User talk:Springee/Archive 3

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 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)
 * , here is my general feeling. First, consensus should be #1 based on policy not the number of editors who favor option A vs B.  But sometimes we get into a case where there is no clear policy.  In those cases we do start looking at the general opinion of editors.  In cases like that numbers do matter.  So assuming we are in a numbers game I generally use a rule of thirds.  If more than 2/3rds have the same preference, that's consensus.  If the breakdown is in the middle third (say 60% in favor), I generally call that a no-consensus.  That is my rule of thumb only.  I suspect others might feel that say 60% for is consensus.  In the case of adding the see also link, I wouldn't be in a hurry.  If the Tslaq article was really robust and the criticism (or similar) section in the Tesla Inc article was robust I would include it.  Otherwise, it's not the fight to have at this time.  Editors will think you are a POV pusher if you try to fight to link a weak, critical article on to something like the Tesla article.  Concernsely, if TSLSAQ is robustly written and sourced and the connections are clear via RSing and the critical information is also in the Tesla Inc article, I would be more inclined to push at that point.  Personally, I think there is a lot of stuff, such as the doxxing of critics that could be in the parent article at this time but I'm not interested in that fight.  Springee (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sound advice. QRep2020 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at 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. --M asem (t) 00:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Indef
I don't want to comment in the thread, but re: "I think a different label vs 'indef' might be helpful when looking at block logs", what do you think of "temporary block" that is actually the same thing as an indefinite block? Which to use would be up to the blocking admin, and the person would still have to appeal, but it would send the message that if you edit productively for enough time, you are likely to be unblocked. I can see this as being especially useful with partial blocks. Please consider proposing something like that. I can see no downside to giving another option to the blocking admin. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that's a good idea. I also thought about the term "pause" but I think "temporary block" is better.  The idea is this shouldn't be seen as an editor did something so egregious that they were told "you may not come back for at least 6 months".  Instead it's "when you understand what you did you can come back".  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by editing productively.  That sounds like a tban where you can edit in unrelated areas and that is generally seen as evidence that you can be productive.  I think I will bring this up as a separate topic so I would like to make sure I understand your comments. Springee (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In the old days, when all we had was an indefinite ban, a timed ban or a topic ban (which really isn't a ban in the sense of automatically preventing disruptive edits), you could edit productively on other projects while indeffed and point to that in your (typically six months or longer) appeal. Now we have the ability to ban from just one page or from a handful of related pages. With the new partial bans, editing productively on Wikipedia becomes an option. But even if we want to sent that "you may not come back for at least 6 months" message, calling it a temporary ban might be a good thing in some situations. It depends on the editor.
 * Consider two editors:
 * Bob comes in here ranting about Jews and promoting holocaust denial, and refuses to accept that Stormfront isn't an acceptable source. In the immediate appeal he calls the blocking admin a "fucking jew lover" and explains how Hitler was misunderstood. The blocking admin is 99% sure that even after six months Bob will still be a neo-nazi but of course we allow him to try to convince us otherwise after six months. Bob would be a good candidate for an indef called indef.
 * Alice comes in here and is just as disruptive as Bob was, but clearly from being deeply hurt. Nonetheless Alice says things like "Just admit you hate us and think we should die" and "Scumbags shouldn't have edit privileges". Let's throw in some legal threats and doxing just to drive home that the actual behavior is as bad as Bob's. The very next day she posts what looks like a sincere apology and a says that she shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia. In such a case the blocking admin might want to apply a block that is technically identical to an indef but called a "temporary block" because in this case the blocking admin has a feeling that they will stop being disruptive after six months of not being able to edit.
 * Of course both Bob and Alice are actually allowed to, say, appeal after a day and again after a month. Everyone should be allowed to have an uninvolved admin review and endorse/overturn a block at any time. This avoids the kind of abuse we see from moderators on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. Those web sites allow a single admin to kick you off with no review ever, and that can lead to moderator abuse. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Question re !voting in 2020
Hi there Springee, I'm bothering you because I've lately found myself agreeing with everything you say, and because you witnessed the recent Sashi ban supervote. I've been noticing that over the past 4 or 5 years, insistence that !votes are seen as monumentally different from a raw headcount, and that weighing arguments as they relate to PAGs was the only acceptable way to close any discussion, has been declining/nonexistant. I noted this on 1 June, (showing this present concern isn't related solely to any particular case or editor). However the Sashi incident is beyond the pale, with an admission that only numbers were considered. And because this is a flawed system, the ruling stands today and an editor is site-banned. My concern is that letting this slide marks a turning point at WP, where we as a community have officially accepted this new reading of the PAGs, which state: 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: Personally, if this is the direction we're taking (Hey! Win any argument! All you need are numbers!)... I'm out.  petrarchan47 คุ  ก  19:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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).  petrarchan47 คุ  ก  01:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

, 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 [] was better in terms of looking at the arguments. Other times I think uninvolved number do matter. Consider this one from a while back []. 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 []. 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. 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.  petrarchan47 คุ  ก  23:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.  petrarchan47 คุ  ก  23:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.  petrarchan47 คุ  ก  23:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
– Frood (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC) , 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 Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: #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 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)
 * I know this is over a month old but came across it saw something which I think could be confusing. In particular, the statement "" 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, . 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.SMirC-chuckle.svg 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)

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)

[] [] []

Modification of your indentation
As per my edit summary, I have modified your indentation here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=974035799&oldid=974034532] 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)
 * 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)
 * , I don't think I've personally split an article. I think you can just create a new article for Kirk then copy the content from TPUAS to the new article with a link in the edit note that points to the old article.  It's important to make it clear when you copy the content from one article to another than you leave pointers in the edit summaries so people can see that you 1. didn't delete the content from the old article (vs relocate it) and 2. that the new article allows editors to follow the edit history of the text back to it's origins in the earlier article.  Other than that I don't know much else about the process.  Springee (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah these are great tips, I appreciate it Springee! Thanks for the help MaximusEditor (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Andy Ngo
1RR doesn't apply to vandalism or sloppy edits by IPs. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Neither created accounts or IP should be doing sloppy editing but IPs are not held to a higher standard and should not be reverted simply for being an IP editor. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

AE (Jorm)
I was looking at your post at AE and was wondering if you were referring to Jorm as an admin? Because as far as I can tell they are not. PackMecEng (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are correct. As such the basis for my comment is invalid.  I have self reverted.  Springee (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It happens. They used to be WMF staff until late 2014 but that is about it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Should Dave Rubin be called right-wing in the intro?
Please check talk:Dave_Rubin for my comments on our editing dispute. Cosmopolismetropolis (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Undue paragraph tag
You should understand that the editors removing the cleanup tag are the ones inappropriately edit-warring, not you. WP:CLEANUPTAGS are appropriate to indicate where material is challenged, under discussion, or subject to an RfC. Ideally the tag should remain as long as the RfC and discussion is ongoing. The purpose of such a tag is to draw attention to that discussion. I support re-insertion of the tag. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree but I'm going to try to keep a lower profile with article related reverts. Three editors said remove the UNDUE tag so I'm not going to restore it.  BTW, as for the lead changes, I see serious problems with the same things you are concerned about.  A lot of the edits used the extreme negative case.  However, the structure is actually an improvement in my book.  The details just need to be made far more neutral/impartial. I see that lead as a better opportunity to fix the lead vs what we have now.   Springee (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to express approval for changes you don't really support. The recent changes in fact violated BLP by suggesting he "falsely accused antifa" for his assault. The sources note he blamed antifa and that the assailants haven't been caught, it never says this. You know that and I know that. If by "structure" you mean that three paragraphs is preferable to two (MOS:LEAD recommends a maximum of four) make sure to be explicit about that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I tried to be very careful to support the structure of the lead change but not the details.  I think this structure makes it easier to get some of the other lead changes the article needs.  Springee (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that three paragraphs was always the better option for the length of this article. That's why I think the third paragraph is such a useless add-on. But I can never support changes that introduce false information and other mischaracterizations. Make sure not to give implicit support for changes that detract from the neutrality of the article in service of structure. Our priority has to be accuracy and neutrality, not stylistic preferences. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this were the final text I would agree. However, I figured it was easier to have a lot of the changes I wanted made as part of this wholesale change then go back in and clean up the issues that you are worried about.  For instance, take the 'falsely accused antifa' and make it more like 'attack by activists' or similar.  Springee (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just reacting to the text that was inserted into the article. Presumably the editor meant for that to be the final version, because there was no specific proposal preceding it. I'm just saying be careful not to sanction content that you don't agree with and to make sure your comments can't be construed otherwise. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened
The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at 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, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see 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)