User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Barkley Marathons 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 14:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Gaming?

Can you make assessments that quickly? (Idk) Also rating IP topics. Selfstudier (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Selfstudier My understanding is the rater tool provides an automatic assessment, obviously the assessor should do more than just use the rater tool. Given the context of the ARBECR warning you nudged them about, gaming is in the realm of possibility but they still lack ~142 edits before hitting the threshold. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as rating pages in the topic area subject to ECR, I have no clue how that works or if there's precedent. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear, the editor is limited to edit requests on the talk page. Also you seem to be saying that the edits are de facto automated? Selfstudier (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It's semi-automated. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier See WP:RATER. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like an open invitation to game ECR. Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Nice catch. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed restriction

re: this revert

I am a "drive-by editor" and asking out of curiosity, because in my watchlist I noticed that this editor was blocked. So, my question is: ECR says Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. The reverted piece does not look disruptive to me. Can you clarify the reason? (I understand the person e.g., could be engaged in disruptive behavior in general). - Altenmann >talk 00:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This and this are not edit requests, and although this is closer it's less requesting an edit than complaining about bias. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I see now: they are of WP:NOTFORUM type. I understand that idle grumbling in sensitive areas is unconstructive: one must suggest specific improvements to text (in their opinion). - Altenmann >talk 00:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

For interest, the entire Talk:Casualties_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war page is quite a good example of what happens in the topic area when the edit request-only rule is not enforced. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. In the article I mentioned I casually wikilinked a rather uncommon term, but I was reverted. Can you explain this as well? I don't want to talk to the reverter, whose behavior I consider rather rude (including not responding in article talk page). - Altenmann >talk 01:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't explain that. Philipnelson99, what's the issue with that wikilink? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh goodness. That was totally my fault. I really didn't mean to revert but I was browsing diffs and must have hit the revert button by accident. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann it's fixed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Philipnelson99: Thank you for classification. There is another torture mentioned there, shabeh with no article and inaccurate description. I was going to write up shabeh (torture), but was placed in a limbo with this revert: who knows what kind of middle-eastern taboo I run into :-) - Altenmann >talk 03:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

A suggested compromise

I'll be filing my appeal with ArbCom next week (you can see the current version in my sandbox[1]). Unless it is rejected immediately, I imagine it's going to be a lot of work for various people. So I thought I'd suggest a compromise.

Would you have a look at the actual edits I made during this dispute and reach your own conclusions about whether I was causing a disruption or simply urging caution in a BLP article? (No one is working on it any longer and the controversial section needs a lot of work, even on it's own terms.) If you find that I wasn't actually the problem, you could simply (I think) lift the block and the ban and then watch what I do.

I think I have a way of respecting the consensus of the RfC (as summarized by S Marshall). I intend to leave the controversial section to the end. The first step will be to expand the content on his work in science communication and policy after he won the Nobel. It is, after all, in that context that his remarks can best be understood.

So my suggestion is essentially that you set me free on the Hunt article and then block me again if you regret it. Only then, having done all we could to avoid it, can we take our disagreement to ArbCom. What do you say?[2] Thomas B (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I cannot unilaterally overturn a community imposed sanction, even if I thought it was a good idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

OK. I thought I read somewhere that it was possible to appeal to the blocking/banning admin. I just wanted to make sure I had tried all other options before brining it to arbitration. Thanks. Thomas B (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Amendment

It was only today when I realized that Red-tailed hawk had officially taken a break from editing. I thought he would only be inactive for a few days. I am asking for you to read the request for an amendment that I wrote on his talk page. Sorry if this is lazy. Salmoonlight (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it was implemented by a consensus of administrators at WP:AE it will have to be appealed there or at WP:AN. I suggest you wait until several months have passed and make sure you can demonstrate an understanding of 1RR, reverts, and edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

ArbComm / SPI

I see you blocked this user for ArbComm enforcement. Not sure if it makes a difference but there is also this in which they are named. Not sure why SPI is so backed up or if it matters at this point so just FYI I guess. CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Procedural Question

Hey, I'm not familiar with how AE works, and would like your guidance before (if at all) making further remarks. My understanding from the template is that the party filing the complaint makes the statement, fills out the fields, the subject of the complaint has the space for their statement, and then both wait for responses from admins, without further interaction? I ask because browsing other past cases seems to show a back and forth, but where the comments are still in the allotted positions, discernable by timestamps rather than a back and forth comment-reply thread. When you @ me in a comment, is there a proper form for me to reply, or do I just wait for closure, having already filled out the statement? entropyandvodka | talk 10:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Entropyandvodka, you can reply if you wish, but only in your own section. I was just trying to clarify that your edits were reverts. An acknowledgement that you understand wouldn't be amiss. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait a tick.

As this is the first edit with this account, what deletion are we talking about here? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

They were also editing as an IP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suspect they are referring to their IP, Special:contributions/84.110.218.178, which they used (rather disruptively) before creating an account.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm really not feeling an unblock in this situation, although I'm open input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and User talk:Lord Milner#ANI if you have the time to peek at something. I'm also not feeling an unblock there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hunter Biden on a "Biographies" 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 11:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Stale?

I reported the IP address 81.81.223.38.228 for vandalism. You replied with a Stale warning, writing, "This is a mobile connection and is already stale.". I don't understand, what is stale? This IP address made three edits just today here on en.wikipedia, and three more over at en.wikipedia, all of them vandalisms. Rontombontom (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

IPs assigned to mobile connections change very quickly. Three edits over seven hours ago is stale, as they're very likely not using that IP anymore. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

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

Dear Wikimedian,

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

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

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

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

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

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

Oh Hi

Hi,

Since you're online, I just wanted to mention that User:Me Da Wikipedian was copying "stuff" from my userpage onto theirs, including sandboxes, buttons, clear from the order of placements. For example, the "user from Earth" and "likes to sleep" userboxes. Additionally, if you hover over the "citation needed" template, you will see Date:Marchuary *^* which is something I added as a joke. The "A Button to my Talk Page" goes to my talk page.

I really don't appreciate this, and I saw that you're online at the moment, so I'm seeking some advice. I have told Me Da Wikipedian on their talk page already. Thanks if you reply!

Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 01:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I would wait to see how they respond, but there's really not anything to be done. I expect they'll remove any references to your username, but other than that it's all standard user page stuff. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:International Churches of Christ on a "Religion and philosophy" 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 14:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive tagging

Could you review this discussion/dispute for disruptive editing? Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Adding POV and POV LEDE tags. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

IOHANNVSVERVS, if you'd like to report disruptive editing please do so. Don't just drop a link to a 3000 word discussion and ask me to review it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Michael (archangel)

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish:, I saw that you blocked 97.113.65.84 for a 2 week period following their disruptive edits on Michael (archangel) and Gabriel. It appears they have made an account and have now resumed the edits, even using the same edit summaries. They are also doing it under this. See here. I am not super familiar with dealing with this kind of editing violation, but would this be considered sockpuppetry if the first edits were made without a Wikipedia account? I'm trying to figure out how best to deal with this/report this. Any advice is welcomed. Thanks! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, and blocked the other IP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel–Hamas war on a "History and geography" 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 06:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Hey SFR. You're an admin I have immense respect for, for your incredibly judicious judgement across many topics and venues, even more so considering the volume of admin work you do. So I thought I'd ask you for some advice. I'm feeling pretty disheartened about the project for the response I got in this discussion at the spam whitelist. A couple of the issues I'm feeling, coming out of that thread, are:

• Consensus sure as hell feels like a vote, when a minority opinion nonetheless grounded in policy and with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, can lose out to a majority opinion from people who only lightly participated in the thread, and offered more in the way of feelings and opinions than policy- or guideline-based disagreement. The end result appears to be the admins there saying "nobody cares enough about this to do anything, go away."
• I realize that discussions on this noticeboard don't usually get that much attention... but does an admin even need "consensus" to action a whitelist request? I see tons of whitelist requests approved with only a single admin action, based on the benefit the submitting user said the site would provide.

Any advice you could give would make me feel better, I think. Currently, I'm at a bit of a loss for a positive takeaway here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist, a lot of time consensus works out to a vote, especially when you're dealing with a discussion without a critical mass of editors, and when there's no formal close. I wouldn't see the result of that discussion the same a you, though. Although it's not the result that I would have gone for there's a clear path forward with the other sources your source is based on. In the grand scheme of Wikipedia, that's a better result than a lot of people get. That doesn't mean it's a good result, or the result that seems like it would make the most sense, but it isn't a hard stop.

Sometimes you step into a branch in the woods that pokes you in the eye out of nowhere, even when you're walking on a well trodden path. This seems like one of those situations. You stepped into a situation that was hostile and got pushback when you didn't see any reason. I've found that a lot of times it's because the regulars in that area or handling that process are used to a certain behavior which leads to a local consensus of how things are generally handled. That turns something like whitelisting something real quick into an ordeal, and leads people to feeling brushed off. People have had to put up with the same at aiv and uaa where I lurk because the people who handle the process are a) pretty confident in their handling of requests, and b) a little jaded because most of what is handled isn't good faith concerns from an established editor.

As far as the consensus burden necessary, I don't actually know because that's not my normal haunt, but it looks to be like permissions where any admin can action a request but once a discussion starts there's an expectation to wait for consensus. It looks like the burden is on the editor wanting the whitelist entry, which is unfortunate. It's certainly not how I would have handled it, but I also don't work that backlog so I find it hard to judge the action. Just because it's not how it's handle it doesn't mean that's not how it's handled.

In conclusion, sorry that things worked out like they did, and that the process is over-stressed and underserved. I'm sure no one meant to make the process shitty, but sometimes a bunch of people trying to make something work right only make it work, and sometimes mistakes happen. This is exacerbated by the critical shortage of admins handling things like that. My personal bar for whitelisting would be "request by an established editor that seems to be made in good faith," but that doesn't seem to be the consensus at that project. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion at Survivor: Borneo et al?

You reverted an edit at Survivor: Borneo with a notation of block evasion. Can you give me some pointers on where to see the block in question, so that I can enforce it? I'm not seeing obvious enough evasion (yet) to take action on it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Noting that an IP, who I believe is the IP under discussion here, attempted to remove this question in this edit BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The socking in those articles combined with the behavior of the IP on the user talk pages as well as AIV led me to believe it was an already blocked editor. I believe I was thinking it might be Thecheeseistalking99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I'm not sure. They continued the same pattern of attempting to remove reports here as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Using LLMs on Wikipedia

Please see Wikipedia:Large language models. It is an essay, and there is no policy (that I am aware of) that prohibits the use of ChatGPT as a tool to improve the grammar and spelling of posts. This essay and WP:RSPCHATGPT emphasise accuracy and advise against using the tool for generating new content in articles. I don't think you should be removing my talk page comments where I've used the tool only to improve my English. FailedMusician (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Large language models: "Using LLMs to write one's talk page comments or edit summaries is strongly discouraged. Furthermore, LLM use to generate or modify text should be mentioned in the edit summary..."-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this essay policy? I don't think I should have to mention in my edit summaries that I used to a tool to improve my English. I use Google Translate also to translate some phrases from my native language, and I shouldn't have to put that in my edit summaries either. FailedMusician (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The edits I pointed out to you were clearly written by a LLM, not just translated. Contributions should be from the person, not whatever LLM they're using, especially when contributing to internal project discussions. Chatgpt doesn't have a say in Wikipedia consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

But your accusations that my posts were created by an LLM and not written by me are spurious. You are perhaps using an AI detection software, but those tools are very far from accurate, and can usually only catch phrase combinations. They cannot detect if the content is not just grammatically-improved human-created content. FailedMusician (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, we don't need to 'detect ' anything. If a contributor appears to be causing problems due to having to use software to communicate, we can decide that we don't need them, as the ability to communicate properly in English is self-evidently necessary in an English-language encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks and sounds like your concerns aren't policy based then. There don't appear to be any policies against the use of LLMs for grammar and spelling correction. FailedMusician (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if FailedMusician has finished reviewing "their" obvious plagiarism here.[3] Seems possible ChatGPT may be causing them to do copyright violations. Bon courage (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Tbh we really do need a policy banning LLMs - their whole deal is creating copyvios. Sorry Mr. Radish for clogging your talk page. Do you think this is worth bringing up at village pump? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it has been brought up in the past. It is going to need some looking at, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

As a human I can tell. Humans don't write Instead, it maintained the status quo, despite acknowledging the potential for a sustainable argument to overturn it in the future. This is a discrepancy suggesting that the close may have not accurately reflected consensus, requiring this discussion.

So just to be clear, if you continue to use chatgpt or another LLM to engage on noticeboards, in communications with other editors, or to create content without making it clear you will be blocked for disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The History Wizard of Cambridge

I'm reaching out to you as you previously topic banned The History Wizard of Cambridge last year. I found these IPs editing Yeonmi Park: [4] and [5] which are clearly being used to by the to evade the topic ban. On the same range I found this IP editing Malayan Emergency articles: [6]. This IP on the same range edited Uncomfortable Oxford: [7]. This IP on the range edited Charlie Hutchison a page created by The History Wizard of Cambridge: [8]. These IPs are all on the same range and linked to the University of Oxford and The History Wizard of Cambridge states they are a Historian living in England and their talk page show numerous references to the university. The IPs are clearly the same user. Compare this edit: [9] to the recent edit by the IP: [10]. Very similar edit summary. The edits to Yeonmi Park are also very similar to previous edits by the main account which are very critical of her story. Compare [11] with [12]. They're essentially restoring their edits removed by another user. The IP edits to the Malayan emergency are also similar to previous edits which focus on British head hunting. Compare: [13] and [14]. The edits to the latter two articles are a clear violation of their topic ban and they've stopped editing with the main account. I'm also wondering about this new account which added pictures to Batang Kali massacre: [15]. One of the IPs edited this page and this new account added the exact same pictures here as The History Wizard of Cambridge did to the Malayan Emergency page. 212.139.253.19 (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That works out to Special:Contributions/163.1.0.0/17, which is far too busy and constructive to rangeblock. Your best bet is to report them as you see them, and open an SPI for the named account. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Involved editors repeatedly shutting down RFC prematurely

At Talk:Israel–Hamas war#RFC: Lede paragraph regarding Gaza casualties involved editors - specifically those generally aligned with a certain POV - are repeatedly shutting down the RFC.

The questions the RFC are on have been discussed (One, Two, and I believe others) and in some cases edit warred over, meaning that it is time to proceed to dispute resolution, but some editors appear to disagree with that. This has included shutting down the RFC, but also alleging, without explaining why, that the statement is not neutral.

I don’t want to keep reopening it, so I’m coming here to ask for advice on how to proceed. BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You could also look at the edit-warring on the talk page, with BilledMammal making one, two, three and four reverts on the talk page in about two hours. I believe we have a topic-wide one revert rule. Happy to take this to AE if youd prefer not to deal with it. nableezy - 23:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding #4, my understanding is that moving a comment placed in the wrong location to the right location is not a revert (to phrase that another way; what is it a revert of? I’ve never interpreted moving a paragraph as a revert unless there is something it is clearly a revert of added 02:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)). Regarding the rest, my understanding is that 1RR only applies to content pages.

Further, I would suggest that involved editors prematurely shutting down an RFC (#1), and an editor trying to edit-war a change to another editors comment in violation of WP:TPO (#2 and #3), is a bigger issue. BilledMammal (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Rich to say that both you dont have to sign the comment, and yet it remains your comment. I attributed a non-neutrally phrased RFC statement, you edit-warred to keep the statement authorship concealed. nableezy - 00:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If you weren’t trying to sign the statement, you would have an argument there - but since you are, you don’t. BilledMammal (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I was attributing an unsigned statement. If you werent trying to hide the authorship, you would have a point, but since you were, you dont. And the claim that I attempting a change to another editors comment is risible, and it isnt even the funniest part of this. nableezy - 00:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

(And there are no neutrality issues with that statement; providing examples of how the content might be worded if there is a consensus to include wording, to improve editor understanding, does not create a neutrality issues contrary to your assertion in the discussion) BilledMammal (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool of you to find no fault with your leading RFC statement. Doesnt change that it is a leading statement and, unsurprisingly, each of the suggestions match with your vote. Odd you wouldnt want anybody to know that the author of those leading statements also voted for them. Well, not odd, but interesting in its own way. nableezy - 00:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Each of the examples start with "if yes". If you are concerned that presenting examples only for a yes consensus is a neutrality issue we can include examples for a no consensus - but saying "If no, no text will be included before the casualty figures/in the third sentence" seems redundant to me. BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You provide suggested answers in your supposedly brief and neutral question and then pretend like that isnt a neutrality issue. And yet you apparently have an issue being associated with the statement, so much so you edit war out any mention of your writing it. Im done with you here though, I await to see what SFR does to decide what next steps may be needed for an editor who is engaged in such editing. nableezy - 00:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

SFR, just wondering if you want to look at this or rather I report the edit warring to AE? nableezy - 13:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Nableezy, is there a difference between here and AE? My current time frame is within 36 hours. Might be this evening or sometime tomorrow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No, just wasnt sure if you wanted to wash your hands of it entirely. If youre willing to look at it, cool by me. nableezy - 19:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and I think that for some dumb reason 1rr doesn't apply on talk pages. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Edits made to content are specifically called out. Not sure why it wouldn't apply elsewhere, but that seems to be the intent. Maybe we're up for another trip to clarification and amendment town? Four reverts are obviously still a no-no. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the above discussion but I think clarification and possibly amendment regarding 1RR would be incredibly helpful. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• The two of you are now involved in another dispute with each other not even on an article or article talk, but at an uninvolved user's talk page. Must I trout you both yet again? The Kip 03:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

To everyone playing at home, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so I've taken a bit more of a look at this. BilledMammal, I think with your history of 1RR/edit warring reports you should know that moving a response, prose, or anything else fundamentally changes its meaning and impact, and is covered by the spirit of a revert. If it didn't change the meaning of the response, or what is being responded to, then there would have been no impetus to move it in the first place. That's 4RR, and is a clear violation even without 1RR applying to talk pages. WP:3RRNO makes no allowance for WP:TPO/WP:TPG violations. As such I'm blocking you from the article and talk page for a week.

Makeandtoss, you shouldn't be closing an RFC in a topic you're involved up to your eyebrows in. I know that admin turnaround times aren't great, especially in this topic area or at AE, but you should have at least made an attempt to bring uninvolved eyes to it.

Nableezy, was adding the unsigned template really worth reverting over? I know that you saw it as non-neutral and wanted to have a name attached, but the same that goes for Makeandtoss applies here. At least try to get someone uninvolved to look at it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t consider myself closing an RFC as I am obviously involved, as is the case with all the editors in that page and topic. I struck over it as it was in violation of RFCBEFORE, and striking through can be easily reverted if other editors disagree. Next time in either case I will make sure to take it to the administrator’s noticeboard for uninvolved intervention, so thanks for informing me about the best way I should have moved forward. Makeandtoss (talk) 14: 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the update; in the past I typically haven’t considered moving paragraphs to be a revert, but I will going forward, both for myself and other editors.

Two questions however; first, what about what Primefac described as TPO violations? Second, what about the RFC itself - should the close be reverted? BilledMammal (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Primefac described TPO violations as being what was argued, not as having had happened. There's a distinct difference there. You'll notice I've mentioned that to both editors. This was certainly in enough of a grey area, e.g. not directly changing comments, and everyone involved had violated the guideline, including your moving of Nableezy's comment.

As for the RFC? Jesus, who knows? Do you have any strong objections to a discussion on how to best formulate the RFC and what options should be available? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, Selfstudier, Nableezy, and M.Bitton: What are the issues with the framing of the RFC? I haven't kept up with the 0.7 tomats talkpage, so I'm not sure exactly what the objection is. Is it just that example language was provided that wasn't workshopped? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No proper discussion/RFCbefore, merely trying to revisit past unmentioned discussions that did not produce a desired outcome. Transparent push in the framing. Better split into simpler discussions rather than lumping disparate issues together. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is deeper than a matter of biased phrasing from my perspective. As I elaborated in my original comment on the talk page, WP:RFCBEFORE states the steps need to be taken before opening an RFC, which is time-consuming. There has been no in-depth discussion that reached a stalemate that would require other forms of resolving dispute including third opinion and dispute resolution noticeboards. Only after these options are exhausted is an RFC opened. Clearly, not only was this RFC opened in contravention of RFCBEFORE, but it took four different points, merging them in one discussion that would be impossible to constructively and accurately work on.

I have more to say but I will leave it to later to see how this unfolds. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

My issue was the suggested answers. I also strongly object to the pernicious claim that adding an unsigned template is modifying another editor's comment, that is absurd. The only reason why an RFC shouldnt be signed is if it is the result of a collaborative effort to pose the RFC statement, and even then there is no reason not to sign it. There has been absolutely no reason given for why it should not be signed, and the obvious one of an editor not wanting to be associated with the framing has not even been attempted to be refuted. We all stand behind what we write here, and I dont see why an editor is entitled to obscure that. And edit-war to do so. I reverted once, I would not have kept going even without the 1RR. The moving of my comment was considerably more objectionable than my adding an unsigned template to an unsigned comment. Also note, I did not and would not shut down an RFC, but I do not think that an editor is entitled to create their desired framing for an RFC question and then refuse to have it noted who wrote it. nableezy - 15:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If you want a reason, it is because I never sign RFC’s I start, as I don’t believe the author should be relevant - the question should stand on its own without being biased by perceptions of the author.

WP:RFC makes it clear that this is allowed - and if you want to change that you should change it there, rather than taking it upon yourself to edit-war in attribution.

As for placing your comment above the survey section, why should you get to prioritise your opinion over those who arrived earlier? BilledMammal (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not offer my opinion on the RFC question, only who wrote it and that I thought the framing was biased. Your habits of not signing biased RFC questions arent really something I need to respond to, I thought it was important to note that the editor who was supporting each of the biased options that were offered in the RFC question was in fact the author of the RFC question. You not thinking the author should be relevant does not mean that the author is indeed not relevant. And if you wanted to create an unbiased RFC question you would have solicited the views of other editors on how to frame it. See for example here which followed a collaborative effort among editors of all stripes to form an RFC that encompassed all views. And I still signed it. nableezy - 16:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You don’t have to agree with the reason; you just have to accept that there is a reason, and that it is currently permitted regardless of how much you may disagree with that status quo. BilledMammal (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It is also permitted to add an unsigned template to an unsigned comment. You dont have to agree with the reason; you just have to accept that there is a reason, and that it is currently permitted regardless of how much you may disagree with that status quo. nableezy - 16:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Cute. Let me put it another way, and ScottishFinnishRadish please tell me if I am not permitted to do this - do not edit my comments. If there is an issue, either wait for another editor to identify and fix it, or raise it with an uninvolved admin. There have been too many disputes between us for you making the edits to improve the situation rather than making it worse. BilledMammal (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You're not really permitted to do that, but it's a reasonable request. I've already been mulling over a wide array of interaction bans to cut out much of the unconstructive back-and-forths between the same editors, as well as situations like this one right here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There is zero basis for an interaction ban on my end, Im not the one making 3 reverts against BilledMammal in a few minutes. nableezy - 18:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Your interactions are routinely toxic, and the point is to stop disruption in the topic area. The toxicity of the interactions is not one-sided. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please point to an example of the toxicity coming from me. nableezy - 18:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Jesus, really? [16]. I've already topic banned you once for behavior like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

that is not toxic, that is an accurate portrayal of what happened here. You want to topic ban me for something like that you can, and we can go through the process of appealing an unjustified sanction again. And for the record, the first "cute" in this section came from somebody else, Ill let you guess who. And do you have nothing to say about the repeated false claim I edited his comment? Or am I supposed to just ignore bad faith accusations of wrongdoing? nableezy - 18:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was bad then, and it's bad now. Perhaps you missed where I said the interaction was toxic on both sides? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

And yet you responded to that comment without anything close to admonition. As you have to the repeated false claims of "edit[ing] my comment". Im supposed to divine that "cute" is unacceptably toxic when I use it when you let it slide when somebody uses it on me? nableezy - 18:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I brought up the interaction ban in response to his comment using "cute." I was going to let it all slide because I've been trying to let people vent a bit on my talk page, but then you asked Please point to an example of the toxicity coming from me. I also tend to let people who just ate a one week pblock vent a bit more than usual. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Venting is about the person who placed the sanction, making repeated false statements about another editor is however WP:ASPERSIONs and a personal attack. But I should eat that because he got blocked for edit-warring I guess (except it started before he got blocked, but who's counting). Whatever man, do what you want to do. nableezy - 18:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not edit your comment, and that remains a risible claim with no basis. And continuing to make false statements would normally be called something else. And your removal of my own signed comment has jack to do with your asinine claim that I edited your comment by adding an unsigned template to an unsigned comment. You wanting to obscure the author of a non-neutral RFC question is what is cute, but it remains a personal preference I need not care about. nableezy - 18:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So looking at the RFC questions, I know that attributing casualty numbers to the Gaza Health Ministry has been discussed many times, to the point where I ECR revert non-EC editors requesting it be added. I think any RFCBEFORE about that has been done, although I think there may have also been RFCs about it on different articles. That question looked neutral enough, and the suggested wording in the case that there was consensus to attribute looked reasonable.

I agree that putting the three questions into one RFC is a recipe for a clusterfuck, so is there any objection to an RFC on just question 1? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I would object; there’s a lot of questions to resolve about that paragraph, and it would be a waste to hold four RfCs - and the editors so far appear to have no issue participating given the provided structure.

In general, I think the correct approach would be to reopen it, rather than allow involved editors to shut it down - if they really think it is problematic, they can go to AE. BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be a waste to hold one RFC that would end up longer than novel, with multiple arguments on multiple points that are only tangentially related, and an enormous drain on our already strained closers. Multiple simple RFCs are better than one megaRFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think editors can reasonably disagree on the best way to handle these related, but not inextricably so, disputes. However, if you do insist on splitting it, I ask that you split the relevant parts of the !votes that have already been made out with it. BilledMammal (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying it is a bad way to run RFCs based on my experience as a closer, having closed dozens, if not hundreds, of RFCs and other discussions. Anything that adds complexity to a discussion is bad. If there is an easy way to split one RFC into four RFCs it will take less work to close the four RFCs than the one single RFC, and discussion will be a bit more focused. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion about the !votes is simply to ping the two other !voters (besides BM) for each of the specific RfCs. Given that the context of each specific RfC may affect the editors' input this seems more appropriate to me than attempting copypasta. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The RfC was closed for multiple reasons: 1) there was nothing that I would qualify as a serious discussion about any of the four points, and certainly no suggestion of a RfC beforehand or how it should be formulated to account for everyone's concerns. 2) The questions were framed in a non-neutral way: asking whether the figures should be attributed is rather odd given that we always attribute what is attributed in RS, but suggesting that a yes answer means attribution of the Palestinians casualties to the Gaza ministry without mentioning how to deal with the Israeli casualties seems rather strange. The two options given for the description of those killed who are under the age of 18 are cherry picked. If one really wants to engage in WP:OR in order to override what the reliable sources say, then they need to present all the available options to the community, including "infants" and "young children". 3) The edit warring was a sure sign that the RfC was going to generate more heat than light, and given the previous points, I just couldn't see it achieving its intended purpose (whatever that is). My option at that time was to either drag them to ANI or nip the whole thing in the bud to allow them to start afresh. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I read Primefac’s comment as saying that TPO violations happened, that 1RR shouldn’t be applied to reverting such violations, and that what was being argued is that 1RR should apply to reverting such violations.

No strong objections, except the RfC has already begun with three !votes; I don’t see any issues sufficient to justify involved closes or scrapping those !votes. BilledMammal (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much weight should be attributed to this three !votes objection, considering that one of the three was by the RfC mover/framer and one of the three essentially refused to answer the questions as they were formulated; only one editor answered the questions as framed aside from the mover.

Also, while WP:RFC allows for the signature to be left out of the RfC filing, I think it is safe to say that for a single editor to develop an RfC without RFCBEFORE, to file it without signing it, and to include an initial signed !vote that does not acknowledge their authorship of the RfC question [17] can easily be interpreted as disingenuous and, in any event, is not a best or recommended practice. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes

Hi SFR. I wanted to advise you that I am seriously considering taking this to WP:DRV but wanted to give you a courtesy heads up and an opportunity to reconsider your close. I believe the only possible close in this situation can be "No Consensus" due to the flagrant WP:GAMING 1 and WP:CANVASSING 2 that occurred. Widespread notifications were made to forums and editors where the overwhelming majority were obviously going to come down on the side of keeping the essay. You can't have a fair community discussion when special invites are sent out to only one side's supporters. I addressed this issue in several discussions on my talk page with other experienced editors. You will also note that this was the reason I withdrew my nomination and requested a procedural close. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that something is not canvassing if it was a neutral notification at a wikiproject, noticeboard, or other similar location. We can't ignore that now because of the perceived partisanship of a wikiproject. The same thing happens with MOS, Infobox, Fringe/Pseudoscience, and plenty of other discussions and that all gets a pass too. This argument has been brought up for deletion/draftication of sportspeople discussions and discussions on if it's the NFL Draft or draft and didn't gain any real traction. Whether or not that is for the best is a different story, but that's how things roll now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Notifications are fine, but they have to be neutral. Only sending out notices to your ideological allies, is not. As I noted on my talk page; if I had sent out notifications to editors who have expressed skepticism about all these "No..." essays and alerted the talk page at WP:CONSERVATISM, I'd have been desysopped before the sun set and been lucky not to end up blocked. To be clear, I am not asking that the essay be deleted, for which there is obviously no possible way to find such a consensus. What I am saying, is that the discussion was fatally compromised by partisan notifications and that it is not possible to conclude that any true community consensus can be derived from the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

PS I will be offline for a little while but will check back as soon as I am able. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, how would you feel if

1) you wrote an essay about a topic,

2) you then alerted the wikiproject dedicated to the topic about it

3) you then get feedback from multiple editors (including those who dis-endorsed the essay)

4) you were then in the process of collaboratively improving the essay

5) somebody then nominates it for MFD, tagging you but none of the other contributors or discussers

6) you then alert the other contributors and editors discussing it (including those who wanted it deleted) about the MFD, along with the relevant wikiproject

7) you then have to put up with a week of an editor openly insulting your good faith, accusing you of canvassing, and repeating the immediately disprovable claim that you only pinged people who agreed with you.

Seriously, how would you feel about the argument "notifying the most obviously relevant and already involved wikiproject is canvassing" being applied to you? If, for example, somebody nominated Wikipedia:Notability (sports) for MFD and spent a week accusing you of canvassing because you alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports?

Looking at the consensus about this:

At the MFD: You, Springee, Durchbruchmüller, Unnamed anon, Kcmastrpc, and BilledMammal thought it was canvassing. On your talk page Philomathes agreed and Acroterion did while noting the discussion of canvassing would need to be a larger site wide discussion about the definition of the practice in general. That's about 7 editors.

Me, Loki, Nat Gertler, Licks-rocks, Girth Summit, AusLondoner, Raladic, Queen of Hearts (who supported deletion and I will quote as saying And for the record, I was "canvassed" to this because I put myself as a non-endorser.), OwenBlacker, Trystan (who I'll quote noting Suggestions that notifying WP:LGBT on LGBT issues inherently constitutes canvassing? Almost makes me feel nostalgic for the early 2010s when that issue was settled. If an editor wants to be notified about LGBT-related discussions, they should watch WT:LGBT.), Bilorv, Joe, RoxySaunders, and Sundstund. If we factor in the editors at your talk page and here, Valereee and SFR disagree this is canvassing. That's 16 (not including those who cited their arguments), including, and I really want to stress this, someone who I pinged even though they opposed the essay.

Honestly, I'd appreciate an apology for the repeated accusations of bad faith. I doubt I'll get it, but I'd prefer we can work together amicably. And just to be clear, I am not implying bad faith here. I am stating it unequivocally. Anyone who is offended can haul me in front of ARBCOM or open a discussion to have me recalled. - is not appropriate and clear WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:SPIDERMAN behavior. I'm not hauling you anywhere because I want to extend an olive branch, but I'd be well within my right to given the explicit charges of bad faith. If you really want to take this to DRV, I am warning you out of respect for you as an editor (even given your clear and open disrespect towards me) it will, at best, go nowhere, and at worst land you a boomerang. Please, for your own benefit, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist How is this not canvassing? Anyone with more than two functional brain cells would know that conservatively 90% of the people on the receiving end of all of these notifications were going to land on one side of the discussion. You cannot have a fair discussion and only invite one side. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

As an example of proper and neutral notifications, I recently opened a discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard regarding what I perceived as an improper use of the board on religious subjects. I sent out notifications to multiple Wiki-Projects including several that were religious but also made a point of notifying WP:SKEPTIC. The discussion has not gone in the direction I had hoped. But it is unquestionably a fair one with all sides having been notified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think your notifications there were commendable and think you raised good points in that FTN discussion. However, you're comparing apples and oranges.

But it is unquestionably a fair one with all sides having been notified - you keep framing WP:LGBT as a "side" when it is literally just the noticeboard for LGBT issues. Regardless of any of your opinions on any LGBT issue, that is the place to get notified about discussions on them. Even if we are to take your battleground assumption that the wikiproject is a "side" as opposed to "editors interested in LGBT topics", you have still yet to say who the "other side" is supposed to be who wasn't notified. Other (somewhat less) relevant wikiprojects may have been WP:FTN and WP:WikiProject Medicine (considering the explicit mentions of anti-LGBT fringe views), WP:WikiProject Human Rights, WP:WikiProject Feminism, WP:WikiProject Gender Studies, WP:WikiProject Sexology, WP:WikiProject Politics and WP:WikiProject AIDS - while you had all the freedom to notify any you saw fit, I'm guessing that you would also consider most of them to be canvassing. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No need to ping, I've been a friendly TPS of SFR for a while. WP:APPNOTE says An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.

WP:WPDISCR describes itself as a collaboration area and group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Discrimination topics. Given that the essay is about a type of discrimination, this seems like a suitable Wikiproject to notify. I will say, there is a marginally inappropriate thing about it I didn't know until just now: WP:WPDISCR states This WikiProject is related to Articles covering discrimination topics. For the WikiProject related to actual discrimination or cultural bias in Wikipedia itself, see WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Therefore, WP:CSB would have been better to notify. However, I have a feeling you would still have called that canvassing.

Anyone with more than two functional brain cells would know that conservatively 90% of the people on the receiving end of all of these notifications were going to land on one side of the discussion. You cannot have a fair discussion and only invite one side.

1. As editors keep trying to point out, anybody can watch a noticeboard. Wikiprojects are for anyone interested in a topics, not those with a certain POV.
2. You ignore that a lot of the votes were along the lines of "I disagree with the essay but will defend your right to have it in mainspace as a minority viewpoint self-evidently supported by multiple people" - Tamzin's WP:HID inspired me, we have 95% similar views on how to handle discrimination onwiki, and she told me WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA is a bad idea, and still maintains it's a bad idea, and supported it in mainspace anyways.
3. You have yet to provide an example of a non-partisan Wikiproject that could have been notified - arguing only that the directly relevant ones are inherently partisan. Notifying wikiprojects is standard behavior, if you want to call what I or MikutoH did canvassing you'd first need to rewrite WP:APPNOTE and have the ArbCom case "Wikiprojects".
4. You are attacking strawmanned speculations of editor viewpoints. You say 90% of editors there are probably going to agree - but have provided no evidence. Many editors supported redirecting to WP:HID, not because they believe queerphobia isn't real or not a problem, they thought the essay was redundant (and you yourself argued The "No (fill in whichever group or set of beliefs you want banned)" essays are getting out of hand. - I take this not as an active endorsement of discrimination but a critique of how we handle that with essays). You are making several logical leaps to get from "this wikiproject is about discrimination" to "therefore most active members and people watching the noticeboard have the same POV" to "therefore they won't consider policy and guidelines but will overwhelmingly just vote to keep the essay because their political beliefs supposedly mean they're obviously 90% likely to support any No X-phobia essay regardless of the merits of the essay itself".

Additionally, you keep bringing up WP:CONSERVATISM but it's a bad analogy and not comparable to WP:LGBT. The former is for anyone interested in a specific political ideology (ie, the project is literally oriented around a political position). The other is for anyone interested in anything relating to a demographic (ie, not a shared politic or ideology, just anything relating to about 10% of the world's population). I hope I don't need to expand on why there is a difference. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe we have reached the point where the gap between how we see this is beyond bridging. SFR has not commented since his response to my initial post where he stood by his close. Accordingly I am going to take this to DRV and let the chips fall where they will. You are free to request that I be sanctioned at WP:AN or ARBCOM. Or alternatively you can open a motion of "No Confidence" and move that I be recalled as an admin. The bar is not particularly high. Directions can be found on my user page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with tools, so I wouldn't worry about that. I think at the challenge you'll find that there's a consensus that those notices fall within acceptable notices and aren't seen as canvassing, and that's about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. We have a respectful disagreement here and I will accept the verdict of DRV, however it goes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no interest in taking you to AN or ARBCOM - like I said your insults towards me paired with invitations to take you there were an attempt to jump off the Reichstag dressed as spiderman and I can not help you do that in good conscience (and even if I could, I have active sanctions and less than 5,000 edits :p). I do have an interest in being convivial and trying to extend an olive branch.

I will accept the verdict of DRV, however it goes - likewise. If it's an amenable agreement to you: if the discussion concludes there was canvassing, I'll apologize and you are free to take me to AN/ANI or wherever for whatever sanctions you wish, but if it concludes there wasn't, I'd appreciate an apology for your accusations of bad faith and canvassing. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem Please let me know if this is amenable to you. Also, I'm a woman, please fix the misgendering at DRV - I'll assume it was a mistake rather than intentional. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It was fixed by another editor, and that was entirely accidental. I apologize for the error. No apology is necessary irrespective of the outcome. As I stated above, I will defer to the community's judgement. However this turns out, this is as far as I am taking the matter. I am prepared to accept that your notification was done in good faith, although I strongly disagree with its propriety. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:No queerphobes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:No queerphobes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

asking how to ask question in a non disruptive way

hello, I have noticed a pattern of you deleting my question in talk pages. will you willing to give me constructive criticism on how to better phrase my questions in the talk page?

thank you, and have a good day. 79.176.174.2 (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

As has been explained to you, unless you have an account that is at least 30 days old and has made 500 edits you are not permitted to take part in discussions about the Arab/Israel conflict. You may only make edit requests for non-contentious changes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

are there guidelines of what edit requests are below the threshold of what changes considered contentious or contentious changes are subjective? 79.176.174.2 (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

No, there aren't, because we have better things to do than waste our time on the impossible task of creating rules and guidelines about absolutely everything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing set in stone, no, but you can assume if your comments are being reverted that you're beyond the acceptable range of edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

New editor seems to be having a hard time with the I/P restrictions

Would you be so kind as to remind them that these edits are not permitted? FortunateSons (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Alerted of the CTOP and warned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much FortunateSons (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

In the future, please give the official CTOP alert after the welcome message. The welcome doesn't suffice to make someone "aware" of the CTOP sanctions.

{{subst:welcome-arbpia}} ~~~~

{{subst:alert/first|a-i}} ~~~~

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not know that, thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)