User talk:Springee

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues climate change articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles COVID-19, broadly construed 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]