User talk:Springee

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles COVID-19 They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

2014 ‒ 2017 2018 ‒ 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 ...

[[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]

Springee I'm confused and surprised at your position on this issue. Should we exclude mentions of White supremacy from certain parts of the Democratic Party (United States) article as well? DN (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was made in a specific context. If you have a specific context for the Democratic Party I may be able to provide a better answer. Springee (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPNO I'm asking you politely, to please stop bringing up old discussions in order to misrepresent me in a negative way that is misleading and has no bearing on the current discussion. If you feel I said or did something inappropriate on a different article years ago, you can address it with me here or on my talk page. Agreed? DN (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DN, I'm not claim you said or did anything inappropriate at that previous discussion. Saying that a source you provided said scholars don't agree on the topic is hardly casting you or anything you have done in a negative light. To be clear, if you did anything inappropriate at that article I don't recall it. I do recall that we disagreed on content but I wouldn't think our disagreement represents anything inappropriate. The reason why I mentioned it at all was to point out that key word searches can often make it easy to find some journalist, scholars who agree but it's often harder to find the scholars etc who disagree. However, we shouldn't take that to mean there is a consensus among scholars etc that a claim is in fact true. The problem with the claim in question at the GOP article is that it's being presented as an established fact vs opinion of sources who's biases are not clear. Springee (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't understand the problem but I won't mention that you provided the source if that works for you. Springee (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 2 You are continuing to drag this out despite my request and have yet to strike per my request. Your continued use of the article talk page in this manner makes it worse. For the last time, please cut it out. Do not expect me to engage on this matter with you there. In fact, do not expect me to engage with you at all for a while. DN (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, citing an example of another GOP related dispute and how scholars don't all agree is a completely acceptable discussion point. I don't see how this statement, "There is nothing inappropriate about mentioning that a source you provided stated that scholars aren't in agreement about the topic” is unacceptable. Both parts are true and neither impugns you. I really am confused about the issue at hand. Absent some explain why this is an issue I won't strike the comment but I also won't associate you with the source in question going forward. Springee (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I've spoken to Cortador asking them to try and disengage a bit. I don't see your discussions with them being very productive, so I have offered to act as a bit of a buffer. Hope you are having a nice weekend. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DN. I know we often disagree but I appreciate that you make efforts like this. I hope you are also having a good weekend. Springee (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about SamuelRiv's behavior on that article. I have provided two different sets of sources and he hasn't been satisfied with either one. His requirements for content being included are pedantic and legalistic. I know he's claiming WP:V but it feels like that's a cudgel for him to get his way by any means necessary. It also bothers me that he treats me as being uneducated and beneath him for whatever reason, talking down to me as if I'm a child pbp 18:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what it boils down to is that Samuel has trouble with Bryan and Watson being characterized as right-wing, even though source material is there to support that, and he's cooking up an overblown WP:V argument to try and get his way. pbp 18:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you did at Talk:Andy Ngo[5] Doug Weller talk 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's denying good faith. Rather the editor's comment personally attacks the BLP subject. A comment like, ".. when certain provocateurs throw tantrums on twitter about what Wikipedia says about them." while linking to a post by the BLP subject doesn't give the impression that we are being IMPARTIAL when writing the article. I'm happy to clarify that this isn't meant to be a claim the editor is acting on bad faith vs the outward appearance of their post. Springee (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but editors are entitled to a pov and I don't think that shows that their editing violates anything. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I made no personal attacks. The subject has been described by numerous reliable sources as a "provocateur". Further any reasonable person could have interpreted his tweet as a tantrum. TarnishedPath^talk 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are also the editor who pushed the RfC that resulted in the change. You could have just said that Ngo's tweet is likely the cause. However you instead used provocative labels it isn't a big jump for a BLP subject to go from "this is a NPOV summary of what sources say" to "editors who display a bias pushed this change". It's not a question of your actual intent, it's the reasonable way a third party can view your talk page comments. As an example, I think Elon Musk is lower than pond scum and a meet negative to society. For this reason I've largely avoided editing related to him and the few times I have I've been very careful to avoid even the appearance of personal bias. Springee (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're attributing a massive amount of power to me as the person who took the exact same RfC question that happened 2 year earlier, posted the same question again and pinged all participants from the previous two RfCs. I didn't need to push after that. If I recall you did some pushing at WP:AN because you didn't like the outcome. The outcome wasn't based on my desire, it was based on consensus and reliable sources. You need to recognise that instead of constantly reinterpreting the narrative. TarnishedPath^talk 14:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plenty of cases where good faith was misinterpreted. That didn't mean the misinterpretation wasn't understandable. Perhaps a good option here would be to edit your original post to remove the emotive language and simply state the tweet might be the reason for the recent edits. If you do that I'll delete my reply and that should solve the problem. Springee (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emotive language? Problem? TarnishedPath^talk 15:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the emotive words you used to describe a tweet made by the subject of the BLP in question. A reasonable person could read those words and see them as evidence of bias. To avoid that perception is easy to just say the recent tweet by Ngo was likely the reason for the recent activity. Springee (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article on him describes him as a "provocateur" in three places. I think I'm quite entitled to call him a provocateur in talk without you trying describe me as having an emotional reaction. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my words carefully. I said those are emotive words. I'm not saying you are having an emotional reaction. I'm saying those words and the way you used them can be reasonably viewed as suggesting something other than an impartial view of the subject. The fact of your statement, Ngo tweeted about the change and that likely resulted in people trying to change the article, seems reasonable to me. However, when you coat that factual claim with contentious labels (provocateur) and dismissive terms (tantrums), it presents an appearance that supports the things Ngo is pointing out. I hope you see where I'm coming from even if you feel RSs support what you said. Springee (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of reliable sources the article describes him as being a "provocateur" on a number of occasions. Certainly his tweet can be viewed in terms as a deliberate provocation and if it wasn't deliberate it certainly had the effect of acting as a provocation. There is nothing unreasonable, impartial nor particularly emotive about using descriptive labels to describe behaviour particularly when there is a large number of sources which use that precise label.

In any case my comment in talk was merely to convey that I'd happened upon the tweet to demonstrate that, we shouldn't expect constant attempts change the lede unless there was constant external tweeting. TarnishedPath^talk 05:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of co-operation, I've amended my statements. TarnishedPath^talk 06:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use == Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to go through and add notes like that to Green sources about 'activist' then I'm sure you wouldn't object to others doing likewise to any source that uses the term 'journalist'? I don't think it's very productive to be quibbling over sources which have been found on the whole to be generally reliable. Do you agree? TarnishedPath^talk 11:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a discussion for the article talk page. Springee (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic, so I am posting here, but have you looked at Nike, Inc.? Polygnotus (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recall there being an essay on this. It isn't wp:OTHER but it might have been similar. Basically the idea is that because Wikipedia doesn't have a central editor we shouldn't presume that any particular article should be seen as the standard for how another article should be presented. What this could indicate is that both articles need fixing. Springee (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are suboptimal. And the Xiao Xiao lawsuit and the Lil Nas X Satan Shoes controversies are very insignificant compared to the forced labor/child labor stuff... Polygnotus (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the Nike article in general but I would presume the offshore labor issues would be the primary controversy. Springee (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Springee, I feel comfortable sharing my thoughts about the GSL discussions with you, as you are much more experienced here and can likely help me put things into context. Please refer to my last comment regarding this here.

Am I the only one who finds it unreasonable not to adopt a new title for the GSL page or to maintain the current status quo? I understand that I am just one editor, and that no article or article title needs to meet my individual standards, but I genuinely struggle to see why my comments or points aren’t blatantly obvious to everyone else. What am I missing here? Fenharrow (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Fenharrow, I've been offline for a few days. I think your POV is quite reasonable. An issue with Wikipedia, and something we just need to work around, is that numbers are often more important that what we feel is the best argument. That isn't to say that quality of argument means nothing but absent some sort of agreed mediator we often are stuck with numbers on the talk page. I've seen cases where the small talk page consensus (say 3 vs 1) becomes a clear consensus in favor of the "1" after a RfC. Other times we are stuck trying to realize where the limits are (it seems getting consensus to move this article isn't happening right now). So the options are trying to make a case at a notice board where more uninvolved editors can weigh in, or work within the current article structure to try to fix things as much as possible. It can be frustrating and if you need to, take a break or just post agreements with the editors with whom you do agree. Remember that the other side might be feeling the same way and we should try to keep all the replies about the issues at hand. BTW, I do think it's reasonable to say how a new bit of text might be viewed by a reader. "A reader is likely to view that as biased because..." For what it's worth, a lot of changes have been made to the article of late but I'm not sure I've seen a true consensus for many of them, especially the removal of "political term" from the opening of the lead. Springee (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! It's great to hear from you, Springee! Ideally, I would start an RM seeking "Private Sale Exemption" (PSE), but has that ship sailed already? Interestingly, some editors who opposed the previous RMs seem to agree that PSE and GSL are "largely synonymous". Allowing the article to remain as GSL feels like a disservice to anyone on Wikipedia seeking to learn about the subject. I would like to challenge the page title. When do you think would be a suitable time to do that? Alternatively, merging GSL with "Gun Shows in the United States" also seems to work. Please share your thoughts! Fenharrow (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to your reply here, because by misrepresenting my position (unintentionally or not), and then pointing to "my efforts", it seems to have become more personal in nature.

"I'm not trying to misrepresent your position. You said "we are talking about a simple template". If that is all this is why put so much effort to justify inclusion?

Framing my questions and comments as "putting so much effort to justify" puts the focus on me, not on the discussion or the arguments at hand. Conversely, it also conveniently ignores the "effort" you've also put in thus far.

I am required to assume good faith, but I'm concerned with the timing in which you decided to to remove Southern Strategy from the history section on the WP:NAVBOX at Template:Conservatism US.

With all due respect the timing of your edit on the template, in combination with the recent turn in the discussion raises serious concerns that I am under no obligation to deal with.

As a result, I will no longer be participating in that discussion, and I will let Biohistorian15 decide if they wish to continue.

Best of luck to you both.

Cheers. DN (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barnstars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5 Check Users 4 Oversighters 3 GAs 2 Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health.--Masterhatch (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] This message was generated using {{subst: The 12 Days of Wikipedia}}

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

I appreciate you trying to help, but minds appear to be set. There's not really been any response to my attempts to make my case, so it's probably wasting your time, unfortunately. Toa Nidhiki05 20:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and advice. Unfortunately, attitudes like yours seem to be fatally outnumbered on the English Wikipedia at this point. Being indefinitely banned from discussing the politics of my own country is absurd and the final straw for me after that first ridiculous sockpuppetry block. I have no interest in contributing to a project that has allowed its administrative culture to deteriorate to this level.

Good luck out there. Happy editing. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard#Request for review of RfC closure and un-closure. guninvalid (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

......with this edit? [6]

He indicates you do. Thanks. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this [7]. I wouldn't view them as the same as I think TN's behavior was minor at worst while the other has a long history of failing to engage in good faith when challenged. However, I presume, since they are often on the majority side in many of the political debates their actions aren't seen as going against the stream thus more latitude is given. Springee (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you that those two situations are not comparable.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm likely headed for getting banned. It was a nice run of almost 20 years on this site. Thank you for being the sole person to stand up and not jump on the bandwagon. I hope this type of culture on the internet can be improved in the future. I hope you have a great day, week and year. Ergzay (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Raladic (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He comes across on his talk page as an argumentative, know-nothing loser. I can see why a site like Wikipedia wants to keep nameless, unaccountable editors from citing primary sources too freely, but I do not think we have that luxury when writing about politics. @Simonm223 has taken it upon himself to defend editors who have undone my contributions to our article on Zohran Mamdani, all for vague and contradictory reasons.

Note that I mistake Mamdani's pledge for rent stabilisation with rent control, and cutting my additions for this reason would have made sense. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are a relatively new editor so I will offer a suggestion. First, please don't edit war. I get that it's frustrating to think you have improved an article only to have someone revert the changes. However, it's almost never a good idea to quickly revert the reversion. Instead, please use the talk page. Sometimes no consensus will result but other times the discussion results in something better due to the combined efforts. Second, please don't personally attack editors or suggest motives other than good faith intent to improve articles. Even in really contentious areas like topics around the middle east opposing editors can both honestly think they are improving an article. Personal attacks, dismissive tone etc tends to make it harder, not easier to fix these issues. Don't worry about this too much. If you can make a good case on the talk page, people may listen. Springee (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you went to school, did other children punch you in the head and tell the teacher you started fights? Giving criticism without the customary "here's what I would do instead" does not foster a culture of learning and drives away good, hard-working, deserving people. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable. Many long term editors have seen so many new editors make POV edits and after a while there is a risk of biting the new guy. Simon gave you good advice, go to the talk page. Simon's use of the edit warring template is pretty standard and they didn't discount the content you were trying to post. Springee (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point, but three editors besides Simon have reverted my edits. I have reached out to two of them on their talk pages, and they have not replied yet. I take offense first to Simon declaring an edit war on an article that they admit they have no interest in and taking it upon themselves to mediate it; and second, to not even give the busy people who disagreed with me a chance to speak up for themselves.

Wikipedia may have a tame, civilised culture for an Internet forum, but if I were king, we would have this conversation on a mailing list and stand by our real names and personal e-mail addresses. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still interested in the edit/topic I would suggest starting a talk page discussion and be sure to focus on the content. Don't get hung up on the reverts. Make a case why you think the material should be in the article and listen the replies. Sometimes the issue is a source problem. Other times it could be the material doesn't work well in the article. If people give you links to policies or guidelines, read them. This doesn't mean you will convince them but it does mean you will learn how things work which makes it more likely you will succeed with edits in the future. Finally, it's not uncommon for editors to take action if they see an issue even on an article they don't normally edit. Springee (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank makes a lot more sense. Thank you for saving my veal hide today. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading my earlier comment I want to make it clear that "Don't worry about this too much." is in reference to editors reverting your comment and another editor posting on your talk page. You, Shushi, are new and sometimes it's not obvious that an edit that is reverted doesn't mean there is no common ground. Do take the part about no personal attacks seriously. Editors who have made lots of solid contributions to Wikipedia have been shown the door for such comments. Springee (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushimnotrealstooge, I would heavily encourage you to take onboard Springee's advice. Consider this your only warning about calling other editors "argumentative, know-nothing loser". If I see it again you will be the subject of a noticeboard discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Springee and I often disagree on most things we've been able to navigate those disagreements within the framework of Wikipedia for a couple of decades now. And if you are going to talk about a person behind their backs please don't tag rhem. LOL

I don't have a strong personal stake in the New York mayoral election but I do have strong views on reliable sourcing in articles relating to living people. We should not be sourcing policy platform statements of living politicians to the websites of their competitors. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 in fairness I think your comment should be directed at shushi. TarnishedPath^talk 13:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That dang nesting thing :D Springee (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Pre-coffee notif stuff. Apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again — what right do you have to oversee editors working on a Wikipedia article that you do not even have a personal interest in? I live in New York. Copying over what friendly papers say about politicians without putting it a broader context is lying by omission at best and defamatory and criminal at worst.

Of course, I won't touch the Mamdani article again because I'd still like to work on this website, but I have strong views too. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mate you need to tone it down. I don't care if you're new or not, this isn't twitter. TarnishedPath^talk 15:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to not tagging the people you are talking about, Shush, you might want to bear in mind that most user talk pages have acquired watchers. Springee has 107 people watching. I forget why I am one of them, but here I am. So your private word could potentially be read by a lot of people. We do give latitude to new editors, and this all seems pretty amicable, but do take it as a learning experience. All of Wikipedia is a public space, and it really is better not to air grievances about editors. At all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 11, 2025 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Transgender healthcare and people. The proposed decision has been posted. Your comments are welcome on the talk page in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Springee, I'd like to let you know that I've added a finding of fact concerning your conduct to the proposed decision. You're welcome to respond to it in your section on talk. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron, I don't understand why this was added. If you look at many of my ANI and ARE comments I frequently suggest we don't go too hard on people. See my reply to a request to ban Horse Eye's Back [8] (due to suppressed edits I can't show my original oppose edit dated 23:18, 14 August 2025). Here I'm opposing sanctions against user Lover of lgbt literature [9]. Here I'm defending Loki from accusations of bad behavior [10] and earlier this year complementing them on being, in my view principled even when if I don't agree with them. See my feedback to Loki here [11]. This is another example where I'm arguing to support an editor with whom I've disagreed on content "Gender-related_topics" (The inline quote results in the blue text). In this ANI I oppose a tban on an editor with whom I've had several negative interactions but I don't think a tban is warranted[12]. Here I'm arguing that a comment made by an editor with whom I've disagreed on talk pages shouldn't be viewed as violating a tban [13]. Here I'm taking the unpopular path and defending Roxy the dog [14]. Again, I was in the minority and they were cbanned[15]. I certainly don't like seeing bad behavior from editors but I also don't like seeing different view points being pushed out. I think my general aversion to tbans and in particular cbans is reasonably consistent. Springee (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, I definitely agree that your participation in the process isn't partisan, you do just have a general reticence towards sanctions – but there's still an expectation that when someone is espousing hateful rhetoric, you don't impede the project from taking preventative measures. I'm not saying you can't be largely against sanctions, but in your comments at ANI and AE, you put editors' actions in the field of "things that can reasonably be debated" when those things are transphobia, bigotry pointed directly at other editors, and BLP violations. That said, I appreciate the nonpartisan nature of your participation and I'll adjust the FoF/remedies accordingly. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You admit that I removed a TPO violation and yet you go on and on, disrupting a possible discussion, trying to blame me for something. Had you not done this, there could have been a discussion that did not start with a disgusting, insulting, rant by the OP. I did them a large favor by giving them a second chance at starting a discussion and did not violate any policy in doing so. They admitted their post was flawed and started again. Enough. Your posts are simply disruptive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't agree it was a TPO violation and a "flawed" post isn't the same thing as one that should be removed. I'm not trying to make a big deal about this, only suggesting that it wasn't the correct way to address the issue. You felt the post had an issue and you should have raised the concern vs just blank the post. Springee (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• In any challenge to the closure of a formal discussion within the WP:GENSEX topic area, users who participated in the underlying discussion are limited to at most two comments, not exceeding a combined total of 250 words. (See details.)
• An uninvolved administrator may restrict participation in an arbitration enforcement (WP:AE) noticeboard thread to certain users. (See details.)
• Administrators are reminded that they have broad discretion in moderating AE threads, including removing users' sections, instructing users not to participate, and imposing AE sanctions against those who misuse the noticeboard.
• Raladic, Void if removed, and Sweet6970 are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia.
• Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Colin, Samuelshraga, Raladic, Void if removed, and Sweet6970 are indefinitely banned from transgender topics, broadly construed.
• Colin and Samuelshraga are admonished for their behavior in the transgender healthcare topic area.
• Springee is indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards and admonished for their conduct in transgender topics, broadly construed.
• Aaron Liu is reminded to avoid bludgeoning discussions.
• These site bans and topic bans may be appealed twelve months after this announcement, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people closed

Please restore the close. There was no reasonn to unilaterally undo it without first consulting the closer. The SNOW close was correct. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 13:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this; Springee, if you want the RfC reopened, especially when that decisive, please ask first before re-opening next time. Wikieditor662 (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything bad about the RfC and it is good to leave these things open for at least 24hr. Additionally, the editor who closed the RfC has limited experience and did so unilaterally. There is no harm in getting more input even if the final outcome is likely unchanged. Springee (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I made was more about asking to re-open first, but I'm not necessarily against keeping the RfC open for at least 24 hours or so. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communitynotes just closed it AGAIN!!!!!! Jp33442 (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, I removed a comment made after the close.[16] CNC (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opps i stand corrected my apologies will get rid of my comment Jp33442 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee I understand the need to reply to someone after a discussion is closed, but this is what user talk pages are for afterall.[17] Your comment might otherwise seem insignificant to the close itself (ie, not contradicting it), but comments should never be added after a discussion has been archived, period. CNC (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the RfC should have been closed at all. That said, I've address my comment outside of the close so that it stays with the discussion. I agree with what you are saying when we have an admin close or a close after the RfC has expired. When the close is just a regular editor action a revert should be sufficient (kind of a BRD things). Once the close has been challenged via a revert it shouldn't have been reclosed without some discussion. That however wasn't the fault of the original closer. Springee (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was only addressing the comment you left inside the close that I reverted, also because you did this before and it was reverted by Rambling Rambler for the same reason.[18] Just surprised this happened again. If you want to revert the close then revert the close, but please don't go adding extra comments into it basically. However given you'd already reverted one badnac, I'm not convinced you should be reverting the subsequent close. For reference I'm on the fence regarding whether it was a good close or not, I have my doubts. CNC (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert the close a second time but I would support it per my comments at RSN. Springee (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought of just proposing a summary update at Wikipedia talk:RSP? The summary there doesn't necessarily need to only be a summary of the close it can also be a summary of the discussion (we've done this by deciding on wording for different entries based on the discussions that took place). It might be worth it given it's the only RfC that has taken place regarding BBC (somewhat unnecessarily I would add), but now that it's happened it'd be useful to update that entry I think. Just my two cents anyway. CNC (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Springee already went to WP:AN, which can be found here. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to warn you that your participation at the NPOVN thread regarding potential COI w/r/t Elliott Broidy could be taken as a violation of your topic ban from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards. I would recommend not participating further, and/or requesting a clarification at ARCA. While some NPOVN threads are not focused on user conduct per-se, this one seems to, with the editor opening the discussion even noting that they considered bringing it to other conduct boards but were uncertain where their concerns could best be reviewed and addressed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, I wouldn't have thought that would have been close and I have asked about other areas [19]. Still, I don't want to flirt with the line and I have been meaning to ask. Springee (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worthwhile to ask for clarification, because even beyond these two examples there's a lot of gray area that I could see people going either way on. FWIW, I agree with the recommendation you got on that other discussion, as it's clearly a meta-discussion of Wikipedia process that does not directly address any editor's conduct. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm drafting things now. I was going to ping you as part of the discussion just so you know. Springee (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Springee, I don't know you too well, but we have worked together a few times before, for example in the far right article, or in the reliable sources noticeboard.

I've been thinking of creating a user group, and eventually a Wikiproject meant to ensure fairness on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining. So far, @Deamonpen said that they're interested in this idea, and you can find more about it on the discussion I've had with them. What do you think? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Springee. In case you missed the ping, I'm letting you know that I hatted your recent comment here. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess enjoyer, I saw that. I was going through the process of striking some of my off topic comments so I would be under the word limit when you posted here. In my defense, the comment I quoted was made after my last comment in the discussion (absent today's comment). Springee (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, I believe striking your comments to be below the word limit goes against the spirit of the rule, if not the exact letter. I suggest you stop replying to the review. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess enjoyer, I just counted, I am a bit under the 1000 word limit including the material I just added. Regardless, an edit that shows a RfC has a strong opinion related to the direction of close is very relevant in such a discussion. Springee (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Springee,

When you say you you are under the 1,000 limit is that because you are deducting your comments which you have struck? TarnishedPath^talk 03:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Springee (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think it works that way. No givesies backsies. TarnishedPath^talk 03:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the 1000 word limit. Springee (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TarnishedPath beat me to it. Whether those count or not seems to be a bit of a loophole. I plan to make a request for clarification on the matter. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you unhat the comment until we know the answer. Springee (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not, at least not right now. Like I said, you're most certainly not following the spirit of the rule, which is arguably more important than the letter. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-admin I don't think you should be hatting other editor's comments. It's fine to note they are over the word limit. Suppressing the comments is quite another thing. Springee (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Suppressing" is a bit of a harsh term. It's not like I reverted you, which would be quite another thing. If there's a policy or guideline against a non-admin hatting another editor's comments, I would like to see it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are general talk page guidelines about editing (including hatting) other people's comments. I get the concern that commenting then striking may violate the intent of what ever the 1000 word limit is (I presume this was something from one of the IP ARBCOM cases). However, absent that rule being clear, I think it's better to err on the side of not suppressing the comment unless we know that is what the 1000 word rule says is the way to handle overage. In this case you are hatting a very on topic comment that also represents new information that came to light after my last comment in the discussion. Springee (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, regardess of any disagreement we have on this, thank you for commenting here pre-emptively. Even if we aren't agreeing, I appreciate that you started the dialog. Springee (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I wouldn't do something like this without at least telling the other editor. On erring on the side of caution, that's what I thought I was doing, oddly enough (erring on the side of making sure CTOP procedures were being followed). Would you mind if I pinged a couple of admins (namely Beland, who replied after Coining restated your observation, and Star Mississpi, who thanked me for my edit), so they could offer their opinions? Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I may not like the outcome in the end but better to know it than walk into the same issue in the future :D Springee (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. Pinging @Beland and @Star Mississippi for the reasons above. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that striking comments at WP:AE changes the Template:Arbitration Committee word status counter for user's statements. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't spend much on the enforcement end of admin work, but my interpretation would be that striking through one's own comments that go over the word limit is courteous, but it's not like people can't still read them, so it doesn't undo the damage. Certainly striking out disallowed comments (and then some) doesn't mean that someone should then start adding more disallowed comments.

I personally think hatting disallowed comments is appropriate and helpful and I would encourage it, especially after someone has been explicitly warned. I've been doing closes recently, and sometimes a non-admin will come in and hat all the comments from sockpuppets or non-extended-confirmed users who are disallowed from commenting on certain pages. That makes things a lot easier for the closer, who no longer has to do the work of eligibility-checking everyone when there is a complaint of inappropriate participation. It also means readers don't have to wade through long passages of excluded text, and won't be tempted to respond to it. Hatting is always done at the peril of the hatter - if they do it recklessly and don't follow the rules, they may be sanctioned, but if done carefully and following the rules I think it's helpful and not a violation of the general rule against editing others' comments (which are left intact under the collapse). -- Beland (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Beland has written is doubleplusgood. TarnishedPath^talk 05:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I was offline. Thanks @Beland @TarnishedPath et al for stepping in.

@Springee while this isn't a user conduct issue, you should definitely be mindful of these guidelines given your restrictions laid out in the ArbComm close. We don't need any Icaruses. Icari? Star Mississippi 16:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think an important note is awareness. Certainly I'm aware that IP is a contentious topic so things like insulting other editors will get extra scrutiny. However, going into this discussion I was not aware of any word limits and was only told after the fact. This meant I was not aware of the need to economize the word count. Additionally, if these discussions have limits, who can grant additional words? Springee (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict is that there is no provision for granting additional words, so asking for and granting exceptions to the word limit would not comply with this edict. This makes sense to me; given the nature of the topic, people would start arguing about who has and hasn't been granted exceptions, admins would be attacked for personal bias, etc. -- Beland (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed a comment I made in the discussion, so I'll repeat it here.

WP:ARBPIA5 introduced word limits to formal discussions. See WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) for details. Once that limit is reached editors should disengage permanently from that particular discussion. Editors should be aware of the limit and economise their comments in formal discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 04:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I read that, "Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions." It seems like if we had an ARE discussion related to ARBPIA5 it would have a word limit. It's not as clear if the word limit is automatic in all ARBPIA5 discussions. It also seems that an uninvolved admin has to apply the limit first, it's not automatic. At least that is what I'm reading there. (I do get that I was replying too much in that discussion regardless of any rules that might apply). Springee (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I linked the incorrect section the first time I left the above comment. Please refer to WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) TarnishedPath^talk 05:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes more sense. Springee (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of that page is that there were votes on both discretionary and automatic word limits, and the header at the top makes clear to me that word limits in formal discussions on this topic are automatic. A warning banner for that discussion's section may help participants be better aware of this limit, as the page in general is not subject to it. -- Beland (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There probably is a template banner somewhere. I however don't know where. TarnishedPath^talk 05:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iljhgtn (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The ARCA request you are were listed as an involved party for was closed and archived. It can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 134#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen you around much in a long time until today when I saw your comment at NPOVN. I hope you're keeping well. TarnishedPath^talk 11:56, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TarnishedPath, Hey, thanks TP. I've been doing that real world stuff a lot of late. I hope you are doing great as well! Springee (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm easy to please man. Doesn't take much for me to be doing well. :) TarnishedPath^talk 12:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well hopefully you have some good things on the docket for the weekend. I'm hoping to get some cycling in as well as playing with some electronics repair. If I get all that in this weekend life will be good. Springee (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just keeping children entertained and trying to get as much sleep as possible at this end. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get that. Been there, done that, don't recall getting a T-shirt. I will say, sometimes those are the best days as well. Springee (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]