User:Noteduck/sandbox - Wikipedia

This is the user sandbox of Noteduck. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here. Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

User Springee - persistent editorial bias. The "Springee stonewall".

Concern over recent edits and potential Arb Com notice

I was dismayed to see that you have made a false claim of breaking 1RR against another editor on a politically sensitive page, based on an apparent inability to tell "revert" and "edit" apart. You made an almost identical false claim against me on the Andy Ngo page, as part of what seems to be a pattern of hyper-litigiousness on your part, but apparently repeated the same incorrect interpretation of policy is order to try and garner sanctions against an editor with whom you disagreed. I called attention to these issues in the Arb dispute, where you regrettably made several blatantly false claims. I thought this might slow this pattern of editing down, especially after no less than seven uninvolved editors backed my conclusions, but worryingly it seems to have become even more blatant.

Despite extensive experience on Wikipedia spanning more than a decade, you are often remarkably naive about sourcing and Wikipedia policy, demonstrating misunderstandings of sourcing and basic policy. I was particularly dismayed to see that you advocated (even through the RS noticeboard) including material sourced from the deprecated Daily Caller(!) on the Andy Ngo page. I thought this was truly remarkable given your tendency to unilaterally reject highly respected sources with little discussion. In spite of this, on the Douglas Murray page you said that material from around a dozen academic sources was "poorly sourced", and remarkably, you seem to associate "open-access" journals with poor quality which is very ill-informed indeed. You dragged at least three sources that I added to the Douglas Murray page through the source reliability noticeboard. You're also back on the PragerU page block reverting material, I see.

You clearly have a fixation with conservative political subjects and removing material from Wikipedia that you feel is unflattering to them. You were editing the CPAC 2021 page within minutes of the event finishing, fighting a rearguard attention to get the mention of the Odal rune stage purged from the page (and from the Odal rune page itself). As I mentioned in your Arb request, more than 95% of your recent edits seem to pertain to partisan political topics. These display certain reoccurring fixations: climate change denial, guns, Republican politicians, and right-wing public figures. Despite your obvious fixation with these subjects you often seem to have no interest in making positive contributions to the pages. The PragerU page is a prime example, where you essentially demanded a veto on adding any material to Prager's well-documented history of climate change denial, while showing no interest in constructively adding the material yourself. Worryingly, many of the pages you have fixated on represent moneyed and powerful interests and thus giving them even-handed attention without partisan whitewashing is particularly important.

In other words, I believe you need to completely reassess your approach to editing on Wikipedia. If you find it difficult to not bring your political views to your editing, it might be best to steer clear of political subjects. I was perturbed to find a recent comment about you block reverting material on a page related to cars as well. I believe your hyper-litigious and pedantic approach, which one other Wiki editor described to me as "Wiki alphabet soup", spooks new editors and is aimed at status-quo stonewalling rather than improving this encyclopedia.

I think an Arb Com complaint is the most likely outcome but I am giving you a chance to amend your behavior and learn from your previous issues. Thanks

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

Needless to say, dealing with multiple editors making the same partisan arguments is frustrating. Shinealittlelight, who describes themself as a "reasonable conservative" has made several comments about purported left-wing bias on Wikipedia.[54] Some of Shinealittlelight's claims about obviously reliable sources are frankly quite bizarre - see this extended (and baffling) complaint about a widely-cited report written by a University of North Carolina professor that was critical of PragerU[55] and this attempt to ensure that the term "white nationalist" would not be used in relation to the Kenosha unrest shooting suspect.[56] The PragerU page is a particularly egregious example of how these editors work together to stonewall material, and the Andy Ngo page was similar until recently. PragerU has met the criteria for a "repeat offender" of spreading misinformation on Facebook[57][58] and yet "misinformation" barely appears on the PragerU Wiki page. Remarkably, these editors have alleged poor sourcing on a proposed addition to the header that would mention misinformation that contains more than two dozen sources.[59] Absolutely every addition that it critical of Prager gets ruthlessly purged. Nonetheless I've been patient with the page, even as the RfC that they insisted on seemingly goes nowhere. As I have said, the only absolutely 100% consistent feature of all these edits that I've referred to is that they serve to paint conservative subjects in a more favorable light. These editors do not observe WP:ROWN but instead carry out huge block reverts of new material. I agree I have been at times impatient and argumentative, but as any experienced editor can attest, dealing with partisan editors, and indeed multiple partisan editors at once, is frustrating Noteduck (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

UPDATE5: some of the sources Springee has removed from pages related to conservative politics because they are "biased", "subjective" or some other feeble reason: the Southern Poverty Law Center,[61][62][63][64][65][66] The New York Times and CNN,[67][68] National Review(!),[69] The Washington Post,[70] Newsweek,[71], The Washington Post and NBC,[72] The Washington Post and Bellingcat[73], Vox and The Daily Beast[74], the Los Angeles Times,[75] The Intercept,[76] the [[BBC],[77] Rolling Stone, Jacobin and Columbia Journalism Review[78], BuzzFeed News,[79] The Guardian(including restoring grammatical errors!)[80], Salon (website),[81] Forbes,[82] the Seattle Times,[83] Reports sans Frontieres,[84] New Republic and NBC News,[85] the Chicago Sun-Times[86] Politico and four other sources,[87] The Independent,[88] Daily Dot,[89][90][91] Reuters and Fox News(!)[92] Middle East Eye,[93] The Huffington Post,[94] Mother Jones,[95] and smaller-scale newspapers like the 8-time Pulitzer Prize winner Kansas City Star,[96][97]Des Moines Register[98] and The Arizona Republic(known for its conservatism!)[99][100] and academic articles[101]. These are almost all going back to November 2020 alone! There are simply too many of them to list, as Springee's pattern of deleting material unflattering to conservatives has become increasingly brazen. Springee also fought a protracted rearguard action to keep a Harvard University study about promotion of climate change denial out of the ExxonMobil page in favor of an article from a fossil fuel lobby group,[102] as well as contesting at length the inclusion of an article from the New York Times on the same article.[103] Concerningly, Springee seems to have a record of whitewashing the pager of powerful climate-change denying groups[104][105][106][107][108] - Wall Street Journal here[109][110] The consistent feature of absolutely every one of Springee's reversions is not evidentiary weight but ideological bent - the material challenged is always something reliably sourced, but arguably unflattering, to a conservative subject. I've provided around 50 diffs as evidence. Here are some accusations of "whitewashing" by other editors levelled towards Springee.[111][112][113][114][115][116] Springee will throw the book at the offending editor in terms of spurious complaints about Wiki policies, frequently launch RfCs in order to contest sources and drag out the process as long as possible. Look back through Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray (author), and PragerU and you'll see this pattern play out time and time again. The results are horribly whitewashed pages representing powerful, moneyed conservative interests - consider that on the current PragerU page, a flattering paragraph given over to the company's unsuccessful lawsuit against Google has 3 paragraphs and 310 words, while just a single sentence is dedicated to PragerU's well-documented[117][118][119][120][121][122] record of misinformation on climate change. It's worth noting that Springee, Shine, Pudeo, and Hipal have all edited together and largely backed each other up on pages like Andy Ngo and PragerU (Springee appears to have known Hipal since at least 2015) so while they are welcome to contribute to this arbitration request, they should not present themselves as disinterested bystanders. Given that Springee has been on Wiki since 2009, it's unsurprising that they have found a few friendly editors who will support their claims. Springee is WP:GAMING the system here to try to spook a new editor and obtain sanctions in order to discredit my edits in the future, while distracting from their own prodigious history of behavioral problems, activist editorship and biases. The above list of reversions is far from exhaustive and I may add more in the near future - there are simply too many incidents to report each one Noteduck (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

[123]

bht^{[i dont get it]}

^[1]

PragerU has promoted false and misleading information about climate change^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} and the COVID-19 pandemic.^[9][5] It has been criticized for inaccuracies,^[10] anti-Muslim sentiment,^[11][12] promoting views associated with the alt-right,^{[13][14][15][16]} and hosting speakers with far-right ties.^[17][18][19]

ungus bungus bungus

A number of academic and journalistic sources have linked Murray's ideology and political views to the far right^[20][21]

[124]