bunny

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Howdy. FWIW, I think you might've meant "United Kingdom", rather than "Great Britain" in your RFC close. We can't leave out Northern Ireland. Also, clarity concerning the infobox status, might be required. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, not sure how I made that mistake. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. There's a lot of folks out there in the real world, who use "England" instead of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've re-implemented the RFC result. But, I do think you might want to keep an eye on the situation. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please step in & clarify your RFC closure? There's a dispute over what your decision means. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh wait a minute. It IS the subject of a discussion on the talk page. [1] So fine. Let it go at that, please. Coretheapple (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Already knocked off and RfC opened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fyi, the user who you ECR blocked on Heather Reisman just did it again. [2] Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 15:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting SFR; some queries for you (since you seem to be the ECR guy). Is there a list of topics subject to ECR? If an article has ECP it is subject to ECR? Bon courage (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just WP:ARBPIA and WP:GS/RUSUKR. The Russia/Ukraine restriction isn't as hardcore as the ARBPIA one, since that allows constructive comments on talk pages, and ARBECR only allows edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in Poland might be covered too? WP:ARBECR should really link to a list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should! Bon courage (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For community sanctions, there's also WP:GS/AA and WP:GS/KURD. Both are less restrictive than ARBECR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought GS has been retired? Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think DS was retired in favor of CTOP. GS is alive and well and confusing editors and admins everywhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, was it just COVID GS become COVID DS (became CTOP) that I'm remembering? Anyway, I'm sure everything's ready for the US elections ;-) Bon courage (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I had just finished writing up my post to AN/I given that I was inclined to see myself as involved, but this solves it without the added drama. Thanks. - Bilby (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just trying to do what I can. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SFR,

What’s the template that admins subst to inform people of topic bans? I noticed a minor error in wording and want to make a template-protected-error-request on its talk page to earn brownie points toward eventually becoming a template editor.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is {{AE sanction/topicban}} what you're asking about? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is the author of Screams Without Words. Should his article be subject to Arbcom I/P restrictions? Also I think this kind of edit summary is suboptimal, as is the edit. BLP I think requires that a more balanced portrayal of the Gettleman article be included, especially that the Times stands by that story, criticism notwithstanding, but I'm assuming 1RR applies. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a clarification and a warning and protected the page for a year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll put a suitable template on the talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You were the blocking admin for this guy, Special:Contributions/Snugglewasp, a Bareham Oliver sock. Although blocked for other reasons, I'd lay money on Troll name 1 and Troll name 2 being the same guy (would be happy to show my working in email on that one). And now we have a succession of Virgin media accounts asserting the same kinds of edits. The latest being this one Special:Contributions/82.18.162.80. I can't open an SPI against an IP, but note that they have just tried to remove text from the Lucy Letby article that Bareham Oliver socks heavily edit warred over before, and when I reverted, they just reverted me back (per usual MO) and talking about Richard Gill (against whom they have a vendetta). Any chance you could take a look please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. I think I got it all cleaned up, too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Have a good weekend. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions? Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, definitely, but I'm too busy right now to pull the perm and write up a message. Please bring it to AN or another admin, or I'll take care of it in a few hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, just so you are aware. Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just got a chance to look back at this and saw they were indeffed by Widr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Whadjuk 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 04:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on whether to PROD or RPP Vishuddhananda Paramahansa? One of the two needs to occur, and I can't decide which action to follow through on. Zinnober9 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was already prodded, would need AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit. I do not believe this to be the case, as my comments are on topic, only engaging with this user and remain in an acceptable quantity (IMO). As both bludgeoning and falsely accusing someone of bludgeoning are not appropriate, I would greatly appreciate your assessment. FortunateSons (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not bludgeoning in the slightest seems tbh he’s just at this point gas lighting •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this fits under the broadly construed piece of WP:ARBPIA and it isn't ECP at this moment. Just wanted to flag this for you here. Thanks! ~~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish: There's been quite a bit of flare ups around this article again after some meatpuppetry organized on Twitter and you've been helpful in untangling things and keeping civil in the past. Wondering if you would mind taking a look at both the article talk thread (originally the result of meatpuppetry, subsequently ECP which was helpful, so now just OrcaLord and I mostly) and the appeal of the enforcement. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it absolutely necessary for editors to use edit summaries to accuse other editors of lying?[3] referring to [4] Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt accusing you of lying, I was saying the claims of beheaded babies were a lie. But is it appropriate to put "allegations" for something that has been conclusively proven to have been a lie? If we're going to come running to SFR's talk page every issue we have, maybe he could remark on the POV editing of claiming a proven lie is an "allegation". nableezy - 15:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "no that isnt neutral, that is a lie." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not neutral to call a lie an allegation. The second that, along with the these after that, is in reference to the material, the first that is in reference to your prior edit summary in which you claimed calling a lie an allegation is neutral. nableezy - 15:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "allegation" wording in question has been there since early January, such that one can argue it was consensus wording, and was changed today (by another editor). So it is not as if I dreamed up that word and stuck it in. I was reverting back to the long-used wording. As for "lie," maybe you can utilize less overheated language in your edit summaries and not accuse other editors of either lying or promoting lies. Either is unecessarily combative. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed it was more neutral to call what has been proven to be false, repeatedly, an "allegation". I said that it is not more neutral to call lies allegations. I did not accuse you of lying or even of promoting lies, but rather of non-neutrally representing what are lies. It also isnt ok to come to an an admins talk page to complain about somebody without notifying them, but whatever on that. nableezy - 15:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm curious what you define allegation as. By most definitions it is an unproven claim, even it has been proven false it was/is an allegation. I have no care on this particular battle how ever you both are saying the same thing in the article and an allegation does not mean it has actually happened only that someone accused them of it. No one is required to notify anyone of a discussion on another talk page, this isn't a noticeboard. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. Even assuming arguendo that these claims are all "lies," then they are still allegations and saying in Wikipedia's voice that they are "unsubstantiated" is conclusory and non-neutral in my opinion. Further, I would suggest that it is an overstatement to say that these allegations have been "conclusively proven to be lies," but that is a separate matter as is the wording of that section. My concern here is that we should not be adding to the white-hot atmosphere of this subject area by throwing around words like "lies" in edit summaries. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That they were unsubstantiated is well sourced, and that they are proven false is also well sourced. An allegation is something whose validity is still in the air. I dont see sources reporting on disproven allegations and not including that they were disproven. Regardless, that is something for the talk page, and here I was accused of calling an editor a liar where I did no such thing, Maybe running to an admin who has already sanctioned me out of the blue to complain about something I did without informing me is adding to the white-hot atmosphere of this subject area? nableezy - 16:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(tpw) I can see how Figureofnine might take offense at that edit summary and feel that the accusation lying was directed at them. Nableezy, this is similar to the kind of thing I was talking about in my advice last October; it's not sanctionable misconduct, but it does nothing to improve the heat:light ratio or build trust between editors. I know this is an emotive subject, but as one of the most experienced Wikipedians in the topic area, I'd really appreciate it if you would try to build bridges and serve as a role model for the new editors a topic like this inevitably attracts. Figureofnine, please consider discussing issues with editors on their talk page before escalating to an admin's talk page for exactly the same reasons relating to heat:light ration and building trust. Let's all try to see each other as colleagues rather than opponents. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, but I feel I need to repeat that it was not directed at them, it was about the material in that section. I think Ive learned my lesson not to direct any edit summary to any user already. nableezy - 18:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you. I have absolutely no reason to think you intended that to be a personal attack but you could have been more careful to avoid the perception. That's not me saying you've done something wrong, just that people sometimes read things into what we write that we didn't intend (top tip: sometimes more verbose edit summaries can be helpful; if you'd written "the allegations were proven false" there would have been no room for confusion). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to ask you to consider taking action in your capacity as an administrator against User:Thomas B, who recently started yet another thread on Tim Hunt, this time on BLPN. While Thomas B wasn't formally broadly topic-banned from Tim Hunt, but just page-banned, obviously the intention was to prevent em from continuing to disrupt the editorial process over that article. WP:GAMING likely applies here. Moreover, since we very recently had an extensive discussion and an RfC over that article, this is obvious WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:STICK. NicolausPrime (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]