User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Thomas Basboll

I rarely comment on admin actions, partly because I don't wish to be one, partly because it is one of those roles where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. And to be clear I'm not suggesting your closure was out of process.

If I may offer a comment on your closure and I would appreciate if you give it some thought and perhaps a reply. I did look at Thomas' conduct and whilst it was heavily criticised by those he was in disagreement with I didn't actually find anything fundamentally wrong with it - except perhaps what appeared to be edit warring but we are dealing with a BLP here. I then looked at the edits being proposed and being familiar with the topic I was concerned. What is being proposed is at odds with WP:BLP and I'm not the only one to be concerned, see User talk:Drmies#Question on BLP. I note also that he made several attempts to disengage from what is a toxic environment on Talk:Tim Hunt but I don't think you could say it was down to Thomas. I remain concerned that this is an example of ANI abuse and its purpose was to remove Thomas rather than building a consensus. Whilst there was a number of editors commenting, most of those were involved in the dispute and if you remove them from the equation, there is less of an imperative to impose a page block. WCM_email 16:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The action I took was assessing and implementing the consensus of that ANI thread. Closers don't have the power to read into other discussions on talk pages and take that into account when assessing consensus. It wasn't about if I thought their conduct deserved a block from the page, it was about what the editors who took part in that discussion thought. As I pointed out, support for the page block ran above 75% so there was really only one outcome. Your statements and positions in the discussion were not sufficient to sway the discussion, so we're left with what we're left with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I actually didn't think that's how it works. I had remembered the ANI process differently (from years ago). It explains a lot about how I got into that mess and why my arguments didn't seem to have any effect. Well, what's done is done. Thanks for taking care of it. Thomas B (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Jinnifer sock

I saw you were taking care of User:Jinnifer socks and wanted to point out a new one. User:WaseWislown is obviously them pushing their most recent agenda about Freddy, Jason, and Michael being the “Big Three” slasher characters and bugging users about it on their talk pages. Thanks! NJZombie (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No not true. WaseWislown (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Premthumxavier (talk · contribs) was also setting up some of Wase's edits a couple of days ago. It's all been reverted now. Belbury (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Today’s first new account is User:GibMergam making the same changes about the three horror villains at Slasher film. NJZombie (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for handling it. They’re back again today as User:Gahumhitzer with the same edits. NJZombie (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell picked up my slack in this. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Always happy to put a sock back in the drawer! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Off-Wiki Harassment

Is there any procedure for dealing with off-wiki harassment? There is an individual linking to my submissions and calling be a liar, among other insults. This has been going on for several months. Drsmoo (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That would have to be handled by Arbcom or functionaries, assuming the harasser is an editor. There's also Wikimedia Trust and Safety. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

What are functionaries? I have a circumstantial suspicion regarding which editor it might be, but nothing more than that. It also may be a form of canvassing. Drsmoo (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Checkusers/oversighters. I think your best bet would just be to email Arbcom. If it's not for them to handle they can point you in the right direction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Drsmoo (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Legitimately baffled

I’m messaging you here as it seems I’m well over the limit in the relevant thread. I’m being told that I’m misrepresenting others opinions, and intentionally diverting discussions. Both of these accusations are factually wrong. What is the appropriate response if a user removes reliably sourced content claiming the author is “biased”, or claims the systemic sexual violence reported in reliable sources is propaganda? When I engage them on the merits of their reasoning, I’m told I’m ABF, us vs them, misrepresenting, etc. If that’s the case the users themselves should clarify that I have it wrong and why. And if someone makes a comment that’s unacceptable, I fail to see how calling their comment, not them, unacceptable is problematic, even while they’re personally attacking and insulting me (not my comments) Happy to provide as many diffs as are needed. If it’s problematic to do these things then I will be sure not to repeat it.

All of this is happening in the midst of an off-wiki forum poster repeatedly linking to my posts, along with personal attacks, with at least one very involved wiki user joining in. What makes it particularly odd is that I had a post on wiki that was modified within 15 minutes of posting. Minutes after the unmodified post was quoted on that off wiki site, it was reshared on Wikipedia, despite not being current Drsmoo (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your comment, I was directly referring to Kashmiri’s comments below, where they did dismiss reliable sources as propaganda. You may not have seen these comments, as small parts of longer conversations are being selectively presented to create a false picture, alongside off-wiki linking to this discussion.

In a discussion about "facts cited in reliable sources": "I'm sorry that you can't tell facts from propaganda. You might like to read more about it." and "Yor unfaltering belief in "facts established by reliable sources", in the midst of a war propaganda, is amusing." Those false allegations, specifically, are what were challenged.

Could you please update your comment to reflect this? Drsmoo (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Kashmiri is now ridiculously accusing me of "defense of racism". How on earth is this permissible? I am seeking guidance regarding how to proceed. Editors are now just making baseless lies about my edits, and I am not permitted to respond. Drsmoo (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

i believe responding to personal attacks should be an exemption. i am not SFR tho •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t want to budd into the AE, but…

I really don’t want to make the battleground accusations worse, but what should I make of this? FortunateSons (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Kip 06:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Two RfCs on same topic

There is always something new under the Wikipedia sun. Now we have a new Wiki-innovation: two RfCs, commenced within minutes of each other on the same subject, at Talk:Israel-Hamas war. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment

I know you're busy lately but I just wanted to say that I had overlooked your comment about "AE isn't the place to argue back and forth with each other, it's a place to present evidence to administrators." - I will do better regarding this in the future.

FWIW, I see myself as pushing back against battleground editing and I hope that that isn't misconstrued as participating in battleground editing.

I'm genuinely trying to be a productive editor in this topic area and I am not trying to push a POV. Please reach out on my talk page if you ever have any concerns or advice about my conduct or editing - I think you'll find I'm quite responsive to reason and amenable to change.

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Off topic yes but

While Ae is deliberating on whether or not the smear I am an antisemite is warranted (a slur I have had to patiently put up with for over a decade from dozens of editors - none successful but with the accumulated effect on admins eyes that 'perhaps there is no smoke without fire' in what is a kind of serial arson in my regard), when Chess jumped at an adjective to renew the innuendo - more or less, 'perhaps you are not antisemitic, who knows' but you insult (Jewish) people by questioning the core of their racial identity,that further provocation was not removed as 'unproductive', though it is flagrantly offensive, and as such demanded a reply,off-topic or not. While this kind of smearing crap is all water off a duck's back to me personally, the repetitious nature of the frivolous insinuation by numerous editors before admistrative eyes over years has a potentially pernicious longterm subliminal impact ,and therefore should not be tolerated. Nishidani (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Nish, you gotta do us all a favor and dial the diction back 10% or so. You've waxed a bit too poetic in a very prose moment. Love ya. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

:)Well, pal, here's a translation, clipping Pindaric wings by resorting to fledgling doggerel, a translation into the vulgar

Ya know, folks that blather on strait to me face

Thad I'm taken the mickey outtuv anuther race

Offen make me fink,'Ah,choke the yawn, 'ere we go:

I'll havta shuvel more shit again, t'day, bro,

'N clear the air of that retched stench

Shitstirrers make,' an though I meself don't blench

When shirtfronted by these gossipy smears,

'N parm it all off wiffout shedden tears,

'N larf at blokes ut get me in'a their sights

Finken their potshots,inyouendoze n' slights

Can't scar the tuff hide on a mug like me,

I nunthaless recall, as Joeballs wunce sed

A lie, if repeaded, can turn a chap's head,

An get'em believen, if ya drum it enuf

There must be sum truff ta this rumerus guff.Nishidani (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No need to reply. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Extra waxy!! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

"Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel" moved thrice without consensus or discussion

I've requested the three editors who've moved the page, one after the other within a few hours, to restore the previous title [1] [2] [3]. I made the same request on the article talk page. These are significant and controversial title changes, adding "alleged" to the title, and cannot be done "boldly" but require RMs. This is arguably the most sensitive topic on Wikipedia at the current time.Coretheapple (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The article has been restored back to the old title, but the editor who did so unintentionally restored to the wrong title! He is now prohibited by 1RR from restoring to the old title. Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been standing on a frozen lake for 10 hours, so I'll have to look into this later. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Order has been restored. I hope you caught some nice fish. Assuming that was the purpose of your ice mission. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Eh, a decent pickerel and a flag with no fish on it. My friends, who's tips were set in a C around where I was, were killing it though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Well the main thing is not to fall through the ice. They say you should always bring a rope. Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I have rescue ropes in the sled, and wear my spikes. Solid 8 inches of ice today though, so no danger. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

These are significant and controversial title changes, adding "alleged" to the title, and cannot be done "boldly" but require RMs. Since they are in fact allegations, I disagree and the move rationale given by @Davidlofgren1996: seems the sensible thing to do. I have said much the same at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BEFOREMOVING requires that potentially controversial changes must go to RM. We can't just skip it because we don't like the current title. The procedure in such instances is described at WP:PCM. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Draft Physics

Seems to have become some sort of forum for a debate of no relevance to Wikipedia content. Given that Draft Physics is clearly not going to get unblocked, removing their talk page access, hatting all the nonsense, and then semi-protecting the page would seem sensible in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It would have to be ECP. I was looking into that a bit earlier. I'm more concerned about who all those ducks are quacking like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

BevenEvenSeven, DrPhysics999 and UndarkHorse are all  Confirmed to each other, if that helps untangle anything.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Ponyo, thanks for that. No idea who the master is? Seems like an odd target for multiple socks.

AndyTheGrump, if it keeps up after this I'll take care of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

They're on a range with a bunch of sock activity from a selection of sock masters. Joy!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

What really fries my noodle is why make multiple obvious socks to antagonize them, rather than a single sock, if you really think you need to antagonize someone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia on a "Biographies" request for comment, and at Talk:List of best-selling albums on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment, and at Talk:Royal Rumble (2024) on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access

Hi, I saw you were active.
Can you remove talk page access from <this> blocked range? See their recent edit filter logs: [4] – 2804:F14:80C5:3C01:1579:9537:B00F:983B (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

All set. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No, thank You :). – 2804:F14:80C5:3C01:1579:9537:B00F:983B (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on how to proceed in edit request on potentially ECP page

Hi, I'm writing to ask for your opinion on how best to proceed in the situation laid out here. Thanks in advance for your help. spintheer (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel Defense Forces on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Blogger (service) restore request

Can you restore the 'Limitations' section on the Blogger (service) page? Someone removed it, and it may have been for a legit reason, but Blogger.com nor Google support pages mention the limitations of the service anywhere. This may be important information for people deciding on which blogging/CMS platform they want to use. Thanks. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Please make an edit request on the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this article BLP? Is this conduct legit?

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, I saw that you reverted a version in Anat Schwartz, and I seek your advice on several issues regarding this article.

1. This article was created two days ago by User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux, who wrote in the edit summary that she translated it from the Hebrew article. Unfortunately, this edit summary is misleading, as she actually translated only a small part of the Hebrew version, and added some information which wasn't in the Hebrew source and was based on Mondoweiss and The Intercept - both are considered considered biased and should be attributed. Does providing a misleading edit summary contradict the guidelines?
2. In her next few edits, CarmenEsparzaAmoux added information from the unreliable CounterPunch, again without attribution, especially the claim that Schwartz had no experience in journalism - although she is a multi-award-winning documentarist, a fact which does appear in the Hebrew article but which CarmenEsparzaAmoux failed to translate. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but this might look like canvassing - what do you think?
3. I completed the translation from Hebrew, added the missing information about Schwartz's education and professional experience and success, and removed the information from biased and unreliable sources, to create this version. 20 minutes later, User:Cjhard reverted all my edits claiming "last good version" in the edit summary. I asked him in his talk page how come he finds the partial and biased version better, and he replied that I erased a footnote from Al-Jazeera which is a reliable source. I realized that when erasing a bunch of unreliable sources I did erase Al Jazeera as well, but as far as I understand the guidelines, he was supposed to correct this error by re-inserting the Al-Jazeera source and information, and not revert everything including the re-insertion of biased sources and information, deletion of notable information and re-insertion of factual mistakes (such as her serving in an air force base in Modi'in, which is a mistranslation). Does this make sense, or am I wrong about how he should have acted?

Thank you for your time, and all the best, Ithamar. איתמראשפר (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@איתמראשפר @Cjhard already explained WP:ARBECR to you. Because the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is a contentious topic, you may not edit the page until you have 500 edits and your account is 30 days old. You may make edit requests at the article talk page if you have problems with the article. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cjhard could you use WP:ARBECR in edit summaries going forward when you revert on this basis? Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. For the record, that was not the basis of my reversion, just my reason for choosing not to engage with the user about the edits. Cjhard (talk) 03:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you User:Philipnelson99, but my questions here are about the conduct of specific editors - one used a misleading edit summary and cited biased and unreliable sources without proper attribution, and the other reverted to a version which is very problematic with a questionable edit summary. I adressed ScottishFinnishRadish because he is an experienced editor and admin, and was involved in later edits in this article. I do intend to open a discussion in the article's talk page, but first I'd like to get the opinion of an experienced editor and admin. All the best, Ithamar. איתמראשפר (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't intend to speak for SFR but I expect their reply will be the same. You must abide by the arbitration restrictions around the topic area. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

My dear colleague Philipnelson99, when I edited the topic yesterday it wasn't marked as WP:ARBECR, so I don't see how this is relevant. Are you telling me that EC editors have the right to write misleading edit summaries, add information from biased sources without proper attribution, erase notable information which disturbs the canvassing of an individual as lacking experience, and using NPOV wordings?

I'm still waiting for SFR"s response, hoping he'll have some REAL answers to my questions. All the best, Ithamar. איתמראשפר (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Id expect him to tell you that you may not discuss anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, broadly construed, besides for making edit requests on talk pages. That includes this user talk page. nableezy - 16:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

איתמראשפר, you may not make any edits related to the Palestine/Israel conflict, except for constructive edit requests on article talk pages. Commentary on editor conduct in the topic area is included in WP:ECR, as is this discussion, and this discussion on my talk page, except for the request for clarification on ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's Arab-Israeli, not just Palestine/Israel, for the record. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles § Definition of the "area of conflict". nableezy - 17:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just FYI regarding this article, I don't know if anybody noticed that I page-blocked the whitewashing SPA Task Poop (sic!) indefinitely from the article. Of course they, being brand new, weren't allowed to edit in the area either, though I didn't give that as the reason. A likely sock, for my money. Bishonen | tålk 18:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC).

Thanks Bish. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, gotta get out of the habit of just saying P/I. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It would've been very funny if you were to copy and paste Nableezy's message. Oh well, missed opportunity... SWinxy (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that the article in question is problematic and I have nominated it for deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Interstate 90 on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

IP block

In case you have pings disabled, I commented on their talk page and was wondering if your block on 174.160.168.91 was a misclick.
From what I saw they only removed vandalism? You should be able to see this diff of their edits: <diff of 3 changes> – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:A964:EF17:8C6D:EC09 (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It was a misread on my part. Sorry about that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It happens :s. Thanks for what you do. – 2804:F14:80E5:6B01:A964:EF17:8C6D:EC09 (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Talk:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident subject to ECP to the extent that IPs cannot edit the talk page unless it's an edit request?

Currently IPs making many many comments there. The ARBPIA template has the stipulation that ECP applies to the talk page besides edit requests, but I don't see it on the one on that talk page. JM (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking into it further, it has the template Template:Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice instead of Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement. Is there a reason it has the first template instead of the second one? In practical terms, does the former allow non-ECP participation while the latter does not allow it? JM (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of templates that don't quite match. I switched it to the more descriptive template, ecp'd for a few days, and removed some stuff. I'll try and go through and remove more of the ECR violations later. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:ECR @ Talk:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident

Hello,
WP:ECR states that suggested edits should be allowed, and therfore I kindly ask it from you, please resubmit my edit proposal.
Thank you! · ^מקף Hyphen _෴ · 10:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyway! · ^מקף Hyphen _෴ · 10:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be an edit request, just a gallery with two items in it. Was there a specific request there I didn't see? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Right. I'm sorry, wasn't clear enough there.
I wanted to suggest adding one of them to (or below) the information box.

Now someone decided to open another discussion, and they did so clearly. · ^מקף Hyphen _෴ · 13:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Page-move vandalism deletion

Hello, you just blocked this user, and they moved the page they were vandalizing to a malicious title. I moved it back, but the redirect still needs deletion, can you please delete it? Thanks, ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 03:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think everything is tidied up now. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Still see one edit with the bad content from when they first moved the page, but aside from that, no other work to be done. Thank you! ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Risk of vote manipulation at Al-Rashid move request

I believe that this https://twitter.com/karaokecomputer/status/1763707278199570605 is likely to lead to at least some manipulation of the votes; could you take a look? FortunateSons (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Link to discussion: Talk:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident#Requested move 29 February 2024 FortunateSons (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There's not much I can do about tweets. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, thank you; some people have stated that even people editing because of it are not actually violating policy, is that true? FortunateSons (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to see the actual context of what was said. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is the context, with the rest of that thread. nableezy - 17:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It was, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What would you expect an administrator to be able to do in this situation? Simply having seen a tweet isn't against any policy or guideline, there is no evidence that anyone was brought to the discussion because of the tweet, and we have a measure of attenuation for these issues in the ARBPIA space because of ECR. We can't just assume bad faith and discount the response of anyone who we don't recognize from the topic area. We want experienced editors who are otherwise uninvolved in the topic area contributing to consensus, not to prevent them from contributing.

Postponing our internal processes because someone's tweet got a lot of views opens the door to easy manipulation of Wikipedia by anyone with a platform. Should we immediately close any discussion that has been commented on in the media? What if Joe Rogan with his massive platform comments on the title of an article, or an RFC/RM/AfD? Do we shut it down, or prevent editors in good standing from contributing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, I was just surprised by the large quantity of „new“ editors in the area combined with the tweet.

While I do think that postponing would be a generally desirable measure in cases where disproportionate media attention (particularly of the biased kind) is encountered, your arguments make sense on why that isn’t policy, even if I nevertheless would consider it wise. FortunateSons (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing raising the issue and it is good to raise the point prominently in the discussion itself. But outside "kibbitzing" is typical and there is not much that can be done about it other than letting people know it exists. i agree that the sudden avalanche of !votes is suspicious but it could be from a different kind of canvassing too. Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you! :) FortunateSons (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You are most welcome. By the way, I just noticed that that tweet has over 563 thousand views, so yes, the sudden !votes do appear to be not coincidental. Coretheapple (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This page protection looks odd to me...

Hey ScottishFinnishRadish,

On February 29th, a bot seems to have undone[5] the indefinite page protection of Holy Roman Empire that you had added two weeks earlier.[6] I don't know if that's as you intended it, or whether you or the bot messed up, but it looked odd to me. Renerpho (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the page still suffers from IP vandalism. The latest happening 10 minutes ago.[7] If there's anything you can do (like protect the page again), please go ahead. Renerpho (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That page wasn't indefinitely edit protected by SFR. Per the log[8], it was edit autoconfirmed protected until 07:54, February 29, 2024 and indefinitely move protected so that only admins could move it. The bot has no control over if the page is protected, it just removes the template indicating protection @Renerpho. Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

So far there's been one bad edit five days after protection expired, and it wasn't the block evasion that was the reason for the protection. If it keeps up feel free to take it to rfpp. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Foreign Secretary on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

protection lapse

You protected Talk:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident earlier but it has now lapsed, maybe worth protecting for the duration of the RM? nableezy - 16:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I gave it another week, hopefully it's closed by then. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Improper RfC close

User:Kashmiri, an active participant in the I/P area and specifically Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, closed an RfC on whether Hamas denials of sexual assaults should be in the lead section, finding that the denial should not be included. [9]. One minute later [10] he sought to avoid scrutiny of this completely improper close by archiving it. [11]. I have unarchived and asked the editor in question to remove his "close." Just yesterday there was a new development in this area (a UN report, which made the front page of the NY Times) concerning the assaults, which may impact upon this RfC, which should be kept open for a period of time longer. I note that WP:RfC allows editors to reopen closed RfCs, but I hesitate to do so given that this under arbcom restrictions etc. Now I pointed out to Kashmiri that involved editors like him can't close RfCs, and maybe he wasn't aware of that, but now he is and I think that this RfC needs to be restored expeditiously by someone, preferably him. Coretheapple (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I was in the process of archiving the old threads as the archive bot failed and the talk page was becoming unmanageable. I mistook that December RfC as stale, as were most of the earlier and later threads. I've now reverted the close. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Another conflict successfully resolved through my deft diplomatic handling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What would we do without you? Coretheapple (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No, seriously, being open to complaints, even if a tad premature, is a good safety valve. Appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to provide, along with actual administration when I have the time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

question

Would filing a report based on the diffs collated here be "battleground conduct"? Would those diffs demonstrate slow motion edit-warring? Tendentious editing? nableezy - 02:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Nableezy, note the first three diffs should be see as part of a single edit, split because the content on that article is split between the page and several templates.

I re-added it on 4 January because of the addition of a mention of friendly fire by Israeli forces; I felt that it was inappropriate, per WP:BALASP, to only include the fact that casualties on one side were caused by friendly fire when the fact is true for both sides. Note that 4 January also includes this edit, which I don't think is currently in your list.

6 January was an attempt to address concerns through editing that it was "too much detail for lede" and that the sources were unreliable and that "in the body, you can weigh different claims"; it was re-added to that template because it was the only way to include it in the body.

6 March was for the same reason as 4 January; friendly fire by Israeli's had been re-added (including by you). After you reverted March 6 I had no intention of adding it again without formal consensus; instead, I was in the process of drafting an RfC on the question. I probably should have opened the RfC earlier, but overall I don't think my editing was disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the way you're posting a link to those diffs here. Compiling them for use in dispute resolution purposes is one thing, if you plan to use them promptly per WP:POLEMIC, but that's not what you're doing here. These are diffs that reach way back to November, and posting them here in a very widely followed admin talk page is a kind of "shot over the bow" or "sneak preview" of some kind of long-term abuse case you are preparing against an editor with whom you've had content disputes. They don't involve any immediate issue that may require administrator action. I think it's inappropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

He has 201 page watchers? Less than my user talk for example? And I am asking him because he has supported sanctions for reports that I have found to be less worthy of sanctions that I would not have reported, and he has complained about battleground behavior while, in my view, ignoring the battleground behavior of going to AE asking for sanctions for trivial disputes, so I am trying to understand if this sequence would also merit a report and sanctions or if such a report would be in his mind battleground behavior. You come rushing here for every little problem you have, eg here, but I cant ask a question on of this merits a report? I dont even know why I am responding to you, I asked SFR a question, and I can wait for his response. nableezy - 14:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you didn't just ask a question. You linked to a subpage with diffs that you're framing here as battlefield conduct by another editor going back to November. I or some other editor could do the same to you or any other editor, compiling long term grievances going back months and then showing them here, and that would be just as inappropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Its all the same edit, and I asked the question because I wanted to know if such slow motion edit-warring would be sanctionable behavior. Anyway, last I checked you were not SFR so Ill go back to waiting to see if he responds. nableezy - 15:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I gather from the diffs that you don't want added to the Israel-Hamas war and the accompanying template that some Gaza casualties are caused by Hamas rockets falling short. That's a content dispute. Framing it as improper user behavior doesn't make it less of a content dispute, and airing your grievance over that sticking point here doesn't make it less of a content dispute either. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Jesus christ, the diffs are about a user repeatedly pushing into the lead and infobox material which has been repeatedly been challenged and which he has never gained a consensus for. And this admin has shown an interest in topic banning users on the basis of reports that I think show less disruptive editing. So I am asking if such behavior should be reported to AE. Thats it. Now you either get that or you dont, but I dont feel like I am going to be able to correct your mistaken views on either what I am asking here or what the diffs show. Nor do I think it matters, at all, what you think about this. So feel free to the last word in this thread, but SFR I still hope you will answer my question, Id rather not just report it and then have you complain about battleground behavior again. nableezy - 15:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why, rather than trying to get a user topic-banned or dissuaded through this kind of posting from pushing the point, why don't either you or he obtain a wider consensus on that issue? It strikes me as the kind of content that would benefit readers of the article, but the community could feel differently. Everything doesn't have to be a precursor to World War III, for pete's sake. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait a minute. It IS the subject of a discussion on the talk page. [12] So fine. Let it go at that, please. Coretheapple (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Back on topic, SFR, based on your comments at AE I would assume you think this is report worthy, but I remain unsure, so I would appreciate a response here. If you decline to engage no worries, I can try to discern things from your and other admin's comments at AE on my own. nableezy - 16:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Give me some time. I'm taking a quick break at work, and the ongoing ECR violations were a higher priority. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries, no rush. nableezy - 16:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a moment to review those diffs, and to save everyone the time and effort of a trip to AE I'll jump straight to the conclusion.

BilledMammal, long term edit warring is still edit warring. Discuss on the talk page and if consensus isn't clear start an RFC. Knock that off.

Nableezy, that would have been pretty weak for AE, but I wouldn't see it is as battleground editing any more than I see reporting 1RR violations as battleground conduct. If there is behavior that needs to be addressed that is what AE or uninvolved administrators are for. The battleground conduct isn't reporting actual violations and issues, the battleground conduct is making accusations that reports are only being made to seek sanctions or remove competition. As far as I've seen BM hasn't requested sanctions, and most of the time the result is a warning. That is appropriate, as it will be in the most recent filing assuming they can demonstrate they understand 1RR. If someone doesn't believe their editing falls foul of sanctions then administrators have to step in. Hopefully a warning and clarification is sufficient to not see them back at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Already knocked off and RfC opened.

Nableezy, as a general note I do try to avoid going to AE - to the point where I had to be told to go to AE faster in the future rather than continue the discussion on a users talk page. Since then I've been a little faster, but in both the recent cases my decision to go was triggered in the first by them telling me to go there, and in the second by them editing the talk page of the article that I had asked them to self-revert on. BilledMammal (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada

Hi, since you've done closure review, could you unarchive the RSN discussion so that it can be closed again? Alaexis_¿question? 10:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm on mobile right now so trying to unarchive large sections isn't in the cards for currently. Anyone can unarchived an unclosed discussion, though, so you can handle that if you'd like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I just realised that it had already been generally unreliable before the RfC, so it just stays this way. Sorry for the confusion. Alaexis_¿question? 14:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

KanzazKyote

You blocked KanzazKyote for block evasion. I have no doubt your block was appropriate. I'm wondering about cleaning up Talk:Zoroastrianism in Iran and on whether 173.244.8.254, who is clearly the same person (based on behaviour), should also be blocked. So, any hints as to which block this user is evading? Clearly, KanzazKyote was evading the 24 hour block on the IP address, but is there more to it than that? --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't look that deeply into it, but I don't see any other crossover with Taiwan at the Olympics and Zoroastrianism. I think it may have just been a one-off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Heather Reisman

Fyi, the user who you ECR blocked on Heather Reisman just did it again. [13] Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 15:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)