Jump to content

User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42

Johanna Olson-Kennedy

Hey @ScottishFinnishRadish:, in this article you instated a short semi-protection. I had some discussion going on in the talk page about a contentious passage that you semi-protected. I'm just wondering if you are for or against the passage staying? Or did you only semi-protect because of the rapid reversion rate? I am not very familiar with this aspect of Wikipedia so I appreciate some small clarification.

96.36.47.50 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I protected because of the WP:BLP violations and vandalism. I haven't looked at the talk page in any detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Hey @ScottishFinnishRadish:, can you lift the expired semi-protection from the article? 96.36.47.50 (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Done by another user, thanks. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Burned Toast

Thanks for the block. Only reason I didn't make it was I was going to let them bring it on themselves. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

After I checked their edits I was well past the end of the coil. Even AGFing on the Antisemite userbox, WW2 was a mistake userbox, and German history userbox in close proximity I figured it wasn't worth any more editor time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA violations

New user was alerted, yet later made these two edits in contravention of WP:ECR. Left guide (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Warned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for helping. The bigger problem I see is that the Thom Yorke article has continued to become a magnet for IPs and new users (some who haven't been alerted yet) making apparent Arab-Israeli conflict related edits due to that recent incident. Would you mind taking a closer look at the page history and considering applying temporary ECP? Left guide (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Gave it 3 months ecp. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback about deletion on my entries/comments

Dear ScottishFinnishRadish, it has been deleted my comments to another user that actually asked me to explain better some changes in this talk page. I am not sure but apparently he asked about this deletion. Everything seems to be about the changes that I added to a page without any problem but deleted without any explanation. Without an explanation it can only be understood as a censure. All the changes that I did are explained, all the information provided has sources. You also deleted something in the Talk page of an user that explicitly asked me to write there about the topic, it was not my initiative, it was his/her request. I think that at least the users that tried to revert changes in the page should explain properly why, as Rv unsourced; POV crap is not an explanation. AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already responded on your talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I saw that you also hide all the information in the talk part of the page. If you see may last changes were basically "typos" that I corrected. Nothing more. Thanks. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I have already reached out to you about this on your talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you but honestly, I don't see that my contributions is anymore more than an explanation of changes I did in the page and a justification of them. If you see other Talk pages in Wikipedia the contributions are similar. I would like to know better what I am doing wrong. Thank you. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Dear ScottishFinnishRadish, as probably you know another person has reverted all the changes without any debate. He said: Rv undiscussed, unsourced propaganda and POV additions by non-EC editors, however (1) the review has been discussed extensively and it is in the talk page, (2) all the information has sources indicated and it is not propaganda, (3) the idea of POV addition has been also discussed and I think refuted. If you are taking care of this page, I think that at least you should monitor that these changes are done according to the rules of discussion in Wikipedia to achieve a consensus and not in the way this person has proceed. Again, everything had sources indicated and they are accessible, and everything has been properly explained for discussion. I don't understand the statement: Rv undiscussed, unsourced propaganda and POV additions AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Until you are extended-confirmed this shouldn't concern you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. As a reader of Wikipedia, I am concerned. I can't discuss because I am not EC, but of course this concerns us all. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah tunnels

Thank you for sorting all of that out; I should've checked for EC status and dealt with it accordingly, but we live and learn. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries. There's a lot to keep track of, so don't sweat missing something from time to time. Happens to all of us. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
The status of EC should be made known to those like me who were not aware of this. I make it known that a person has reversed all the changes saying: Rv undiscussed, unsourced propaganda and POV additions. I believe that the changes have been discussed at length on the Talk page, that sources have been given for everything that has been commented on and that it has been refuted that it is a non-neutral POV. I don't have the possibility of debate on this topic, but you have and at least recognize that words Rv undiscussed, unsourced propaganda and POV additions are inappropriate in this situation. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
You cannot discuss this topic on the English Wikipedia, even on editor talk pages. If you continue to violate WP:ECR you will be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I did not discuss in this topic. I just noticed you a change. Please threatening with block from editing is not a way to solve things. I think you have the possibility of delete my comments if you dislike as you did before. But here I don't think there is a violation of WP:ECR. AyubuZimbale (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
You are discussing edits to content that falls under WP:ECR. Such discussion is not allowed until you are extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I did not mention anything specific about the topic, just a general statement that can be applied to any page where there is an edit saying something that contradicts what the talk discussion said and the information other users provided. Nothing more. AyubuZimbale (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

EC Gaming

Special:Contributions/Zlmark. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS (talk page watcher) I don't get it. Did Zlmark edit EC gaming at some point? Do you have an issues with the edit(s) Zlmark is making related to EC Gaming? Please explain. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
They made hundreds of minor edits over the course of a few days then immediately moved to ARBPIA editing. This type of editing has been seen as gaming in multiple discussions at AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, I didn't know that this is considered "gaming" - a while ago I was told by @Selfstudier that I need to make 500+ edits in order to be allowed to do ARBIA editing, but I had no idea that doing minor edits, requested in the CW project, is considered to be illegitimate way to gain those permissions. Zlmark (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
@Zlmark: what was the purpose behind the hundreds of minor edits? M.Bitton (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Like I said above - the purpose was to qualify for EC permissions, but I had no idea that there are some limitations/reservations regarding the kind of edits that are permitted.
So when I saw some other people doing minor edits requested as part of the CW Project, on the pages that I contributed to, I thought that it could be a win-win for everyone - Wikipedia gets some routine maintenance work done and I get the opportunity to contribute to the pages I'm interested in. Zlmark (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
the purpose was to qualify for EC permissions... I get the opportunity to contribute to the pages I'm interested in therein lies the issue. In your opinion, does this approach violate the spirit of the rule? M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it does, because as far as I understand it, the idea is to prevent disruptive editing by filtering out random users and guarantee that only the more serious and committed people are allowed to edit articles on more polarizing topics.
In my experience, doing 500 edits - even minor ones, such as requested in the CW project - is a lot of work that requires a high level of commitment, and as such should be sufficient in order to qualify for EC permissions. Zlmark (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
random users what's your definition of a "random user"? M.Bitton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Someone who stumbles upon a specific page and tries to makes some changes without having a good enough understanding of Wikipedia quality criteria and proper editing process. Zlmark (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you think that making hundreds of minor edits (for the sole purpose of becoming EC) would give someone "a good enough understanding of Wikipedia quality criteria and proper editing process"? M.Bitton (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Not making hundreds of such edits, all and by itself, but the very willingness to do this work does demonstrate, in my view, a level of commitment that would guarantee a steep learning curve. Zlmark (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
In other words, you don't have a good enough understanding of Wikipedia quality criteria and proper editing process", and therefore, you shouldn't edit any article that is related to the contentious topic. M.Bitton (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
No, that conclusion doesn't follow from what I said.
I said that making hundreds minor edits does guarantee that the person has sufficient understanding, but it doesn't necessarily imply that they don't.
And it also leaves us with a practical question - if the number if edits is no longer considered to be a sufficient for getting the EC permissions, what criteria should be used instead? Zlmark (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I disagree and so do the comments above.
Are you now suggesting that you are experienced? M.Bitton (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Which part of what I wrote do you disagree with? And which comments are you referring to?
As to your question - yes, I do think that I have sufficient understanding of the quality criteria and editing process to be able provide useful contribution to the contentious topic.
I understand that you disagree, which brings us back to the practical question I raised earlier - how do you determine if someone is "experienced" or not? Zlmark (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
The part about the conclusion (which is contradicted by everything you said).
yes, I do think that I have sufficient understanding.. based on what experience? I noticed that Sean.hoyland asked you the same thing on your talk page.
how do you determine if someone is "experienced" or not? how do you determine if a random editor is experienced or not? M.Bitton (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
But this is exactly the question I asked you myself - how do you measure experience?
Are you necessarily more "experienced" after making 500 edits, than you were after making 100? Wouldn't it make more sense to judge "experience" not based on the number of edits, but, for example, on the quality of the non-minor ones? Zlmark (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
It's not primarily about experience or competence but about preventing bad faith actors (especially sock accounts).
It's more like you have to show that you are a genuine Wikipedia editor and not just here to edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area to wage an ideological battle. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I absolutely get the need to weed out bad faith actors, but I don't think that being particularly interested in specific area necessarily implies you are not "a genuine Wikipedia editor".
After all, most of us have areas that we are more knowledgeable/interested in, so it's natural that those areas will get more attention in our function as editors. Zlmark (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
this is exactly the question I asked you myself not when judging those that you described as random editors.
Are you necessarily more "experienced" after making 500 edits you'll answer this question all by yourself after making 500 substantial edits. M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
@IOHANNVSVERVS, @Zlmark, and @ScottishFinnishRadish: I thought for a moment that "EC gaming" was a sport or video game. Feel free to chuckle at my expense. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Restoring EC permissions

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish, earlier today you revoked my EC permissions due to what you considered to be "gaming".

As I explained earlier, I didn't know that doing a lot of minor edits requested in the CW project is viewed as "gaming", and obviously I wouldn't have done it, if I knew it's considered to be problematic.

Now, I'm trying to understand what I can do to correct this misunderstanding and regain the EC permissions - looking forward to your response.

Thanks.


Zlmark (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ECR exists for two primary reasons. The first is to increase the burden on the enormous amount of bad faith actors in the topic. Making hundreds of minor edits as quick as possible specifically to bypass the protection on the topic area is one of the behaviors that we look for to detect those bad actors.
The second reason is to ensure that editors have a base level of experience in editing, as there are many land mines an editor can stumble into. This leads to avoidable sanctions on the new editor, as well as disruption to the already precarious editing environment. Making hundreds of minor edits as quick as possible specifically to bypass the protection on the topic area is one of the behaviors we look for to prevent that disruption.
When you've made a few hundred more substantial edits I would not object to the restoration of your extended-confirmed permission. You can request the return of the permission at WP:PERM/EC, although it is unlikely that an administrator will unilaterally restore the permission. You could also request a review of my action at WP:AN. As I've mentioned, my action was based on how those discussions generally turn out, and I believe my action falls in line with community consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for your elaborate response - it does help me to understand the logic behind your decision.
It's still not completely clear to me what objective criteria should I rely on in deciding when to request the return of the permissions - the 500 edits criteria is very clear and transparent, but now we've established that it's not considered to be sufficient, and "substantial edits" sounds somewhat subjective, so I'm wondering how can I - and subsequently the administrator who may review my request - would determine whether particular edits are counted as "substantial" or not.
I'm asking because getting the EC permissions is important to me and I'm willing to do the work that needs to be done in order to earn them, but I just need more clarity about the nature if the work. Zlmark (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I would say that knowing when you've made enough substantial edits to request the permission will demonstrate that you should get the permission back. Knowing what edits would be considered substantial is part of that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough - thanks Zlmark (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
This isn't well defined unfortunately. Just contribute and edit non-ECR articles and be patient. Is there a reason you want/need to edit only in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I've been doing pretty intesnsive fact-checking work around Gaza war during the last year, and in the process encountered a lot of inaccurate information about this conflict - both historical and contemporary - that found its way to Wikipedia.
That what caused me to want to get involved in Wikipedia editing in the first place. Zlmark (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense, I myself edit mainly to correct misinformation in the topic area also.
I'll see if I can come up with any advice for you in the next few days, but for now let's end this discussion (which is becoming off-topic / out of place on this admin's talk page). Feel free to start a thread on my talk page about any other questions you may have (though note I'm not an admin or anything of the like).
Thank you, @ScottishFinnishRadish by the way. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
thanks Zlmark (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign

Hi! I was recently looking at the page Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign and at the top it says "some are good and some are bad, but they both suck", at least on my end. Assuming this is vandalism, I looked for it in the contents of the page, but found nothing; yet it still shows up. Since you're an admin, I figured you could help me here; could you take a look at the page for me and see if the same thing is happening for you? If it is, could you look into the matter? Thanks 2600:8800:8E04:1700:44B5:A8B8:FE9E:C2BA (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that on my end, but it's possible it was template vandalism that was reverted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
It was. I had to refresh the article page to eliminate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Committee clarification or amendment

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#Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al 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, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elon Musk 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 12:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk page protection

This article November 2024 Amsterdam attacks is protected but its talk page is not. Is that normal? Could we get the talk page protected also? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually I guess it can't be protected since people need to be able to make edit requests eh. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
If it becomes disruptive enough talk pages can be protected for a short time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Might be a good idea then. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on it, but it's a bit borderline. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks SFR. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
No problem. One of the issues I'm havingis that this isn't really a primary article of the Arab/Israel conflict so I'm hesitant to move forward with draconian measures if it can be avoided. If it keeps up, though, I'll probably start with semi. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict 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 04:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Australia 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 01:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

November music

story · music · places

I uploaded more pics, on a mountain in the sun above the fog. - Madeleine Riffaud - remember. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Flamewar at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions over BilledMammal. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm notifying you because you've previously warned Makeandtoss at AE. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked proxies

I'm going to bed. Maybe a short semiprotection of the Help desk? Bishonen | tålk 23:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC).

We can, but that prevents actual help desk questions and they just move somewhere else. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to restore Al-Ahli page to long-standing version during Admin protection

I saw you just now admin-protected the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion page as the edit-warring issue is being addressed, which I think is best.

However, I would like to request restoring the latest and long-standing version of the page before the latest edit-warring incident earlier today, which is backed by the majority of editors in the ongoing Talk discussion (although there's no firm consensus), and moreover includes the content that was on the page for over a year before certain editors decided to remove it and litigate it by appealing to non-existent consensus.

Thank you. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This falls under WP:WRONG VERSION. There are no BLP violations, and nothing that I see as pressing enough to pick a revision to protect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, and thanks for the laugh, this is great. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ECR alert edit request details

Hi SFR, how is this for a message informing user's of AI-ABECR regulations regarding what kind of edit requests are allowed?

"To edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area on Wikipedia accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages, with the sole exception being for very specific edit requests, which should be in the form of "change x to y for reason z."

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not bad. I've been thinking of adding something similar to the welcome template I made to make it clear that it applies to talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I would include some phrasing that this includes articles that are not inherently about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here is a suggestion:
"To edit in the Arab-Israeli topic area on Wikipedia (including articles that are not primarily about the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the edit involves the Arab-Israeli conflict), accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages. The sole exception being specific talk page edit requests, that are in the form of "change x to y for reason z." The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
{{welcome-arbpia}} has language along those lines. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Not to waste your time, but I've been using this lately:
"To edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area on Wikipedia accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages, with the sole exception being for simple and specific edit requests, which should be in the form of "change x to y for reason z", and which should ideally be done using the Edit Request Wizard."
Any objections to this? Seem appropriate? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if directing new editors to the wizard would be that helpful. This is just my personal view, but the pile of preloaded templates and formatting makes it difficult for people unfamiliar with wiki editing to figure out what's going on. The majority of edit request wizard requests I saw when I patrolled edit requests were malformed. That's anecdotal, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I think you're right, I removed that bit.
Thanks for the feedback and thank you for always responding to my pings to enforce ECR. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Belated response

Since the case is closed, I'll reply here. You wrote

"This edit definitely does add claim language that is not found in the source. This edit adds claim language that is not found in the source. Is that enough to show a pattern?"

The answer is "yes, it shows a pattern of attributing certain categories of claim that absolutely must not be repeated as fact in wikivoice". The Israeli military makes claims every day, many of which turn out to be false. For example, the head of that research institute told the press that he had multiple bodies of decapitated babies when in fact there were none. Hamas does it too. All claims by warring parties against their enemies must be reported as attributed assertions. Not doing so would be highly destructive to article integrity. There's nothing wrong with calling them "claims" either. Zerotalk 03:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I reached out to VR about this here, and that has much of my thoughts on it. Long story short is that there was simply too much in the report to handle at AE, and with ARBPIA5 in the wings it would be best to investigate it there. That includes determining if the dozens of diffs provided show a pattern of tendentiously misrepresenting what another editor is doing. Much as I said to VR, looking into that report fully would have involved source analysis, offering other sources to possibly demonstrate that the sources cited aren't following the mainstream reporting or analysis, how the MOS applies to the dozens of individual edits, and it's just beyond what AE is for.
Closing it as too complex, no action was also a possibility, but I don't think that is the best way to handle it when there are accusations in both directions in the report and about the content of the report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I believe you are making a fundamental error. I'm preparing a little essay about. Zerotalk 11:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Let me know when it's up. I'm interested to read it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

ARBECR, Portal:Current events and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Are Portal:Current events and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates within scope of ARBECR? If so, this static IP might benefit from a reminder judging from some of their contributions. Portal:Current events seems to be a possible WP:ARBECR enforcement blind spot. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It does apply there, and it definitely is a blind spot. A lot of the editors there aren't ARBPIA regulars and aren't really aware of ECR. I'll give them a warning. If you see it continuing, let me know. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I see they were given a recent warning about a week ago so I've blocked for a week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I didn't even notice the warning. Will try to figure out how to keep an eye on the portal. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I'd add it to my watchlist, but at 5700 pages it's already not very effective for patrolling except in the broadest sense. I also don't want to just show up at ITN/C or the current events portal and start telling everyone to start enforcing ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For the fact I constantly see you quickly blocking vandals, preventing spam, replying at ANI, the list goes on...

Thank you! CoconutOctopus talk 15:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thanks! Just doing my part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Unhinged bullying from GhostofDanGurney

ScottishFinnishRaddish, can you take a look at the recent behaviour from GoDG, he clearly has an extreme vendetta against and is desperate to hound me off this page.

A few days back, another user disagreed with some content on the Khalistan movement, in which I added content from the page Canada-India diplomatic row- see [1] and [2]. The content was a signifcant diplomatic fallout as a result of India's alleged role in clandestine operations against Khalistan activists, and I thought that precluding such a consequential event from the page would constitute non neutral editing and make it appear that the page was skewed towards a pro-India bias.

Nyttend disagreed with this and removed the content from the page. As you can see, I made only one revert, which is well within reason, and when Nyttend posted on my t/p, I told him I would not revert any further and initiated a discussion on the t/p where I intended to go to 3O or DRN if we couldn't reach a consenus. I believe I handled the situation responsibly.

GhostofDanGurney, who has a long history of suppressing any critical information on the page Hardeep Singh Nijjar (see my diffs on the previous A/E case), saw this opportunity and rushed to try to hound me further. He made this hasty revert again where he did not properly research the subject at hand, falsely calling him a "low profile individual" and thus incorrectly invoking BLPCRIME and then left a rude, condescending message on my t/p to try to pile on me.

Now when it's clear that there is significant coverage on Dalla in general, thus not making him a low profile indiviudal and reports of his connection with Nijjar, he filed another A/E request, days after his last failed one as a desperate attempt to hound me off the platform.

I find it reprehensible that this bullying behaviour has carte-blanche on Wikipedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Would it not make more sense to take this to ANI rather than to try and ask one specific admin to look into it? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Just Step Sideways, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Southasianhistorian8 2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
This is already at AE, so let's keep it there. Also, you may want to stay away from personal attacks like unhinged bullying. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA from Robinsinghkamboj

for legal threats here. JJPMaster (she/they) 03:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they removed it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

In response to the referral to the Arbitration Committee of an enforcement request from the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, where you participated in the administrators' discussion, the Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.

Motion 2b: Word limits

Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

Motion 2c: Word limits

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

  • The case title will be Palestine-Israel articles 5.
  • The initial parties will be:
  • Aoidh will be the initial drafter
  • The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
  • All case pages are to be semi-protected.
  • Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.
Addendum

In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:

The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.

The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

IP sock

Hi, it is regarding this person who was blocked for posting legal threats. Apparently, they are back as an IP [3] in this article. I'd like to request a temporary protection. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Let me know if they pop up with another IP and I'll use some protection. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive_40&oldid=1260506591"