User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

RFC

Hi. I would like to ask for your opinion, if you don't mind. Do you think this is the correct interpretation of the outcome of this RFC? The return of the border villages was a major part of the agreement, which is mentioned by every source reporting on it, and I linked the RFC question to the article section that needed to be summarized, which described the return of the villages as well. Grandmaster 14:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The RFC and the close are both pretty slim, so I would say that

• the question of the villages is not addressed by the RFC
• it seems reasonable (to someone not terribly familiar with the dispute) to include at least some details of the agreement in the summary in the lede

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So if I add info about the part of the agreement concerning the villages, it will not be against the spirit of the RFC result? Grandmaster 16:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, but it also won't be specifically supported by the rfc close ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

What would you advise in this situation? Should I restore the info on the villages to the intro, or it would be better to do another RFC on this to get a specific consensus on the villages? Grandmaster 16:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I would start by opening a talk page discussion. There may be a way to avoid the full RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks a lot for the help. Grandmaster 16:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Another question. Would it be Ok if I ping all the participants in the RFC and ask for their follow up opinion on mentioning the villages? Grandmaster 09:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

ECR Talk page reversion

What is the rationale for this reversion [1]? A move request is effectively an edit request, and WP:ECR expressly does not exclude non-extended-confirmed editors from participating in an edit request. 122141510 (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

A move request is an internal project discussion designed to determine consensus, not an edit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This site's Edit Request Wizard notes I would need to obtain consensus first before submitting an edit request to move the article. Participating in a move request discussion is a necessary component of a move request for a contentious topic. I do not see how you can preclude editors from participating in the move request discussion without effectively violating WP:ECR. 122141510 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

A WP:RM is not an edit request, there's even a handy template {{ESp}}( Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves.) for editors who misplace an RM as an edit request. As non-EC editors may only make constructive edit requests in the topic area, they cannot take part in RMs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe an article with ECR protection has an incorrect title. As a non-extended-confirmed editor I cannot edit the article myself to change the title. I would like to submit a request to edit the article. The idea a WP:RM is not an edit request when it is, in effect, editing the article, is bizarre. The policies as you are interpreting them can be taken as a bureaucratic manoeuvre by which a minority of editors can determine the topic of any contentious article – sure, the protection will eventually end, but not without shifting the WP:ONUS onto those who prefer a different title to build consensus, under more difficult conditions as consensus must be achieved from a much wider pool of editors. 122141510 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It is currently a discussion to form consensus on part of the article and non-EC editors are prohibited from taking part in such discussions. That you disagree with the sanction placed on the topic area by Arbcom doesn't change that it is a sanction placed on the topic area by Arbcom. Sorry, but thems the breaks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That a Wikipedia administrator's response to this concern is a pithy "Thems the breaks" really dissuades my concerns about systemic bias on Wikipedia. While I continue to participate on this site proper in good faith, but I share examples like these on SNS and to friends in real life when articulating the problems with this site. Thanks for helping to create a pretty straightforward example of such! 122141510 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. You're complaining about a rule that came about after Arbcom said " In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia." The rule has actually become more draconian over time because it wasn't originally sufficient to control the spread of disruption. I don't know what else to say about your complaints than thems the breaks. This has been looked at by huge numbers of editors and tens and hundreds of thousands of words have been spilled discussing it, and it remains what it is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510, for another opinion, had I seen your edit I would have reverted it too. I'm not an admin. You're not extended confirmed and it's not an edit request. There's no ambiguity and there is no evidence-based reason to assume this single sample is an example of systemic bias. If you do that, it might be better to share it as example of confirmation bias. There is nobody stopping you from becoming extendedconfirmed and contributing to the PIA topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering whether this personal remark is allowed in the I/P pages or do we simply shrug and say "that's how it is over there?" Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh come now. Calling the foremost book on that variety of lobbying 'aggressively anti-Israel' (implying the two chair-holding scholars who wrote it, authorities in their fields, are 'aggressively anti-Israel', is poor judgment, based not on the merits or otherwise of their book, but on a perceived bias which in that work is explicitly dismissed. If you had read it, then you would have observed the close reasoning in the introduction which deconstructs that loose and predictable kind of dismissal.

There are those who maintain that israel should never have been created, or who want to see Israel transformed from a Jewish state into a binational democracy. We do not. On the contrary, we believe the history of the Jewish people and the norm of national self-determination should provide ample justification for a Jewish state. We think the United States should stand willing to come to Israel's assistance if its survival were in jeopardy.' p.12 etc.etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This wasn't really that bad, could have done without and the only response therefore is to dismiss the source as 'aggressively anti-Israel', a political judgment, not a rational assessment of the evidence. but it's nothing I'd immediately action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that and I understand the problem. I've seen the past discussions. I see what happens when civility rules are enforced in this subject area. Coretheapple (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment_request:_Extended_confirmed_restriction and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, 142.113.140.146 (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

IPs are human too. I suppose it was normal for there to be suspicion. No, I am not a sock, so feel free to do a SPI and CU, or even circumstantial, time, and linguistic analysis. I found the thread on this page through the other user's contribs, when I found a new name in the meme talk page's history (I hope they didn't retire and something is done about editor retention). 90% is me wanting noncontradiction of Wikipedia pages and 10% is me wanting some experience at ArbCom and other processes. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not worried about that, I'm just pointing out that your request is clearly related to ARBPIA. It's up to arbcom to police their own pages and they're fine with it, so ^{(to continue to the court metaphor)} play on . ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Formula One

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish. A few hours ago you hid the username on this edit to Formula One. You may also like to hide the edit summary for the following edit, for the same reason. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi

So I've made over 80 edits after my 500th edit, which i feel are constructive. I've been browsing Wikipedia for 6 or 7 hours and have only left the site briefly a few times. It's taken hours to hit 80 edits because I'm reading random articles on topics I'm not even interested in and sometimes there's nothing to edit. If I don't make it to 200 new constructive edits today, can I still get extended confirmed access back, being on this site for hours and making almost 100 constructive edits, does that prove I'm trustworthy, can I please have my thing back. I didn't know gaming edits for Extended confirmed access broke the rules, one user said I was aware, but I wasn't because I didn't read my talk page a month ago. And I made around 60 unconstructive edits on Jim Cornette to get extended confirmed access, since I have 80 new constructive edits, I think I've made up those 60 edits I used to wrongfully gain extended confirmed edit access HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Bruh I'm so tired because I didn't get any sleep tonight because of what happened on this site. I'm so tired I wasn't even paying attention to who's talk page I was on. I thought I was on another administrators talk page, sorry for annoying you so much, didn't mean to thought I was on someone else's talk page HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

ARCA

Apropos that technicality re userspace/talkspace, I opened an ARCA, see if can get it fixed, just to let you know. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. WMF should be paying for a team of lawyers to clean up all the PAGs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA gaming

See this user's edits; playing around for about 60-70 edits at the Jim Cornette article and then went straight to Hamas after reaching 500; painfully obvious. @Firefangledfeathers: provided the alert last month, so they are aware. Left guide (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

All set. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for the swift actions, and for helping clean up the Hamas article; wasn't sure how to handle that. Left guide (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries, that's why I'm on the payroll. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

How do I get "extended confirmed edits" back. I believe I made the article about Hamas better. And why did you revert it, what happened to the "ignore all rules" policy where if edits ultimately help an article they should stay on HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

can you please respond to my talk page, I really wanna know how can I get extended confirmed thing back the reason I did it is to improve articles and I didn't know gaming the system broke any rules HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You'll need to edit productively until you can convince administrators at WP:PERM that you have not been gaming edits and have been editing constructively for a long enough time to demonstrate that you can be trusted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I think I've edited productivity for most of the first 420 edits before I started gaming the system. And my account has been around for 2-3 months without gaming the system until last night. So if I think I should be trusted HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Just gonna note they requested it at... WP:PERM/AWB for some reason. I've declined the request. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We're do I request it, I've never done something like this before HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Extended_confirmed

However, it won’t be approved if you ask now - I suggest you make at least 200 productive edits and wait at least a month before requesting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There's so many pages I can make better, but almost all of them require extended confirmed. Itll be extremely hard to make 200 more edits, and to wait a month. I made over 400 constructive edits before, so can you please trust me, even if it's for 45 minutes. I really wanna edit pages about politics and topics I'm interested in. If you don't accept my request, and you probably won't for some reason, can you at least restore my edits on Hamas, they were constructive edits and I believe undoing then ignores the "ignore all rules" policy. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not an admin, so I can’t grant you ECP even if I wanted to, but there are millions of articles that don’t require it, most of which need significant work

Regarding WP:IAR, see WP:TRAP. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I usually only edit articles I'm interested about tho, like conflicts in the middle east, world war II, hip hop, etc. and most of the pages about politics are unfortunately locked for me now because I don't have Extended confirmed. I recently made a request in wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Extended_confirmed, but even if I try to be really convincing it's probably not going to happen. Hopefully someone does give me extended confirmed tho HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@HumansRightsIsCool: you're getting awfully close to WP:IDHT. Multiple editors have told you that your way of going about this is inappropriate, and yet you've again requested the permission.

Topics like World War II and hip hop are usually not locked behind extended confirmed, and even if they are, you can make edit requests. With a few hundred good edits, you should have no problem getting the permission granted (you can ask me and I'll do it at that point), but you do need to change your attitude here and listen to other editors. That's especially important for controversial topic areas! Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

the page about Hitler is extended confirmed. The page about Nazis is extended confirmed. Lots of pages about WWII and are locked for people that don't have extended confirmed access. And I've only requested the permission again because you told me I did it in the wrong place. But fine I'll take a day off from work and I'll try to make 200 constructive edits on random pages. Sorry. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I called my boss at work a few hours ago, and lied about being sick so I can stay home and edit all day till I get 200 constructive edits. Im going to be on wikipedia for like 6-9 hours without leaving till I get 200 more edits, (which I'm trying to make constructive this time so I can get my extended confirmed back). It might seem like I'm not active editing since I've noticed some of my edits are 5-10 minutes a part, the reason it doesn't look like I'm active editing is because I'm scrolling through multiple articles looking at what I can edit, but I'm staying on this site staying up all night so I can get my thing back HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

2 more edits and I hit 560. Ive noticed that some of my edits are 20 minutes a part, but I haven't left wikipedia except briefly like 2 or 3 times. I've been browsing random articles for like 3-4 hours looking for content I can edit. I'm taking too long, I should've already hit 100 new constructive edits. But I'm trying to make sure I hit 200 constructive edits today so I can be considered trusted with extended confirmed.if I hit 140 more constructive edits are close to that, then can you accept my request HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the EC rights removal was logged as an Arbitration enforcement action, doesn't this mean the restoration must be appealed at the appropriate Arbitration venue like WP:AE? Left guide (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

They say they won't accept my request till I hit 200 more edits. I don't think I'm allowed to appeal rn. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not actually a sanction, but like my edit summary says, it should be logged somewhere. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

uhhhhh so I'm very close to 100 constructive edits, is it WP:AE or HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

this is really not a good look for a user that has taken up way too much admin time and attention already. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I called my boss at work a few hours ago, and lied about being sick so I can stay home and edit all day till I get 200 constructive edits. Im going to be on wikipedia for like 6-9 hours without leaving till I get 200 more edits,

...oh.

We're either dealing with a troll, or someone who really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at the moment. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've already blocked them for a week. Been a busy evening. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA violations

This user was alerted and warned, yet still continued editing in the topic area. Left guide (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I warned them. Let me know if you see further violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Left guide (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on EC edit requests

Respectfully, would you be willing to address what specifically you found snarky about my edit request? It would be helpful to me so that I can improve my writing. The request was disputed before, so I added more context, citations, and a little more boldness.

And for clarification, even if the subject at hand did relate to the conflict, my understanding is non-EC users would still be entitled to submit edit requests regarding that content on a talk page. Do I have that correct?

Thank you 174.247.81.139 (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

[2]. Also, of I see anything like The only logical reason to disagree or argue with this request is antisemitic bigotry. I have comprehensively proved you are wrong. Put down the stick. I'll block you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an administrative opinion on the use of the word richest? 174.247.81.139 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators don't rule on content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What are the rhetorical limits on Talk pages?

Is this kind of thing acceptable? I ask not to get someone in trouble but because this kind of rhetoric is the rule not the exception on I/P talk pages. I assume this editor was expressing this view in good faith, because it is, after all, the norm. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It is all too common, and I don't believe it is acceptable discourse. I've reverted, alerted, and warned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Not acceptable discourse? How so? What exactly is "needlessly inflammatory" or unacceptable about the comment in question? They just stated their opinion that "this is a massacre. No one can deny this. It is a massacre against defenseless civilians with the excuse of killing a militant. Israel has repeatedly carried out mass attacks using this excuse." This is not contrary to many academic opinions on this current war — see Gaza genocide.

Francesca Albanese, for example, UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, stated in a March 2024 report essentially the same thing (and indeed herself referred to the specific attack in question as a massacre in a tweet[3]). In her report she stated that "Israel considers any object that has allegedly been or might be used militarily as a legitimate target, so that entire neighbourhoods can be razed or demolished under fictions of legality. [...] Israel has thus de facto abolished the distinction between civilian objects and military objectives. [...] Rationalizing patterns of attacks on civilian objects, knowingly killing civilians en masse, has become a military strategy [...] This strategy reasonably and solely infers a genocidal policy. [...] Israel has also sought to provide legal cover for indiscriminate attacks by misusing the notion of ‘collateral damage’, unlimitedly expanding what can be considered ‘incidental civilian harm’. Examples of indiscriminate attacks include attacks that by any methods or means strike multiple lawful targets at once in areas with high concentrations of civilians or civilian objects. To justify killing members of the protected group, Israel has defended such actions as causing only incidental harm to civilians, proportionate to concrete and direct military advantages anticipated."[4]

Is is this considered unacceptable discourse on Wikipedia? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Francesca Albanese the gold standard of acceptable discourse on Israel. The U.S. State Department, which commonly doesn't go around flinging accusations of antisemitism, said in March, in response to comments that she made very similar to the ones you cite, [5] that she has a "history of antisemitic comments" and made remarks in Decmber "that appeared to justify the attacks of October 7th." This is just the tip of the iceberg of the criticism that she has received for her comments on Israel. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The US State Department? Really? Accusations of antisemitism against Albanese are simply to discredit her (see: weaponization of anti-semitism) and this is covered in our article about her. Besides there are many other experts and RS which have similar views regarding Israel committing intentional massacres and genocide in Gaza (see: Gaza genocide), and these views are in no way 'unacceptable discourse'. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt whatsoever that Francesca Albanese would fit right in if she was a Wikipedia editor in the I/P pages. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, people don't agree on who to listen to. Please don't argue about it here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Because this is a massacre. No one can deny this. It is a massacre against defenseless civilians with the excuse of killing a militant. Israel has repeatedly carried out mass attacks using this excuse. Identify what part of that deals with Wikipedia policies and how it applies to the name rather than just the editor's views on Israel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It directly applies to the requested move discussion as they proposed moving/merging the article(s) and naming it "13 July 2024 al-Mawasi massacre". They made a suggestion for the title and gave a brief explanation of their reasoning, how does WP:NOTAFORUM apply? And how is any of this "inflammatory" or 'not acceptable discourse'? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Showing up to vent about your views on a nation's actions is not a policy based argument, it is NOTAFORUM because it's a general statement about that editor's views. It is inflammatory because it does nothing but express the personal negative views of an editor in an already fraught topic. The fact that we're here after a complaint is evidence that it enflamed the situation. If there were an RFC dealing with a politician and someone replied just with their views on that politician that would also be a NOTAFORUM violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in their comment that is "venting", nor is it "nothing but express[ing] the personal negative views of an editor". There's actually not even anything "negative" in their comment at all — they've just just given their assessment that the attack was an intentional massacre, and that the title should reflect that, which is not even a WP:FRINGE view as the example of the UN expert I just cited demonstrates.

The comment states that "It is a massacre against defenseless civilians with the excuse of killing a militant. Israel has repeatedly carried out mass attacks using this excuse." Albanese herself makes this exact same point when she says that Israel "[invokes] the concept of ‘proportionate collateral damage’ to knowingly shell large numbers of members of the protected group [the Palestinians]", citing as an example of this the 31 October 2023 Jabalia refugee camp airstrike which "killed at least 126 civilians, including 69 children, and injured a further 280", after which "Israeli military personnel affirmed that the target was one Hamas commander in an underground base."

There is nothing "inflammatory" or 'not acceptable' about any of this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(a)It would set an extremely dangerous precedent to set guidelines of what is acceptable or not acceptable' in wiki discussants' remarks about 'states' ('acceptable discourse on Israel'), as opposed to individuals. Most editors' comments in these for/against discussions express opinions which are either personal or which, to those familiar with the topic, mirror widespread and often authoritative judgmnts. If the opinion reflects widepread conclusions made by competent authorities (that Israel appears to have abolished the legal distinction that underwrite proportionality and in doing so, repeatedly bombs areas where civilians are amassed to kill one or two Hamas militants regardless of the 'collateral damage', then there is nothing controversial about an editor writing that. Any more than Aryeh Neier is being 'inflammatory' by drawing this conclusion. As he states, his judgment refers to a state, not to the individuals (Jewish) who form the demographic majority of that state.

(b)The fact that we're here after a complaint is evidence that it enflamed the situation.

That is not only extremely incautious, but illogical. To lay a complaint with an admin is not in itself evidence of anything other than that one plaintiff dislikes, or thinks it fit to denounce what an opposing editor said, not that the situation was 'inflamed' by the other's comment. Nishidani (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I think you overstepped here a bit. Three editors are now in agreement that the comment was perfectly acceptable (plus, its author). "The page should be renamed a massacre because it was a massacre, forming a pattern of massacres" is a factual statement about the proposed rename. RM discussions are not only about Wikipedia policies, they are also – primarily in fact – about whether the proposed new name aptly captures the article subject. Besides, since when !votes that don't include policy acronyms should be removed? I hope you can restore the comment. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

My view is that statements like "The page should be renamed a massacre because it was a massacre, forming a pattern of massacres" are just irrelevant noise. Statements that are not policy based should have zero value from the perspective of content decisions. There is no policy-based reason for a Wikipedia editor to care what an anonymous person on the internet with access to Wikipedia's server thinks is or is not a massacre, or terrorism or a cake or a biscuit etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I thoroughgly agree. Only most of these discussions consist of 'like' votes, opinions and whatever, and only a small percentage are RS-fluent, policty-based rationales. To take exception to just one, and in those terms, because it was singled out for a complaint, is problematical. Or the ruling is applied to all the noise, or disregarded as incapable of addressing the real issue, which both you and SFR identify. Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I wish I had the time and attention span to monitor all of the millions of words of discussion on the topic, but I don't. What I have done is revert well over a thousand talk page messages for violations of WP:SOAP[6] and WP:NOTAFORUM[7] (there's more that don't have it explicitly stated in the edit summary. I'd estimate around 2500-3000 total). I wish I could apply it to all the noise, but there aren't enough hours in the day. What crossed the line in this instance was the unsourced allegation that Israel is repeatedly and purposefully targeting civilians as a response to a RM. That unsourced allegation is needlessly inflammatory, in that it adds an unrelated point to argue about, and had nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is how to apply WP:Article titles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"What crossed the line in this instance was the unsourced allegation that Israel is repeatedly and purposefully targeting civilians" — Yes, it does seem that this is what you were referring to when you spoke of unacceptable discourse. As I've pointed out above this is not a WP:FRINGE assessment and there are plenty of RS which support this. Removing a comment because it is WP:OR or because it doesn't cite sources is one thing, but removing a comment because of its conclusion, "that Israel is repeatedly and purposefully targeting civilians", is clearly out of line. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Your extensive work in that is appreciated, also because it must be exhausting, but given we all recognize how much noise does gets through without objections, one practical measure would be to ask anyone in RfCs or talk page support/not sections to follow a guideline that would state_'when expressing one's position on a yes/no question, provide a reliable source relevant to the argument on which your position draws in choosing one option over another. The source should not be the same as others used by other editors contributing to the discussion. That won't happen, but it would stop adventitious foruming.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Also it's not an "unrelated point" in any way. It's their suggested title. We do have articles titled similarly such as the Flour massacre, Tel Al-Sultan massacre, and Al-Awda School massacre, all committed by Israel during this same war. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

A country's behavior in other situations has no bearing on the name of the article about this situation. The New England Patriots won a whole lot of football games, but we don't call many of their recent games wins (to my great dismay). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You're not listening at this point. The comment you removed stated essentially "This article should be titled as a massacre. It is Israel's MO to kill civilians under the pretext of targeted strikes." ("It is a massacre against defenseless civilians with the excuse of killing a militant. Israel has repeatedly carried out mass attacks using this excuse.")

Removing comments because they are WP:OR or unsupported opinion is one thing, but removing comments because of their conclusions is another. The fact that you've admitted that the "allegation that Israel is repeatedly and purposefully targeting civilians" is an important element of what made the comment to be "crossing the line" is incredible. And clearly that is exactly what the original complainant objected to as well — the actual conclusion itself rather than the fact that is was unsourced.

If you won't acknowledge your removal was wrong I will open a thread for this to be reviewed somewhere. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

My removal was well within WP:TPNO, so I won't be offering that acknowledgement. Perhaps you haven't noticed, however, that they have restored their comment with extended commentary, and have been asked by another administrator to provide a rationale in-line with what is expected. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of clamping down on WP:OR and unsupported opinions, we need more of that kind of moderation in the topic area. But it can't be done selectively for only certain 'not acceptable' opinions/conclusions. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you believe my enforcement has been selective? I make the same type of reverts when the subject is Hamas and Palestine, and Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#User sanctions (CT/A-I) shows all of my arbitration enforcement sanctions this year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever seen a talk page comment be removed because it didn't include RS to support it. And such comments are extremely common.

We definitely need to be be putting a stop to WP:OR and unsupported opinions but surely the solution is not the immediate removal of any comments which don't include RS. Presumably that's not the approach you will be taking from now on, to remove all comments which don't have RS to support them?

And again, you made the point that the comment was "inflammatory" and somehow 'not acceptable discourse', suggesting that stating Israel has committed massacres is somehow especially egregious and contributed to the comment crossing the line. That is not reasonable and the content/conclusion of the comment should have no bearing unless it is blatantly nonsense. We shouldn't be censoring opinions, especially ones which are consistent with scholarship and RS. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, "Israel has committed massacres" is not what he said, and if it was, I don't think it would have been removed. Levivich (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

What's the difference from what they said? Their comment was essentially "This was a massacre. Israel commits massacres of Gazan civilians under the guise of targeted strikes." What is wrong with this? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"Israel has committed massacres" and "It is a massacre against defenseless civilians with the excuse of killing a militant. Israel has repeatedly carried out mass attacks using this excuse." are two different statements. The first one is a statement of fact. The second one is a statement of intent.

It's one thing to say Israel has committed massacres -- many countries/governments have committed massacres, it's unfortunately not unusual in history -- but it's quite another to suggest that committing massacres is Israel's goal, and that "killing a militant" is just an excuse to commit massacres. It's the difference between saying Israel does not do enough to avoid civilian casualties (undoubtedly true), and saying Israel wants civilian casualties and that killing militants is just an excuse to kill civilians. That second statement is, I agree, inflammatory and outside acceptable discourse (and certainly negative).

It's also a pretty obviously false statement. I mean, we can all imagine Israeli gov't/military officials thinking Deif is in a place and sending missiles to that place and not caring about who else is nearby (to be clear: this is a war crime). But it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that Israeli gov't/military officials are like "Hey, let's kill a hundred Palestinians. How do we do this? I know: let's tell everyone Deif was there!" This goes back to the million-dollar question of whether genocide is the intent, or just the effect, of Israeli policies. Levivich (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not one agrees with it, there are high quality RS which support the premise that Israel is committing deliberate massacres targeting Palestinian civilians. I've already given the example of the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, who has made conclusions in a report to the UN almost identical to the comment that was removed; and another example would be historian Ilan Pappé, who has stated "What we see now are massacres which are part of the genocidal impulse, namely to kill people in order to downsize the number of people living in Gaza". I'm repeating myself but we have an entire article dedicated to the alleged Gaza genocide.

Whether or not one agrees with these analyses, the idea that any of this should be considered "outside acceptable discourse" is completely baffling. I don't even agree with the editor that the article should be titled as a massacre, but the idea that this suggestion, or the assessment that the IDF's intention was to target civilians, is somehow not acceptable and needs to be removed from a talk page discussion is unbelievable. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The other administrator's action of warning the editor to provide RS [8] is the more appropriate action, and such warnings are actually quite needed in this topic area. Perhaps if an editor makes an unsupported comment, are asked to provide RS and fail to do so, then their comment could be removed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

How such statements are evaluated is one thing (it's up to the closer), and whether they should be removed is quite another. Besides, your last sentence is a doble-edged sword – since you are also an anonymous person on the internet, why should other Wikipedia editors care about your comments? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm not quite anonymous, I use my real name by choice. Not a fan of online anonymity unless there is a good reason for it. But regardless, a double-edged sword is better than a single-edged sword. Even I don't care about my personal opinions. And when it comes to content decisions, my personal non-policy based opinions are absent, or at least as far as that is possible. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, it's likely that Gianluigi02 also uses their real names, much like you. They are as much entitled to an opinion as you. So I fail to understand the resason behind your derogatory words about an anonymous person on the internet that Wikipedia editors apparently should not care about. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The words are intended to be an objective statement of fact rather than derogatory. No one is entitled to write their personal non-policy-based opinion in a discussion where the objective is to make a policy-based content decision, including me. Where does this sense of entitlement come from? It's not in the policies and guidelines. There are rules describing how content decisions are made. We all know what they are. And yet many people act like they are reliable sources, that their personal opinions about the real-world matter here, with an expectation to be treated like a reliable source in content discussions. This attitude is one of the root causes of so much conflict and wasted time here. "I am not a reliable source" is something any Wikipedia editor should be able to live by. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to understand the logic behind your reasoning. How is my opinion invalid as a "random person" on the internet, but yours is valid? Aren't you also a random person on the internet?

do you use your real name? I do it too. Gianluigi is an Italian name, a union of Giovanni and Luigi. Gianluigi02 (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I did 29,675 edits here on Wikipedia, you did 32,912. Quite a similiar number. If you want to turn this into a challenge to who is more legitimate, then you are not or you are as legitimate as me Gianluigi02 (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gianluigi02 Welcome here. Thanks for clarification. I suggest @Sean.hoyland to strike their derogatory comment as it's essentially a WP:PA. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I won't be striking anything. Gianluigi02, my opinion about whether a thing is a massacre or an act of terrorism or red or green has zero validity and zero value here. I am not a reliable source approved for use in Wikipedia. It's "what do the sources say?" not "what does sean think qualifies as a massacre or an act of terrorism or red or green?" This is not my reasoning, it's a direct consequence of the rules governing how content decisions are made. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: Firstly, Talk page comments do not need each to quote a source. They are an open discussion, not wikilawyering. Secondly, I'll still add an acronym if you so wish: WP:SKYISBLUE. Happy now? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Comments do not need to quote a source. I'm all for open discussion. But content decisions about things like article titles need to be based on source sampling and policy. Let me put it like this. If an editor wrote a comment or an edit request like that and they were not extendedconfirmed and I saw it, I would delete it. I delete things like that almost every day, many from Israel supporters of course, so my views are partly based on 'be careful what you wish for'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Three editors? I think maybe 300 or 3000 may be more apt. But they're still inflammatory and inappropriate and "all too common," as SFR correctly pointed out. That actually reinforces the point of view that the atmosphere on I/P pages for editors who are not overtly anti-Israel is overheated and hostile. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

TBH Wikipedia community is very restrained in its reactions to the actual brutality ongoing in the Gaza Strip. Editors who dare to say too much are getting sanctioned and their edits reverted. Compare this to the Russo-Ukraine war, where anti-Russia narrative was let run free both on Talk pages and in mainspace. The real concern is not the existence of such fairly innocent comments: it's the creeping POV censorship. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I view it differently. What I see is that when an admin tries to police civility rules in I/P pages, they almost inevitably are beset by an army of editors justifying the incivility. The result is that very few admins, being human and also being volunteers, will venture into this subject area and thus it has become a kind of "Wild West" hostile to editors who don't throw around words like "massacre" to describe Israeli actions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I see no WP:CIVILITY issue in the matter at hand.

Re. particpation, the proportion of participating admins roughly reflects their proportion in WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE and is no different to most other areas. Just feel free to check, say, Talk:Donald Trump, with all its heated discussions, for the number of admins. Good luck. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Wandering editor here , having read the whole discussion, this type of clearly biased by real-world views behaviour by an admin and other very experienced editors is disgusting and should have no place in WP. AlexBobCharles (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Gianluigi02; I might agree with your opinions, but I wouldn't voice them, (nor do I agree with removing them). I mostly agree with Sean, here. The thing is: (as I have said before): I try to keep a high signal/noice ratio. And the Gianluigi02-edit is -mostly- "noice". And you can (easily!) spend 100% of your time in the IP area "making noice". But then you get 0% work done.

Now, a way to "get more signal through", ie get the article moved to 13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi massacre, would be to look at the articles which have "massacre" in their names; say, Kfar Aza massacre, Kissufim massacre, Netiv HaAsara massacre, or Psyduck music festival massacre (all took place on the 7th October): do these massacres have more people killed than at 13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi? If not, why are they called "massacres", while what happened 13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi is not? Are some lives worth more than others? And of course see what WP:RS say about it: I saw twitterati use the word "massacre", which is why I suggested it (That, and the appalling number of dead), Sorry; I don't have the time to through all WP:RS. (User:Gianluigi02: most of what you think, or mean about things in the IP area is better left unsaid on Wikipedia. Just my 2-cents.) Huldra (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Feels like this + that are at the very least unproductive? Right? FortunateSons (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Already at ANI ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Losing my faith in a project I care so deeply about

I have always found (and frequently mention) editor retention to be a crucial issue on modern Wikipedia. I deeply respect you for your involvement in that effort, but have to ask how exactly what you are doing is aiding in that effort? If you feel the article you nominated is in need for fixing, I only wish that an editor would show the courtesy of expressing that to me on my talk page (something else I frequently mention on here). As for the articles alleged failure to meet WP:GNG, I am sorry but that is simply untrue. I feel offended and belittled as an editor for having my valid argument dismissed in favor of baseless reinterpretations of this projects policy and guidelines. I can only hope at this point for a resolution to the dispute that would foster a positive environment on this website and not one where the looming threat of authoritarian behavior being exerted on oneself by editors with special privileges lurks around every corner.

Kindly, 9t5 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is why AfD exists, so that disagreements on notability can be discussed and consensus determined. That is the normal workflow. As far as my actions helping the encyclopedia, in trimming the article and looking at the links to it I removed several severe BLP violations. Nominating articles that you don't believe are notable is also constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish — let me clarify on this.. I meant .. how can you say you care about editor retention, while actively participating in targeting the contributions of new editors (WP:WITCHHUNT) ??? You didn’t like my proposed policy.. cool. So you then come at me angrily for my signature and then stalking contribution history looking for something to nominate for an upwards of 40 minutes as per timestamps. And you.. care about new editor retention? What a joke. 9t5 (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You really need to step back from the personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish not a personal attack. You are claiming to be a champion of new editor retention while stalking the contributions of new editors to find contributions to nominate. It’s a behavior that I would imagine is seldom present among an editor who genuinely cares about editor retention. You could’ve wrote me on my talk page with your concerns but instead you didn’t bother. I find it to be a wild assertion that you care about retaining editors while engaging in WP:WITCHHUNTS against them. Nothing I said is a personal attack it’s entirely based on your activity on Wikipedia. Your interpretation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS is also a bit off. 9t5 (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And how is Your current signature is essentially unreadable. Light grey on white does not provide sufficient contrast, and the size causes formatting issues. I'd appreciate it if you could remedy that. Thanks. [9] angrily coming after you? That's a perfectly polite notification of a problem with your signature. Meters (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And tagging my essay before the talk page discussion concluded before going through my continuations for 40 minutes looking for something to delete? Listen, never said it was breaking guidelines. Just said it’s far from the type of behavior that someone who cares about editor retention engages in. You know what doesn’t retain new editors .. “TECHNICALLY MY HARRASSMENT OF YOU IS WITHIN THE GUIDELINES SO THATS OKAY” — try courtesy and maybe that issue would go away. It won’t happen and the retention problem will continue until this place falls even lower on result pages on search engines. Remember when Wikipedia used to always be the first result? Those were the days weren’t they? Discourtesy from admins and privileged editors are ruining this project. So you can feel happy with your tongue in cheek harassment, but it’s what it ruining the project you claim to care about. 9t5 (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Dtobias

Why didn't you just block Dtobias for their blatant transphobia? These two alone would be grounds for an indef for other users. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Because the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that a topic ban would end the disruption. The first diff was corrected a minute later, and the second was sufficient to remove them from the topic they were disrupting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy delete

So if you nominated the page, and I am the author with the only substantial contributions —- and my speedy delete tag means I am in agreement with your nom and asking to completely vanish, because I am over this place. Then why am I being denied that? Unless you just enjoy arguing. 9t5 (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. What am i denying? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I also don't get it. Assuming we're talking about John Mateer (musician), 9t5 nominated it as a WP:G7 when it clearly has had substantive edits by other users, and another admin declined it on that basis, so what did SFR "deny you" here? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)