a single nonvoting editor who's reply was buried in a back and forth? Springee (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not know what your intent was, only what you claim is "I was innocent" and what another user claims "He has done it before" (and a third who says this is part of a wider pattern). So yes I am comfortable with it, either you are innocent (in which case no harm is done, you will be exonerated) there is a question mark but no hard evidence (you might decide it is not worth trying it again) or you are demonstrably guilty (and thus need a sanction).Slatersteven (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, it looks like an attempt to use the ANI process to drive content disputes. WW's claims are just that. Springee (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, now I am bowing out. I have explained what you did wrong (and you did do something wrong, even if it was an accident). Any more comment here is futile, which is why I think ANI is the way to go. There all users can have their say and present their case to totally uninvolved admins who can judge the claims veracity better then I can.Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Votestacking

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Another: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Waleswatcher_and_3RR --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

GUns

I think you also may be getting close to a block, the page is under DS and you reverted how many times now?Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

AR-15

Springee, this is a compromise version we discussed on talk. If you insist on reverting this new version as well, please give a substantive objection and a suggestion for an alternative version that is better in your view. Please recall that all of this started because you objected to the "many" version because it was too vague, and this addresses that problem. Also note that you also reverted a grammar correction that has nothing to do with the controversial part. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Waleswatcher, The substantive objection is no consensus. No other reason is needed. Springee (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:CON, specifically the first paragraph: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Now, what are your concerns? Waleswatcher (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, Where is the independent voice that has said we have a consensus. You are simply edit warring at this point. Springee (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Again: what are your concerns? They cannot be "there is no consensus", that is circular. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, The discussion is on the talk page. I see no reason to repeat the opinions of myself and others if you aren't willing to listen. BTW, the article will now be locked for 7 days. I guess that means the locked version is the new stable version. Springee (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"BTW, the article will now be locked for 7 days." Maybe, or maybe you will actually be willing to help achieve a consensus by expressing some concerns or suggesting some alternatives, and then we can ask an admin to unlock it. As for stable version, I don't know if there is an official policy, but I assume you are being sarcastic since you stated locking the article does not stabilize it. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher, I'm willing to compromise but that doesn't mean a slight change to what you have already tried to put in. My comment about "stable version" was based on your questionable claim that after "6 days" the article was stable. Springee (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see the new section talk page of the article (direct link [32]). Best to discuss there. Thanks in advance for being willing to compromise. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:17, 23 May 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)

primary/secondary sources

Some quotes from wiki policy that might help you understand this (that I don't want to clutter the article talk page with):

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

Hope that helps. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, You are confused. Journal and other academic papers are typically considered the best sources to cite. The "paper reviewing existing research" does not mean a news story summarizing a journal paper. It means if we are trying to summarize say all the different research in a given field we shouldn't compile that information ourselves, we should cite a third party doing the same. But let's skip that and go to the passages that make it clear we should cite the research paper vs articles talking about it if we want the content of the paper (vs talking about the paper's existence). From WP:RS, source types, When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. That's very clear that when available these are the best sources. Somewhere, and I appologize because I don't see it right now, I believe there is a quote that specifically says we should avoid using an intermediate source when we have access to the original RS (that is, if we have access to the journal article and its conclusions, don't use a reporter's summary of that article's conclusions). From WP:NEWORG, Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. may be the part I'm thinking of. Springee (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Academic journal articles - with some exceptions, like reviews or opinion pieces - are primary sources, and primary sources are not generally good sources for wikipedia. They're primary because to publish a paper in an academic journal you generally have to discover something new, which means your paper is the first place that information has been reported, and that makes it a primary source by definition. Gius' article is an example: it's the first place those numbers appeared (as far as I know, but if they appeared elsewhere he didn't know about it since he didn't cite it).

If you'll read just a little further down from where it says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources" you'll find "articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper." Waleswatcher (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong. Not much else to say. You are confusing using a third party to summarize multiple papers with directly reporting what a single paper says. I would strongly suggest you ask at WP:RSN. Springee (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to ask - the policy is clear. Anyway it seems you decided to move the discussion back to the article talk page, so I won't respond here any further. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

"Forum shopping"

Hi Springee, you mentioned "forum shopping" twice in this discussion: Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15#Propal. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it's not forum shopping when the last discussion occurred 20 months ago. Please review WP:FORUMSHOP. Also, you've bolded your comments twice, which could be confusing. Could you please unbold one of them? --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), thanks for reaching out. If you review the forum shopping link it says, "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards ... or any one of these repetitively,". This is essentially the same question. If something has changed and the RfC results should be revisited then the participants should be notified. To ignore the old result and attempt a new vote while ignoring the old result is improper consensus building. I see what you mean about the bolded comments looking like multiple votes but that isn't the case. Neither of my comments speak to inclusion or exclusion of content. Rather they speak to the validity of opening the proposal without adequately addressing the results of the previous RfC. As a final note, I want you to know that even though we don't always agree you are welcome to raise questions here. Springee (talk) 01:25, 26 October 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)

My Reply

My apologies for the delayed response. Anyway, i would just first just like to clarify that i have no concern for politics, gun-laws, or "significant association". I made those edits for the sole purpose of 'information'. I believe that is the purpose of Wikipedia - to inform. I don;t believe information should have to have "weight" in order to be given. May i nicely and calmly ask that you please undo your erasing of those edits. If you would like to move this discussion to the project:firearms page, i would be glad to accommodate. Thank you and good day. :@OmniFrieza994: talk 15:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@OmniFrieza994:, the problem with just adding information is that wikipedia policy says we should only add information when WP:DUE. I would be happy to discuss those inclusions at Project:Firearms. It would be good to get more voices involved. I would also suggest reviewing this recent RfC. [[33]] Also, as a general comment, there is a concern with a topic like guns that some editors will wish to make every article about a firearm into a list of the crimes committed with that firearm. This is definitely a point of contention among editors. Some want the article about the firearm to be exclusively about the device. Others are more interested in the social impact and see the device as having no note beyond its social impact. This ends up being an area of contention. Another concern is simply adding long lists to articles. This is generally discouraged regardless of article subject. Anyway, if you take the question to project firearms you will find some editors who probably favor your edits and others who object and likely some in the middle. Most importantly, it will help build consensus so what ever changes are made will have community support. Springee (talk) 19:55, 9 December 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)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 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.[[34]] 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)

References

You added this text without a reference "Most studies have shown the ban had little overall effect on criminal activity" Please note references are required. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

• From the editors: Help wanted (still)

• News and notes: Front-page issues for the community

• In focus: Wikimedia affiliate organizations seek community participation in 2019 board election

• Discussion report: Talking about talk pages

• Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Binge-watching

• Technology report: Tool labs casters-up

• Gallery: Signed with pride

• Recent research: Research finds signs of cultural diversity and recreational habits of readers

• Essay: Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

• From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love

• Humour: Pesky Pronouns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

AE

Commenting in an AE case on a matter that you have no involvement in looks a lot more like you trying to undermine me to settle some past score than concern for a hapless editor. Until that happened, I actually had a higher opinion of you.- MrX 🖋 14:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@MrX:, sorry, I didn't mean for it to come across that way and would be willing to strike my comments if you would prefer. AE is on my watch list. I was thinking about one of the admin comments there recently that in so many words was just saying that many lesser issues are coming to AE. This one certainly seems to me to be one that a talk page comment/warning should have been sufficient. If the editor can't figure that out then I would agree that sanctions are needed. Anyway, I didn't consider the angle you suggested so if you wish I will delete (assuming no replies and you are OK with doing the same) or strike my comments. Springee (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I call BS. I think you jumped in because you saw an opportunity to discredit me. Admins are perfectly capable of examining the behavior, the quality of the contributions, and the past editing history of the reported editor without your lobbying. If they think a warning is sufficient, that's fine. Since you watch AE, you no doubt saw the case involving Joefromrandb in which admins complained about editors "using AE to further petty feuds", "using AE to continue old unrelated feuds", and "use of AE to continue unrelated old feuds". My perception is that's exactly what you have done here. It's not helpful. It erodes mutual trust between editors. - MrX 🖋 16:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@MrX:, I have removed my comments. Please remove your reply to me. I hope this addresses your concerns. Springee (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, OK. I didn't really expect you to do that, but I will reciprocate. Thank you for being receptive to feedback.- MrX 🖋 16:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Springee. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor
• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
• In the media: Women's history month
• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
• Featured content: Out of this world
• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI

I filed an SPI for the suspected HughD sock, feel free to add your evidence here. –dlthewave ☎ 20:58, 6 April 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)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

• News and notes: An Action Packed April

• In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?

• Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages

• Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art

• Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde

• Technology report: A new special page, and other news

• Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns

• News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?

• Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy

• From the archives: Portals revisited

• Humour: Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ...

• Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps

• Interview: Katherine Maher marks 3 years as executive director

• Community view: 2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A request

Hi Springee, I'd appreciate it if you would not continue the "improper notification" meme; see WP:ASPERSIONS. My aim was to notify widely to remove the decision from the cluster of editors responsible for the current situation, which includes not only the title but also the state of the article itself (e.g. leading with an image of an older white man from 1973, relying on outdated sources to push the chairman issue, not signalling in the text how outdated the sources are, repeating the word chairman over 80 times).

During the first RM, in March, I notified the MoS, [35] GGTF, [36] WikiProject Feminism, [37] and WikProject Politics. [38]

During the current RM, on 8 May I notified GGTF, [39] WikiProject Business, [40] WikiProject Politics, [41] Women in Red, [42] WikiProject Feminism, [43] and CENT. [44] On 11 May, I notified the MoS, [45] VPM, [46] and WikiProject Law, [47] and on 12 May, NPOVN. [48]

According to WP:CANVASSING, appropriate notification includes drawing in a "wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors". Appropriate places for posting include the "talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion," and "central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions."

That is exactly what I aimed to do: draw in a wider range of informed but uninvolved editors. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:, I do think that the groups notified are likely to be one sided. I completely meant the part about thinking your intent was good faith. However, I think it's a bit like asking a bunch of Auburn grads to rate the quality of U of Alabama's football team as part of a "Which SEC team is better survey". They may have an opinion but it might not be unbiased :D . Anyway, I think a case could be made that those groups are not involved or impacted.

That said, I was serious when I said that I have a great deal of respect for you based on an earlier interaction so I will not mention it again. Springee (talk) 20:09, 13 May 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)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

• From the editors: Picture that

• News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

• In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

• Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

• Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

• Technology report: Lots of Bots

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

• Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

• Essay: Paid editing

• From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

• Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising

• In the media: The disinformation age

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

• Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters

• Technology report: Actors and Bots

• Gallery: Unlike the North Face, Wiki Loves Earth

• Special report: Did Fram harass other editors?

• Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia

• From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

• Opinion: Why the Terms of Use change didn't curtail undisclosed paid editing—and what might

• In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal

• Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes

• Op-Ed: 2019 Wikimedia Affiliate Selected Board Seats Election Results

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

• News and notes: Wikimedia grants less accessible for travel, equipment, meetups, and India

• In the media: Politics starts getting rough

• Discussion report: New proposals in aftermath of Fram ban

• Arbitration report: A month of reintegration

• Gallery: Classic panoramas from Heinrich Berann

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

• Community view: Video based summaries of Wikipedia articles. How and why?

• News from the WMF: Designing ethically with AI: How Wikimedia can harness machine learning in a responsible and human-centered way

• Recent research: Most influential medical journals; detecting pages to protect

• Special report: Administrator cadre continues to contract

• Traffic report: World cups, presidential candidates, and stranger things

• In focus: The French Wikipedia is overtaking the German

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	[49] 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 [[50]]. 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 [[51]] 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 [[52]] has the appearance of not being motivated by the topic. Springee (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing politics: Please self revert

Thanks for your post on my Talk; and I understand tht our views differ on the issue of whether to retain the contested content in-place in the article while the RfC runs its allotted time. Thanks, too, for proceeding by way of an invitation to self-revert.

But can you point me to any policy bearing specifically on this question? (And have you any comment on any of the reasons I laid out?)

- SquisherDa (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC) @SquisherDa:, See WP:onus and the admin discussion in the ANI BMK started. Springee (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers - I hadn’t grasped tht there was a discussion on WP:ANI. I’ll look at that when I can get back to it!  :-)

- SquisherDa (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

---

If someone requests for you to not "post here again," the respectful thing to do would be to not continue doing it. El_C 00:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C:, sorry, I missed his request. Self reverted. Springee (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. El_C 00:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Why are you still editing a user talk page where you know you are unwelcome?(!) El_C 04:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

El_C, I'm not sure the best way to handle this. BMK is failing on three fronts. First, they are failing to understand that if they are adding new material then per ONUS, NOCON and BRD (not policy) if the material is challenged, as it was by myself and Buffs they need to get consensus for adding it. Second, the are making personal attacks. Calling other editors POV pushers can't be seen as CIVIL [[53]]. Finally, BMK refactored my talk page comments here [[54]]. I don't want to take this to ANI but I do want BMK to start to listen and follow the rules. I'm actually quite happy to work with them to improve the article but not if they are going to ignore all editors they don't agree with and engage in uncivil behavior. I won't do it again but please ask BMK to cut out the hostilities etc. Springee (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately BMK has taken the approach of refusing to talk. While that is their prerogative I think it's a poor way to solve issues. Springee (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Going back to a user talk page where you know you are unwelcome was the wrong call. Please don't do that a third time. It can be seen as a form of provocation, so them being upset over it and reacting with hostility is actually understandable, if ill-advised. I think you both need to just stick to discussing the material on the article talk page. There no need for you two to engage each other elsewhere, on user talk pages at this time. I have fully protected the contested page for four days, so hopefully that is enough time to get an idea of where the addition stands in terms of at least a cursory level of consensus. El_C 04:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

El_C, I won't go back a third time (the first was a mistake as I didn't see the warning at the time I posted). However, the removal of my comment on the article talk page was prior to my posting on BMK's page. I have no idea how BMK thought that was OK. It was actually the reason I decided to post at their page. Refactoring talk page comments is a behavior issue, not an article issue so I don't want to talk about it on the article talk page. The logical place would be on user talk pages but BMK has decided to shut that off. It doesn't seem to rise to the level of ANI yet. Anyway, the "you can't revert my change without consensus" is an on going problem and not just with me. Springee (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any refactoring (you seem to have forgotten to include a diff of that). //Investigating. El_C 04:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

El_C, sorry. Here is the diff [[55]] (with a damn typo! I need to slow down when typing). Springee (talk)

Looks like it was some weird mixup and not an intentional refactoring. El_C 05:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

El_C, Well, looking at their reply I would buy this part, "but I'm not stupid enough to remove someone's comments in the middle of an argument with them". As for what version of the article should have been locked, well, policy is NOCON and ONUS. The status quo version is what we default to. That is where we are at. The few days should give other editors time to weigh in as well. Springee (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the version protected was random — just the one I encountered once I noticed the edit warring. El_C 05:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

message

@Simonm223:, I'm sorry that my outreach hasn't worked out [[56]]. If you are open to discussing things please ping me. Springee (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I am awaiting your response at WP:NPOV/N we can discuss other matters after you answer my question at that venue. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223:, OK. I assume you are asking about this question [[57]]. The short answer is, critical can/should be included per DUE. However, we need to be careful about how reliable the claims are and the way we report them. My comment about "alarmist" language (I think from a different article) stands here. We also need to be careful when dealing with a situation where a source in interpreting "gray" facts and too willingly accepting only the black or white version of the facts. Finally, Masem's comment here [[58]], "BLPs on people like Milo, who are seen in a strong negative light by the mainstream press , should not be written like scarlet letters or walls of shame. ". Springee (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please reply at WP:NPOV/N whether you consider Vice, Huffington Post and Jacobin to be tabloids. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223:, I don't think I said any were tabloids. I did call the Jacobin article tabloid like. What I did say was when deciding what to call Ngo we should favor the opinions of the sources with stronger evidence/histories of reliability and neutrality. Vice, HuffPo and certainly Jacobin are second tier in comparison to NYT, WashPo etc. Springee (talk) 16:02, 18 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)

POV editors

Beyond My Ken, it is rather ironic that you would accuse others of being a POV editor. The description seems to fit the content you have been pushing. Either way, please follow policy and get consensus for your changes when challenged. Springee (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sam Harris

Hi Springee, I won't insult you with a template, but you are in an edit war over at Sam Harris, it is a content dispute, and you're close to WP:3RR. Might I suggest you try an WP:SPI report on User:Where be me spice and User:Intellectualdarktrance? Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving your comment on RSN

Hello, I just wanted to inform you that I've moved one of your comments here[59], 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)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

• From the editors: Where do we go from here?

• Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

• In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

• Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

• News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

• Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

• Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

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

• In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 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)

Andy Ngo

I see no RfC closure, so what is up with that edit prematurely claiming a result on that front? El_C 01:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C:, a few days back I posted at the end of the RfC that it looked like a NOCON situation. No editors replied after several days so I went for a BOLD edit based on no one opposing my NOCON read. My concern is that it would simply be ignored and the contested material would make it in by default. If you think that was the wrong call please revert and we can request a formal closing. Springee (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You are involved in that dispute and did participate in the RfC, so I'm not sure it's appropriate for you to evaluate the RfC's result by translating it to the main space. I would rather a formal closure by an uninvolved editor takes place to determine that. Certainly, as the uninvolved admin recently overseeing this article, I want to nip any potential edit war related to your latest edit in the bud. Listing it at ANRFC is a good plan. El_C 02:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C:, done. Springee (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Hopefully, it won't take long. El_C 02:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C:, unrelated but while I have your attention, would you take a look at these two articles Honda_Ridgeline_(2006–2014), Honda_Ridgeline_(2017–present). I'm trying to decide where the balance is between "enthusiasts would want to know that even if it is rather self-promotional" and "this is a sales brochure". I can see someone spent a lot of time on this but I really think the articles are over the top. I'm just not sure if I want to slash and burn that much. Springee (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, although I have tens of thousands of articles on my watchlist, very few of them are car-related articles. I'm just not that familiar with what's deemed appropriate for these set of articles, so I'm not sure I really know how to answer that with confidence. There is, however, a Japanese cars task force and a couple of other car-related Wikiprojects, so perhaps some of the members there can shed more light. El_C 02:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

• In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit

• Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse

• In focus: The BBC looks at Chinese government editing

• Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars

• Community view: Observations from the mainland

• Arbitration report: October actions

• Traffic report: Wrestling with a couple of teenagers, a Nobelist, and a lot of jokers

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast

• Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia

• Essay: Wikipedia is in the real world

• News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around

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

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability

Hi Springee, I haven't read through the discussions completely, but thought that these [60][61] 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

SOAP

What is SOAP on Wikipedia? Alainlambert (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alainlambert:, it links to WP:soap. In general if you type "WP:" then the word into the search bar you can find the term. BTW, users can be found by typing "user:" . Springee (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

• From the editor: Put on your birthday best

• News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?

• In the media: You say you want a revolution

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

• Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases

• Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker

• Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things

• Gallery: Winter and holidays

• Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews

• Essay: Adminitis

• From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited

• In focus: An update on the Wikimedia Movement 2030 Strategy

• Special report: How many people edit in your favorite language? Where are they from?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 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. [[62]] 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!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Closing request at WP:ANRFC

Springee, I wanted to let you know I've performed a non-admin closure of Talk:Andy_Ngo#RfC:_Do_sources_support_calling_Ngo's_statements_on_the_hammer_attack_"false"?. I realize that you specifically requested an admin closure but after over 90 days with no mop-holder responding, I felt it was better for an experienced non-involved non-admin editor to close it rather than leave it lingering for even longer hoping an admin would eventually step forward. I hope this meets with your approval. Thank you for your time and happy holiday. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

• From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again

• News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages

• Special report: Are reputation management operatives scrubbing Wikipedia articles?

• In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?

• Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki

• Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December

• Technology report: User scripts and more

• Gallery: Holiday wishes

• Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary

• From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)

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

• Op-Ed: Why we need to keep talking about Wikipedia's gender gap

• WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

• From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium

• News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia

• Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta

• In the media: Turkey's back up, but what's happening with Dot-org and a new visual identity?

• Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, we're all winners

• News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations

• Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015

• In focus: Cryptos and bitcoins and blockchains, oh no!

• Recent research: How useful is Wikipedia for novice programmers trying to learn computing concepts?

• From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015

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

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report

• Humour: Predicting the 6,000,000th article

• Obituary: Remembering Wikipedia contributor Brian Boulton

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

A discussion of your edits on Ackerman McQueen is occurring at Talk:Ackerman McQueen [63][64]. You appear to have claimed to be removing information added by "socks" which was in fact added by editors in good standing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

• From the editor: The ball is in your court

• News and notes: Alexa ranking down to 13th worldwide

• Special report: More participation, more conversation, more pageviews

• In the media: Mapping IP editors, Smithsonian open-access, and coronavirus disinformation

• Discussion report: Do you prefer M or P?

• Arbitration report: Two prominent administrators removed

• By the numbers: How many actions by administrators does it take to clean up spam?

• Community view: The Incredible Invisible Woman

• In focus: History of The Signpost, 2015–2019

• Recent research: Wikipedia generates $50 billion/year consumer surplus in the US alone

• From the archives: Is Wikipedia for sale?

• Traffic report: February articles, floating in the dark

• Gallery: Feel the love

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

• Op-Ed: What I learned as Wikimedia UK Communications Coordinator

• Opinion: Wikipedia is another country

• Humour: The Wilhelm scream

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Alfred P Sloan edits

@Stepho-wrs:, for some reason I'm getting an edit warning ("You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia") if I try to edit your talk page. The warning cites an IP address which is odd since I'm logged in. Anyway, I wanted to ping you regarding my proposal here [[65]] because you recently restored that material when an IP editor blanked it. I took a look at the material as it was and my first thought is, "needs fixing". After looking some more I can't find references that tie Sloan to the alleged scandal. As such I'm not sure why this material should be part of the Sloan article. For that reason I'm proposing deleting it. Based on your involvement I wanted to let you know in case you wanted to weight in. Springee (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've address the Sloan issue on the talk page.

The IP address thing has hit me in the past too. WP monitors your IP address, even when you are logged in. If somebody else with the same ISP used that IP address to vandalise WP, then WP remembers it. Later, they reset their internet router and get a new IP address. Later on again, you reset your router and just happen to get their old IP address by random chance. Voila - you are now a criminal that deserves to be punished. Luckily the solution is as simple as the crime, er, problem. Reset your internet router and your ISP will assign you a different IP address. Welcome to the future !  Stepho  talk  11:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs:, thanks for the tip. I bet what happened is that I was using a VPN to my company (work from home days) and then it logged out. Thus Wikipedia saw may have seen me change my IP address mid edit. Anyway, on to the talk page. Springee (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

• From the editors: The bad and the good

• News and notes: 2018 Wikipedian of the year blocked

• WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19: A WikiProject Report

• Special report: Wikipedia on COVID-19: what we publish and why it matters

• In the media: Blocked in Iran but still covering the big story

• Discussion report: Rethinking draft space

• Arbitration report: Unfinished business

• In focus: "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …"

• Community view: Wikimedia community responds to COVID-19

• Recent research: Disease outbreak uncertainties, AfD forecasting, auto-updating Wikipedia

• From the archives: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• Traffic report: The only thing that matters in the world

• Gallery: Visible Women on Wikipedia

• News from the WMF: Amid COVID-19, Wikimedia Foundation offers full pay for reduced hours, mobilizes all staff to work remote, and waives sick time

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

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC close

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

• News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?

• In the media: Coronavirus, again and again

• Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit

• Featured content: Featured content returns

• Arbitration report: Two difficult cases

• Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night

• Gallery: Roy is doing fine and sending more photos

• Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias

• Essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

• By the numbers: Open data and COVID-19: Wikipedia as an informational resource during the pandemic

• Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together

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

• Interview: Health and RfA's: An interview with Guy Macon

• In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

May 2020

Your recent editing history at Rick Bright shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You are also reverting Activist's contributions at Alek Skarlatos. Please do not stalk their edits. You are both experienced editors. You were right to bring the discussion to Bright's talk page but please avoid the appearance of hounding an editor you disagree with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Liz:, I'm not stalking there edits. However, when they make bad edits I have reverted them. Unfortunately the response is typically an accusation of bad faith rather than a discussion of the problem at hand. I will note that when I've taken the issues to places like BLPN people have agreed with my concerns. I'm also very willing to discuss how to fix things with Activist, accusations of bad faith against me not withstanding. However, that takes discussion on the talk page that don't make accusations of bad faith or false accusations. Springee (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

• From the editor: Meltdown May?

• News and notes: 2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting

• In the media: CBS on COVID-19, Sanger on bias, false noses, and five prolific editors

• Discussion report: WMF's Universal Code of Conduct

• Special report: The sum of human knowledge? Not in one Wikipedia language edition

• Featured content: Weathering the storm

• Arbitration report: Board member likely to receive editing restriction

• Traffic report: Come on and slam, and welcome to the jam

• Op-Ed: Where Is Political Bias Taking Us?

• Gallery: Wildlife photos by the book

• News from the WMF: WMF Board announces Community Culture Statement

• Recent research: Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020

• Community view: Transit routes and mapping during stay-at-home order downtime

• On video: COVID-19 spurs innovations in Wikimedia video and virtual programming

• WikiProject report: Revitalizing good articles

• On the bright side: 500,000 articles in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia

• Obituaries: Dmitrismirnov, Kattenkruid, Muidlatif, Ronhjones, Tsirel

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 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. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:52, 10 June 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)

I apologize...

...I allowed my emotions to carry me away. I'll strikeout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

• News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine

• Community view: Community open letter on renaming

• Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd

• In the media: Part collaboration and part combat

• Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals

• Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow

• Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation

• Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths

• News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice

• Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking

• Interview: What is wrong with rebranding to "Wikipedia Foundation"?

• Humour: Cherchez une femme

• Opinion: Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news

• On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?

• In focus: Edit Loud, Edit Proud: LGBTIQ+ Wikimedians and Global Information Activism

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 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)

July 2020

Hello, I'm Troutfarm27. I noticed that you recently removed content from Adrian Peterson without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 20:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Weight Requirements

Where are the WEIGHT requirements? I've looked through Wikipedia and don't see any reference to them.

Why would information from realtor.com News not meet those requirements? I think the fact that someone is selling a home ... that was previously referenced in their article ... is additive. Please explain.Tacohead1000 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Tacohead1000 (talk · contribs)

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 [[66]] was better in terms of looking at the arguments. Other times I think uninvolved number do matter. Consider this one from a while back [[67]]. 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 [[68]]. 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.

Template:Z33 – 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)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

• Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration?

• COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money

• News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin

• In the media: Dog days gone bad

• Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy

• Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom

• Traffic report: Now for something completely different

• Gallery: Photos of threatened species from iNaturalist

• News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users

• Recent research: Receiving thanks increases retention, but not the time contributed to Wikipedia

• Essay: Not compatible with a collaborative project

• Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil

• In focus: WikiLoop DoubleCheck, reviewing edits made easy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Bill Montgomery

I've reverted your revert of my edit to Bill Montgomery (Turning Point USA), but with the change that it now cites the Daily Dot, which is "considered generally reliable for Internet culture.", according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I hope this addresses your concerns. -- The Anome (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Modification of your indentation

As per my edit summary, I have modified your indentation here [69] 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)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

• News and notes: The high road and the low road

• In the media: Storytelling large and small

• Featured content: Going for the goal

• Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way

• Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax

• Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics

• News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online

• Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles

• Arbitration report: A slow couple of months

• From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?

• Obituaries: Marcus Sherman, Jerome West, and Pauline van Till

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Milkshaking

See article above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Springee for a thread concerning you. -- Calidum 17:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo

When a user makes comments at this page meant to taunt, elicit some reaction, or just be a general wiseass, just ignore it. Not everything is worth responding to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

And who are you accusing of all these violations? O3000 (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

• Special report: Paid editing with political connections

• News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

• In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

• Featured content: Life finds a Way

• Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

• Traffic report: Is there no justice?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

• Special report: Paid editing with political connections

• News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

• In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

• Featured content: Life finds a Way

• Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

• Traffic report: Is there no justice?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 27 September 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)

Slow motion edit wars

Please remember that slow motion edit war, such as those that happened on Andy Ngo are still edit wars and can still result in sanctions even if you are respecting the 1RR --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:13, 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?[70] 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)

You appear to be in violation of your 1:RR

If I recall correctly, you're limited to 1 reversion per 24 hour period on American politics articles. You appearing to be violating that. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, I certainly didn't intend to be. Can you show me where. If I am over the 1RR limit I will self correct. Springee (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You've made 3 reverts to the Tucker Carlson article literally minutes ago. I find it hard to believe that you've forgotten those edits this quickly. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

They are simultaneous edits thus not 3 reverts but just one. Springee (talk) 21:10, 21 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)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

• News and notes: Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking

• In the media: Murder, politics, religion, health and books

• Book review: Review of Wikipedia @ 20

• Op-Ed: Anti-vandalism with masked IPs: the steps forward

• Discussion report: Proposal to change board composition, In The News dumps Trump story

• Featured content: The "Green Terror" is neither green nor sufficiently terrifying. Worst Hallowe'en ever.

• Traffic report: Jump back, what's that sound?

• Interview: Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner

• News from the WMF: Meet the 2020 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: OpenSym 2020: Deletions and gender, masses vs. elites, edit filters

• In focus: The many (reported) deaths of Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

• News and notes: Jimmy Wales "shouldn't be kicked out before he's ready"

• Op-Ed: Re-righting Wikipedia

• Opinion: How billionaires re-write Wikipedia

• In the media: Relying on Wikipedia: voters, scientists, and a Canadian border guard

• Featured content: Frontonia sp. is thankful for delicious cyanobacteria

• Traffic report: 007 with Borat, the Queen, and an election

• News from Wiki Education: An assignment that changed a life: Kasey Baker

• GLAM plus: West Coast New Zealand's Wikipedian at Large

• Wikicup report: Lee Vilenski wins the 2020 WikiCup

• Recent research: Wikipedia's Shoah coverage succeeds where libraries fail

• Essay: Writing about women

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:47, 29 November 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)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

• News and notes: Year-end legal surprises cause concern, but Public Domain Day is imminent

• In the media: Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds

• Arbitration report: 2020 election results

• Opinion: How to make your factory's safety and labor issues disappear

• Featured content: Very nearly ringing in the New Year with "Blank Space" – but we got there in time.

• Traffic report: 2020 wraps up

• News from the WMF: What Wikipedia saw during election week in the U.S., and what we’re doing next

• Recent research: Predicting the next move in Wikipedia discussions

• Essay: Subjective importance

• Op-Ed: An unforgettable year we might wish to forget

• Gallery: Angels in the architecture

• Humour: 'Twas the Night Before Wikimas

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Douglas Murray - serious problems with NPOV/bias

I want to call attention to what I believe is an unfortunate pattern of Springee's edits and commentary on the page for the conservative commentator Douglas Murray. In the past week or so a volume of well-sourced material including close to 10 academic sources and a similar number of reliable journalistic sources has been added to Murray's page. Springee has dedicated a considerable amount of time to contesting each and every recent addition to Murray's page. The only consistent factor in Springee's criticisms of the sources added to Douglas Murray's page is that every source that is perceived as critical of Murray is held to an impossibly high evidentiary threshold by Springee, while those which are perceived as sympathetic are not. Some of Springee's assertions that raise serious questions about their comprehension of sources and willingness to accept material that does not align with their own viewpoint include:

• the assertion that Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative,[71] which is an extensively staffed academic project intended to provide academic commentary on Islamophobia, is "self-published" and should therefore be disqualified from inclusion on any Wiki page (the Southern Poverty Law Center is also called "self-published" by Springee)
• the assertion that a review of the Douglas Murray book The Strange Death of Europe by the noted Georgetown University professor Ian Almond in Middle East Eye[72] is not due weight, while other, less critical reviews of the book were not mentioned or criticized
• repeated rejection of the inclusion of an article that is highly critical of Murray by Sludge magazine's Alex Kotch[73] in the body of the article despite extended discussion on the Reliable sources Noticeboard in which the reliability of the source in context was repeatedly demonstrated and no convincing rebuttals from Springee[74]

I am not surprised that Springee's talk page contains repeated issues with accepting critical sources on controversial topics and potential problems with advocacy on controversial topics - a search for the term NPOV brings up 26 mentions, while the repeated contentions of firearm advocacy are concerning for a prolific editor to say the least. Springee is entitled to their views but I think they should pay closer attention to their own biases, absorb some of the feedback they have already received on this page and perhaps step back from controversial topics Noteduck (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Noteduck:, why are you posting this to my page as if I were a third party? Springee (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021: Arbitration

I have filed an arbitration case request. I have listed you as a party. See:[[75]]. Noteduck (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2021 (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)

PragerU - dispute resolution noticeboard

Hi there. I've named you as a "user involved" in the dispute regarding the PragerU page, which I've sent to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. [76] Please submit your statement when ready Noteduck (talk) 07:45, 11 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 [[77]] but I don't think it is working. Springee (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)