User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for all your hard work administering Wikipedia and not being afraid to make hard decisions! Adam Black talk • contributions 19:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed some of the criticism being levelled against you on the Administrator's Noticeboard recently, and I thought it was worth giving you some kudos. In the few weeks I've been back editing Wikipedia, I have noticed quite a few of your edits and administrative actions in the recent changes feed and elsewhere as I've been wandering through the expanse that is Wikipedia. I've come to equate the name "ScottishFinnishRadish" with trustworthy, reliable and balanced work. Your contributions to the project are appreciated; keep it up and don't let the criticism get you down. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 19:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You know something needed to be done about you. That barnstar? Yup. That's the something. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

How you remain sane and rational throughout your interactions with a POV and BATTLEGROUND-ridden topic area is nothing short of absolutely remarkable, fully endorse the barnstar. The Kip 20:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

True this. A cold pint of NPOVBrewery's own is in order 👌 ——Serial Number 54129 22:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Who is criticizing SFR? He’s excellent! Zanahary (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 to this. I came here to leave the same barnstar for the same reason, but it looks like someone else beat me to it! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Eden Golan 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 15:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Notifying users about ARBCOM restrictions

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish,

I know you're busy, but I wanted to ask you whether my sending the following notifications to an IP user and a non-extended confirmed user about the ARBCOM restrictions relating to the Arab-Israeli war contentious topic were appropriate:

• to 184.19.40.175
• to RomeshKubajali

(Note: I have since marked these as unsigned, I know I forgot to sign the messages)

I noticed after I sent these notices that you had protected the page in question. It's just occurred to me, though, is this a notice that should only be left by administrators or is it okay as an editor to notify users they have been editing a page subject to ARBCOM restrictions?

Thanks for your time Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The notifications were appropriate. They can be given by any editor to anyone editing in a contentious topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. As it triggered an edit filter and it's a sensitive matter I wasn't entirely sure. I'm glad to know I was acting appropriately. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The edit filter is so editors can check if another has been notified already, and to keep a handy log. For new editors I created {{welcome-arbpia}} as well. If someone is new I normally leave the welcome and the CTOP alert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a really helpful template. It gives all the information in the main template but is even less likely to discourage new users. I got the template I used from Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli_conflict#Templates. I think your template would be a very useful inclusion there. Would it be possible to add it to that list? Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not an official Arbcom approved template, so I don't believe so. That's why I send the official alert with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. If you wouldn't object, I'd like to suggest to Arbcom that they adopt your template (or an approved variation) alongside the existing "first" one for new and IP editors. While the existing template is non-judgemental and advisory, I think yours is better for promoting new editor retention. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

By all means. They're aware of the template already, though, so I don't know if there's any appetite to make it official. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's worth bringing up at least. I'll try to write a coherent suggestion when I wake up as to why I think it'd be a useful addition. I've recently quit my job working nights and I'm still adapting to being a normal day person. I think whatever I have to say will be more coherent after some rest. Do you think WP:ARCA would be an appropriate forum to post my suggestion? Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, ARCA is the place. I used to be a night person too, but I got one of those fancy first shift jobs. Years later and I still don't really like it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I was a submariner for a short while (before getting a medical discharge). Shift patterns of six hours on, six hours off. After leaving I could adapt to any sleep pattern quite quickly but the older I get the harder it becomes. I turn 31 in a few weeks and already I'm feeling like an old man becoming more and more set in his ways.

Another question for you (just tell me if they're getting be to too much or annoying at all, I wouldn't like to be monopolising an admin's time), for Case or decision affected would "All Arbcom cases to date" or "All Arbcom cases to date with contentious topic restrictions" be sufficient, do you think? I want to suggest they introduce a new generic template the same as the current "first" template and one of those seems appropriate to me. This will be my first interaction with Arbcom, I want to try to get my suggestion right first time if I can. I'm well aware it's a very small subset of Wikipedians who have a lot to deal with. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you'd be best off picking one CTOP and working on that. A lot of CTOPs probably don't need a customized welcome. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, just in case you think I'd forgotten about this, after reading through some of the other requests at WP:ARCA, I decided to wait for a while. I thought it would be worth trying to collect some evidence that it would be a useful change, for example by trying to monitor whether users are more likely to continue editing unrelated topics when alerted using your welcome template rather than just the standard ARBCOM approved template. What I did forget to do was leave this message sooner when I decided to delay... Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I've wondered about the effectiveness myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Offwiki canvassing and possible Meat/Sockpuppetry in Sri Lankan Pages

There is open off-wiki canvassing happening and possibly meat and sockpuppetry in the AfD for Tamil genocide which was also noted by @Kashmiri. I have opened a SPI for new accounts that appears to be created solely for the AfD and another account which only became active after three years solely to vote in the AfD and the links for locations of offwiki canvassing in Reddit and Quora. I hope you could check it quickly. -UtoD 11:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I had started to look into this, got caught up with something, and it slipped my mind. There's not much I can do with off-wiki evidence, so SPI is probably your best bet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

User referred to sources as Israeli and Jewish as a measure of reliability, does not back down

Hey, I asked them to stop, unfortunately they did not back down when confronted. Do you have the time to take a look? FortunateSons (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think their behavior merits any action given their responses here and here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish What has made you change your approach to such justifications? (For others reading it: SFR almost sanctioned me when I dared to raise the issue of an author's potential Jewishness as a matter of reliability re. Israel–Palestine conflict). — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, as you succinctly put it, you dared to raise the issue of an author's potential Jewishness as a matter of reliability re. Israel–Palestine conflict as opposed to mentioned the origin of a source when dealing with possible bias in how they label the nationality of someone representing a nation in a competition unrelated to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Bias is not reliability, and Eurovision isn't the Arab/Israel conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It was both about reliability and bias. Background was irrelevant - your issue wasn't with the background but with bringing up a source's ethnic affiliation as a potential bias factor. So, I'm at loss here as to what is and what isn't kosher on Wikipedia in your reading. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The entire discussion can be found here, where I said It really depends on the context and what was said. I followed up in my warning to you That wasn't raising a concern that there was the possibility of bias, that was just dumping the mere question if they were Jewish into the mix. The context was entirely different, as in the current case we're dealing with someone representing a nation in a multinational game competition and bias in how sources refer to their nationality. This isn't disparaging someone's reliability because of the possibility they were Jewish. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That was nothing resembling disparaging someone's reliability because of the possibility they were Jewish. That was an argument why I considered the author biased based on his writings/interviews, with an additional question mark about their likely ethnicity/nationality as another bias factor. Which is what is apparently discussed here as I'm reading it: bias factor linked to a source's ethnic/national affiliation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That editor didn't raise the Jewishness of authors, just that Jewish or Israeli sources (like Jewish Currents or the Jerusalem Post) are biased. You raised an author's ethnicity—not even nationality. Zanahary (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, for your copious free time....

I asked what I thought was a relatively innocuous question over at the Alexander the Great talk page, and in response got a telegram name that appears to possibly be a real name. Not sure if this should be removed as identifying information? Dumuzid (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

A name offered like that is no different than someone choosing a real name as their username. Unless there's some reason to think it's some attempt at harassing the person with that name I wouldn't remove it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, as always! Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

User

Note Mimbs528 If you haven't already. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi,

I got the topic ban for India Pakistan Afghanistan topic related articles.

does that mean that it’s automatically prevents me from editing these articles or how do I know which articles I’m not allowed to edit? Afv12e (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You cannot edit anything to do with topics you are banned from anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes talk pages, user talk pages, templates, anywhere. The sole exception is questions like this, to clarify the topic ban.

There is nothing that automatically prevents you from editing as there is no way to accurately determine what would be covered on every page. It is your responsibility to avoid those topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

how do I know that the article is 'India Pakistan Afghanistan topic related articles' ? Afv12e (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Does it relate in any way to India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

ok Afv12e (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

The article Kalaripayattu is not a topic under India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan right ?

It is nothing related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, as it is of origin from India , but not related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan like of Narendra Modi.

Can you please clarify ? Afv12e (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see this in the article talk page :

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Afv12e (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Kalaripayattu is an Indian martial art that originated in Kerala, a state on the southwestern coast of India definitely relates to India. The topic ban is broad, so I suggest you edit on an entirely different topic for a while, then appeal to loosen the topic ban to allow edits that do not relate politics at all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

ok got it! Afv12e (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Afv12e The introductory sentence of the article says "Kalaripayattu (IPA: [kɐɭɐɾip:ɐjɐt:ɨ̆]; also known simply as Kalari) is an Indian martial art that originated in Kerala, a state on the southwestern coast of India..."^{[emphasis added]} That is absolutely related to India, broadly construed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

ok understood ! Afv12e (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI: New account Narayanadas whose first and only edit is the same (except for the references being replicated at the end of each para) as the one that led you to block Afv12e for TBAN violation. Abecedare (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Abecedare, I blocked, and pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afv12e I may be indeffing Afv12e. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Re:Removal of Talk Page comments on Al-Ahli Hospital Explosion

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish

I noticed that you recently removed mine and @Fatboyfriend's comments on the Al-Ahli Explosion talk page regarding the use of torture in the Israel-Hamas war to extract false confessions, citing WP:ECR. Given that this is a talk page and I believe I was being quite reasonable in requesting that the page at least provide context surrounding these "confessions" from Israeli interrogations, I fail to see how this falls under "disruption" as described in WP:ECR section A1.

I would appreciate it if you could provide a reason for the outright deletion of the thread on the talk page rather than simply providing a response and engaging with the concerns, as is generally the purpose of talk pages. Manyyassin (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not SFR, but ECR is a hard-line rule - if you're not XC, whether your edits are disruptive or not, you're only allowed to contribute to the topic area in the form of formal edit requests (the procedure for which I've linked), even on talk pages. It appears your request on the talk page wasn't that, and therefore it was removed. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Kip, I appreciate the additional context and the thoughtful reply. I misunderstood the ECR policy, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Thanks. Manyyassin (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Your post was not an edit request, and was instead commentary on bias and reliability of sources and the article with no proposed prose. This isn't an edit request, even if you squint really hard at it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding! I thought the ECR rule applied only to direct edits of the page, not edits of the talk page. I've reread the policy and I understand your decision.

Thank you. Manyyassin (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

NOTFORUM

If you have a moment, could you take a glance at this discussion?

It seems to be a clear WP:NOTFORUM violation that can’t benefit the article but could result in drama and wasted editor time, but they are insisting it remains on the page. BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Interesting how briefly discussing a source that was previously extensively debated on the same article is a waste of editor time, but these same editors starting a hissy fit on ANI over some quote on my user page is apparently a legitimate use of editor time. The litigiousness and censoriousness of some editors (also FortunateSons) is remarkable. JDiala (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

JDiala, personal attacks aren't a great response to this. Article talk pages aren't for discussing things unrelated to article content. If you want to contest its reliability RSN is the place, but you need to bring more than tweets. There are plenty of venues off-wiki you can discuss general issues with the magazine, in fact it looks like there's a Twitter discussion about it now.

I know it sucks to have someone you generally disagree with revert you, but WP:NOTAFORUM is policy, and it is clear that you must bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles... Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. Importing Twitter complaints to article talk pages is manifestly material unsuitable for talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts relaying to a block

Hi, ScottishFinnishRadish. I usually have a high respect for you as an administrator, but you have recently made a block that I really can't agree with. Of course you have as much right to make a judgement as I have, and I'm not reprimanding you, just mentioning a different view in the hope that you may at least consider it. You blocked Why should black and whites hate each other? for being NOTHERE. Obviously you are perfectly right that the editor was not here to build an encyclopaedia, but they were well-intentioned, and probably acting entirely in good faith, just not knowing that what they were doing is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. In that situation, I see no reason to throw an immediate block in their face, when it's perfectly easy to give them a friendly message explaining that they shouldn't continue doing what they have started. If they do continue after having been given a friendly warning, then blocking may be necessary, but I think an immediate block after one mistaken but good faith edit is very rarely a good choice. JBW (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree on the block, but I think the editor should be blocked for having an inappropriate username, because yeah, their edits are certainly good faith, but the username is a little uh... how do I put it? Offensive. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I came across them while patrolling UAA, and I was up in the air about if a block was warranted, and if so what type. I was leaning towards a username soft block, but having reviewed the deleted edit I decided on nothere. It wasn't until I had placed the block that I saw your comment, and had I seen it earlier I would probably have just let it ride and see if they engaged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

After some reconsideration I've unblocked. Thanks for reaching out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks for reconsidering.

@NoobThreePointOh: I'm not sure who the username might be offensive to, except racists, of course. JBW (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably. It seems a little baffling to me. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

1RR

Hello! I need to clarify, do all contentious topics qualify for 1RR or only the ones with active arbitration remedies? I twice reverted an unsubstantiated edit on 2024 Iranian presidential election on the grounds that the AAR was absent in the talk page and the fact that the offending editor inserted information not in the cited article and reverted me insisting that it was despite countless ctrl+Fs on my part. If it is then I will self-revert. Thank you. Borgenland (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Only some topic areas are under blanket 1RR. I know ARBPIA is but I'm not sure what others are. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Iranian politics doesn't seem to be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! In the meantime I will monitor the article and to keep myself accountable I am stating on the record that I currently have 2RR there. I hope that other editor (apparently a newbie) learns responsibility quickly. Borgenland (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Borgenland, looks like they provided a source this time. I've got it on my watchlist, but I also have another 5k+ pages on my watchlist so I can't guarantee I'll catch everything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It's ok. I'm just relieved they put a source that actually supports what they're saying. Still appreciate your concern. Borgenland (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Flag of the East India Company

Hi. You reverted the removal of the word "British" in the name of the Company; but it was called the East India Company and, until a different disruptive editor added it today (who also added it to the East India Company article itself, but RegentsPark reverted it) the word was not there. I haven't checked anything else the editor you blocked did, but i don't think their action at Flag of the East India Company was disruptive. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that was the only legit one that I reverted. Sorry about that, shouldn't have just spot checked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! I did just look at the rest of the contributions, and they do all look...less than productive. Pleasure to visit your page again so soon. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi! On 27 May you blocked 75.169.151.242 for persistent vandalism of the Air hockey article. I want to bring to your attention that it appears that this editor has reappeared on IP 75.169.152.185, making the same edit to the same article. CodeTalker (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Mary Parrinello

Hello and thank you for blocking that obvious sock. What do you think of User:Wikiviewer2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:Lefka1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and User:Bob2234456883 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? They've all popped up at the related AfD or the article itself. Thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 21:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Drmies, I see you've gotten one of these, any chance you can peek at the rest? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm yeah, sorry--nothing. There's enough meat there for a keto chat group, though, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both. Again. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Good morning to you and to @Drmies also. New Conrad Hughes AfD IP contributor is just a sock logged out. See the IP's contribs. They don't understand this is the equivalent of editing naked, not in disguise... unsure about the brand new meat. Please have a look at the IP when you have time. JFHJr (㊟) 13:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this an issue for an uninvolved admin, or should I use AE/ANI?

Hello, this user is acting in a disruptive and impolite way (with some beans for good measure) in this topic area. He has been asked to stop (including by you) and has continued to do so.

I fully understand if you feel like you are either to involved or simply to busy. Thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Since it involves my closure of the AN thread I would say that AE or ANI is a better choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have filed it, thanks. Am I supposed to notify all involved? Or is him being notified enough? FortunateSons (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's generally a good idea to notify anyone mentioned in such a report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I will, thank you. Just using the standard template? FortunateSons (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That, or just say "I mentioned you at an AE report." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much.

It may surprise you, but I mentioned you :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In case this does come up: I am aware that the timing of the AN report looks odd, and am willing to be checked against the other editor. FortunateSons (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User violating ECR

Warned here & editing war here. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked for edit warring. If it continues after the block let me know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

June music

story · music · places

Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about an extraordinary biography, Peter Demetz. - I uploaded a few more pics but leave the link, because there's a new one of Graham and his mother who liked it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

A strange one for you...

This edit from an IPv6 address changed the date of an old edit request to seem like it was made today, that you had responded to it, and that it was an unsigned comment from an IPv4 address. The second edit from this address, here, was similar but attributed to EvergreenFir. I don't understand it at all. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black it appears to be block evasion by Special:Contributions/173.49.91.139 EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, if I'd taken a closer look at the edit history for Talk:Mother Goose Club I might have picked up on that. It's a peculiar thing to do in the first place, I can't get my head around evading a block to do it again. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 05:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been happening for years. Some people are weird. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

YGM

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

The Kip ^(contribs) 06:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Close at AE

Hi SFR,

Could I ask you consider rewording your close at WP:AE?

I don't think it's accurate in this instance, considering that based on the VPP discussion it seems many editors think that:

A: While in most occasions it will be appropriate to notify a Wikiproject, there can be exception

B: In such cases, the correct response is to raise them, with evidence, at the appropriate forum - which, for CTOPS, includes AE

I also don't think it was supported by the two other admins who commented, neither of which made comment suggesting raising the concern was inappropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Many is a pretty strong word for what amounts to people saying that a neutral notification WPLGBT isn't canvassing, but WPROADS and ARS were problematic. Someone did mention that a claim that an Wikiproject is so partisan that it is inappropriate to notify them of something within their scope of interest is a user conduct issue, an accusation of which should only be made with evidence at an appropriate forum (AN/I, but also AE or ARCA for CTs) which isn't what you did. You said it was a notification to a partisan forum and did not establish that the forum was partisan in a way that would violate CANVAS. That discussion, as well as the one a year ago, have a pretty decent consensus that the notifications are fine absent any evidence of chicanery.

As for the note to you, I think The Wordsmith's I'd note that it would take a lot more evidence than what was presented here. and no reviewing admin found any evidence that the notification was canvassing supports a little note that someone who gets accused of weaponizing AE probably shouldn't use it as a venue to ask the other parent when there is clear consensus in the community on a point. Lastly, as it is a CTOP such a warning on my part doesn't require a consensus of administrators, and being at AE does not prevent an administrator from taking unilateral action.

You really should be aware that you're about one bad AE report from someone dragging you to ANI or AE for tendentious editing and battleground behavior which is why I let you know. This filing was not a good look for you, and you need to learn to drop things that are clearly against community consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask why you see a consensus in that discussion? By my very rough count, about half of editors think there are circumstances where notifying a WikiProject could be a canvassing problem.

I am aware I need to be cautious with any reports I make, which is why I tried to compile extensive statistical evidence for this one - perhaps the evidence was insufficient to prove an issue, but I hope you would agree it is at least sufficient to raise questions of an issue and whether the notifications violate the standards set out by ARBCOM in EEML.

I also note that one of the editors who recommended a trouting has now withdrawn that recommendation, on the basis that they misunderstood which discussion was being referred to, and the discussion I was referring to did have the mentioned problem. BilledMammal (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal - I mean this in the kindest way - but this last bit is an example of why you are so close to some sort of sanction about your AE reports. You need to learn to ... let things go. Instead of getting the hint that other people did not find your arguments/evidence compelling, you're here disputing things. From my viewpoint, you look like someone trying desperately to find ANYTHING that can possibly stick. At this point, it is obvious to me that the community does not share your view of canvassing - they do not consider a simple notification to most wikiprojects to be canvassing. While some editors in the conversation at AE said that very occasionally there may be wikiprojects that are problematical, it's clear that no one views the LGBT+ project in that light. My advice - drop it. Let it go. Stop trying to persuade others to your view - just accept that your view isn't shared by the rest of the community and .. .don't bring it up again. LET IT GO. This advice I'd extend to other subjects - in my view, you often can't seem to let things go and go too far in pursuing them. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

None of the circumstances applied in the situation you reported, and it's clear from the responses that almost no one thinks the notification you reported was in any way canvassing, and most specifically mention that the notification to LGBT was fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

AE discussion

I took a while to write and post my comment and in the mean time you closed it. Not sure what to do about this. I would very much like to have my post retained at least in part for the bit where I correct myself. Doing that, and apologising, is important, and I wouldn't want my comments to be left as they were before. -- Colin°^Talk 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You can leave it there, I'm not terribly fussed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Murder of Susana Morales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Christophervincent01#Speedy_deletion_of_an_attack_page

How was this an "attack page?" It was written from a neutral point of view, without any opinionated negative wording being used towards either the victim or perpetrator. It also had 20 references spaced throughout the article, so it isn't unsourced. Thirdly, look at this old version of the Vallow–Daybell doomsday murders, the page was about the murders, but it included information about the perpetrators before their trials even started and only had 2 references, yet it wasn't labeled as a G10 criteria for deletion for being an "attack page." Christophervincent01 (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Just because other articles were bad and not caught doesn't excuse this article. Despite my best attempts I have not been able to patrol all 7 million articles, but I do take action when I see issues.

The article contained many flagrant violations of the BLP policy, focused almost entirely on a private citizen who has not been convicted of a crime. Despite not having been convicted you labeled the person as the perpetrator, said in wikivoice that he was stalking another woman, said in wikivoice that he made a false police report. The sources did not support these as statements of fact. Most of the article was focused on this person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It still isn't an "attack page" due to the aforementioned reasons. Secondly, would it have been better to name the section "suspect" instead of "perpetrator?" The sources also very clearly state that he stalked another woman (e.g. 1, 2), as well as the charge of him making a false report (his jail booking information). The page was mainly about the suspect since currently, there are more sources on him. This article doesn't meet the G10 criteria and isn't an "attack page." Christophervincent01 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

If you think that A metro Atlanta woman said and A Snellville woman says is sufficient to say that someone was stalking someone else in wikivoice you shouldn't be editing BLPs. Having been charged with a crime does not make someone guilty of that crime. You really need to review WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you not read the aforementioned sources, where one of them includes surveillance camera footage of (Redacted) loitering outside of (Redacted) residence, as well as his burglary charge, which was related to his alleged stalking? I also specifically stated in the article that he was charged with making a false report, rather than being guilty, as well as added this reference, which specifies on it. Nitpicking a few instances where I forgot to specify that it was alleged, when the main parts of the article stated for example: He was the "accused murderer" or is "facing trial for the murder, kidnapping, and attempted rape of Susana Morales," isn't a reason to falsely accuse me of creating an "attack page" and threatening to block me over it. Read WP:AGF, if you've forgotten about it. Also, this article was highly salvageable and should've been left in the draftspace. Christophervincent01 (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The article was ~700 words, ~550 words are about the suspect. ~365 words are under the heading Perpetrator with a criminal infobox listing the suspect as having committed the crimes. It wasn't a few instances where [you] forgot to specify that it was alleged, it was almost every single case. Again, read WP:BLP, which states Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. We don't move it to draft space to clean it up, we remove it immediately. These violations are egregious, which is why I warned you. When 80% of an article is egregious BLP violations and BLPCRIME violations targeting a living person who is not a public figure, that is an attack article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Having viewed the deleted article, I share SFR's view that included multiple serious and clear BLP violations. To answer your question, yes, it would have been better to name the section "suspect". Generally, the violations were of that type: stating as a matter of fact that a person committed crimes which are as yet alleged. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that there were BLP violations. However, nitpicking the minority that were included isn't a reason to falsely accuse me of creating an "attack page" and threatening to block me over it, per WP:AGF. Christophervincent01 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Wikipedia does not willingly put itself in a legally invidious position purely because someone moans about ABF. Your article flushed some guy's reputation, such as it is, down the Kermit; where's the good faith in that? ——Serial Number 54129 12:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Christophervincent01: You are getting caught up on the speedy deletion criteria when you should be worried about the BLP violations present in the article you published in main space. In the future, be more careful when creating articles about, or related to, living people. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Please don't dismiss serious BLP violations as "nitpicking". You need to calibrate your editing to comply with BLP, not double down on this issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the OP just got themselves an ArbCom banhammer. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

AN discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Voice of Clam (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

AE archive

The bot seems to have archived at least one discussion which has not yet been closed. Could you please take a look? FortunateSons (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm on my phone for now, so there's no easy way for me to move large discussions like that. If no one else moves unarchives it in the meantime I'll do it when I can. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It’s not urgent, I was just unsure who the right person to reach out to was, and you seemed like a good choice FortunateSons (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You could also bring it up on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah right, will do. Thanks FortunateSons (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Help

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish, do you know how exactly can i report WP:1RR violation on wikipedia ? Stephan rostie (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Stephan rostie, depends on the topic. They can always be reported at WP:EWN, and if it is a violation of a CTOP 1RR sanction WP:AE is the venue. You should always give the other editor a chance to self-revert first before making a report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

What is going on with these accounts and various articles up for deletion? Is it co-ordinated? Are they real people or bots? Any idea what's going on and why they're doing it? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It's some LTA and I prefer to WP:DENY. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course. But do you know what they do it? What their point is? Do they also go around nominating Articles for Deletion? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I prefer to WP:DENY. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

What was wrong with my response. The last two sentences in this section have nothing to with DIME. It references a completely different situation with no source. "After Israeli forces fired shells near a UN school in Gaza killing around 30 people, Israel's military said the shelling was in response to mortar fire from within the school and asserted that Hamas were using civilians as cover. They stated that the dead near the school included Hamas members of a rocket launching cell. Two residents of the area confirmed that a group of militants were firing mortar shells from near the school and identified two of the victims as Hamas militants." If this is relevant to the section, please explain how. 80.217.100.31 (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Once you have made a request you can no longer engage, and once an extended-confirmed editor has made a determination you cannot discuss it. Editors that are extended-confirmed can discuss the request after it has been closed if they believe it was in error. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you open another edit request that is more detailed or it is that also not allowed? 80.217.100.31 (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That's getting into a grey area, especially as the first request was already declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Invited to join SPI

You are invited to join this SPI discussion, involving an IP you have blocked. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 19:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Language

Can you please provide the exact wording from WP:ARBECR that forbids engaging in discussion related to your own edit request. You have repeatedly claimed the language exists, and yet I do not see any language to that effect 2601:80:8600:EFA0:245F:F87F:A43C:4099 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

AGF in I/P area

Hey, this edit was brought up on their talk page (with me ‘fixing it’ into the wrong diff, but they deleted it likely before even having the time to check it, so it’s less of an issue) by me, and they deleted it without responding, as is their right. Do you mind taking a look? FortunateSons (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Also some NotForum here shortly after; Added later: and this gem.FortunateSons (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

User: אקעגן and problematic edits fresh off of a block for same reason

Aforementioned user that you banned for violating an ECR sanction on Israel-Palestine articles is back at it less not a day after the block. removed wording from the current events section dealing with civilian death, added a very peculiar bit of content and also went all out to explain their reasoning for the first edit, which I feel was not based in neutrality.

I also am curious about a possible link between them and User:AndresHerutJaim/User:BedrockPerson/User:Emolu/User:יניב הורון, a blocked user with serial sockpuppet usage, who has focused mainly on articles about Israel and had multiple socks editing John Hyrcanus and Hasmonean coinage over the years, including User:Shetarlo, User:Tombah, and User:Zhomron. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 22:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them. I suggest you take the socking concerns to SPI so the experts and the people most familiar with their editing patterns can take a look. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks:, FWIW, ~40% of their edits being to yiwiki doesn't fit well with candidates in your proposed sockmaster set. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: How is that? It's the Yiddish-language edition of Wikipedia, but I don't see how that is a counterpoint. - R9tgokunks ⭕

What would you think if someone filed an SPI report claiming that you were a sock of an account who made 40% of their edits to ruwiki compared to zero for you? It's a consideration if you assume that correlations between accounts tell you something about the probability of matches. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only, somewhat flawed approach, available to non-checkusers. There are numerous ways to compare accounts and look for correlation and non-correlation. The distribution of an editor's contributions across the various language editions is one of them. Something should happen to the likelihood estimates and suspect ranking when there are non-correlations in language contributions (although a mismatch doesn't rule anyone out of course). It's tempting to only look for correlations between accounts, but mismatches are helpful too as a sanity check and to rank suspects because, very inconveniently, the checkuser policy does not allow 'fishing'. The yiwiki contributions would make me less inclined to consider sockmasters that have never contributed to yiwiki. The possible exception in your current list is BedrockPerson, but a handful of correlations across 6.8 million articles doesn't tell you much. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Double standards

I do find it interesting that you were on the Kentucky_Rain24's talkpage and made a point of criticizing me for my misunderstanding of 1RR. This by itself is fine and I appreciate your willingness to educate me. However, I did notice a double standard. Kentucky_Rain24 made multiple points which appeared to me manifestly in violation of the civility policy, namely "I have little incentive to be nice to users who call me [names]" and "[you've] been editing here for more than 10 years, shouldn't you know this by now?". I do not believe that being a recipient of incivility gives one a license to be uncivil per our policies. However, you did not object to this comment, even though you must have saw it (as it was earlier in the thread chain you replied to me in). (As a factual point: Kentucky's incivility began on his first comment in the relevant talk page section, where he suggested I ought to be "blocked" for proposing a name change — the explanation that it was in response to incivility is thus not compelling).

It is interesting that despite multiple administrators (both you and Doug) apparently having paid attention to the events on the Nuseirat operation talk page, Kentucky's actions were not reprimanded. This is despite the fact that he was criticized for his manifest non-WP:GF conduct not just by me, but by multiple other editors e.g., here and here. JDiala (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This may come as a surprise but I don't see everything that happens in the ARBPIA topic area or even every one of the 5,328 pages on my watchlist, nor do I action everything I see. I have to weigh the opportunity cost of every action I make against the 22 ducklings in my basement, the 30 rabbits I just slaughtered and butchered, the care of the rest of my livestock, the maintenance of all of their shelters and pens, my garden, my day job, my personal leisure, regular errands, and, of course, my wife.

I glanced at that talk page and saw that someone asked them to strike a comment, which they said they did. I then went to their talk page to do a quick review and saw that you had made an incorrect assertion about 1RR and figured a quick word would remedy your ignorance. I didn't care to look deeper into anything because I'm just a volunteer and I had better things to do.

With that I'm going to enjoy my garlic scape and basil pesto over rabbit and homemade linguine. I suggest you scale back your flagrant displays of bad faith, especially while you're cruising towards a topic ban at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, and I hope you enjoyed your meal. JDiala (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of copying your reasoning about ducks, rabbits and livestock for the next time I was overloaded with work. Might not work well for me as I live in Manhattan. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You could probably do the rabbits in an apartment, although you'd be flushing your toilet a whole lot, and disposal of the unusable parts might be difficult. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Gaming for extended user rights

Hi, I noticed you're a more experienced editor and prominent in discussions regarding user behavior here. I've noticed quite a lot of accounts recently that vary in age but mostly seem to have been primarily active in the last year or so in what appears to be gaming the system to become extended users very quickly to then solely edit articles where that's necessary. Would you be able to advise on this topic for me?

Also there's a discussion currently on Talk:List of peace activists which this is somewhat relevant too, all of the accounts (myself included) have rather few edits (<10,000) which seems a bit too few for discussions on topics subject to user bans. Would you be available to have a look at it? Or should I check in with other users? Galdrack (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The requirement for discussions that relate to the Arab/Israel conflict is WP:Extended-confirmed, which is 30 days and 500 edits. Fewer than 10,000 edits is fine, as long as it is greater than 500 and the account is older than 30 days. Are there specific editors you're concerned have gamed this?

As far as Talk:List of peace activists goes, the subject is certainly related to the Arab/Israel conflict, and as such you are prohibited from taking part in discussions about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That's grand I'll leave the discussion on it.

I believe the user Vegan416 gamed to achieve that access, their account was made in 2016 though they only had 15 edits before 20OCT2023 immediately proceeding to edit articles related to the Arab/Israel conflict until the ban was enforced and they proceeded to repeatedly make edits to numerical pages and otherwise over an incredibly short period in what (to me at least) looks like gaming the system to achieve this access as they proceeded to return to the Arab/Israel conflict and also have frequently used their new position to police other edits from accounts with similar ages though without the extended user rights. Galdrack (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Tag teaming

What do you know: out of nowhere, ferret alludes to an edit I made to an entirely different page a month ago and, out of nowhere, seven minutes later, you revert that edit. I'm sure it was just a coincidence... why are people bothered by these off-wiki cliques, again? – Joe (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone wise once said that I insert myself into every drama and have Strong opinions on everything. Possibly, just possibly, I think your removal was silly all on my own and reverted it. I'm not sure why this is any sort of issue, but I fall on the side of ease of access to associated communities with the transparency that comes with that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you don't see an issue, there musn't be an issue, of course. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

As opposed to you seeing an issue so there must be one? You're not exactly arguing from a position of consensus here, just on your personal view. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Violation of the 1R restriction

Cdjp1 violated 1RR with this edit, their third revert within 4 hours (see first, second and third). When I asked them to self-revert the last one, first they ignored me and now they are saying that they haven't violated 1RR. While their first revert is not major, there is no excuse for the other two or the refusal to abide by the rules like everyone else. Please advise. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, they've now self-reverted three. Also, one appears to be a revert of 05:59, 15 January 2024 and 05:38, 15 January 2024; six months is generally long enough to be stable (and while this is only a personal rule, and I don't know whether admins would agree, I don't consider changing format without any change to meaning to be a revert unless it is restoring a previous version; otherwise, uncontroversial copy-editing would be virtually impossible) BilledMammal (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I already said that the first one is not major (it was only mentioned for the sake thoroughness). M.Bitton (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

While I am happy to argue the legitimacy of the first two reverts (which to clarify took place over 4 hours apart), I will not unless asked. The third revert, was adding back in a sentence at the beginning of the first paragraph to make the lede read better, while keeping the information that was being fought over by other editors. I have self-reverted. If the standard 24-hour ban wants to be given, I'm happy to take it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't block if someone self-reverts. It's too easy to cross the line. I just ask in the future you self-revert as quickly as is reasonable. If it turns out they were not violations you can restore them, and if there's a pattern of falsely claiming violations you can report it. Thanks for the self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. All's well that ends well. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It's great that you finally self-reverted the last one. M.Bitton (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I updated the numbers to the most recent, with a citation showing the up-to-date numbers. Are you really arguing that updating information to what is current is a revert? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It can be, yes. That's because 1RR and its cousin WP:3RR are bright line rules. When you find yourself exasperated by that head to the talk page and drop the source and the numbers and see if anyone else wants to make the edit, or wait 24 hours. It's not great, but everyone in the topic area has to deal with it and it's better than implementing consensus required or enforced BRD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarity on reverts

Say an existing article (on a hypothetical tornado) says "50 people died in the tornado." Then casualty figures are later updated and we learn another died. An editor changes this sentence to "51 people died in the tornado." Does this count as a revert? Per the wording in WP:3RR,

"The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually."

If we strictly go by this, we have technically undone (partially) an edit by another editor, namely the edit which originally introduced the sentence that "50 people died in the tornado."

On the other hand, the essay WP:RV suggests the defining feature of a "revert" is that it must revert the article to some previous state ("restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit"). In this view, it seems the edit would not be a revert, since the adjustment "50 people died"->"51 people died" is not restoring the article to a previous state but rather an entirely new state guided by sources.

Would be great if you could clarify this, thanks. JDiala (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, by the letter of the rule that is a revert, as it is partially undoing someone else's edit. I don't often see reports based on reverts like that unless there is disagreement in or about sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I've never considered that a revert, as I don't think it meets the requirement of reversing other editors actions. The action of the editor A who added "50 people died in the tornado" was to provide the most recent figure; the action of the editor B who updated it to "51 people died in the tornado" was to provide the most recent figure.

The most recent figure has changed, but the actions are complementary - B hasn't reversed the actions of A. This is particularly true when the action of editor A was to update it from "49 people" to "50 people", which is the version we most commonly see in topics under 1RR.

It can easily become a revert - if editor A wasn't providing the most recent figure, or if editor B changed from using the value provided by tornado-affiliated source N to the most recent value provided by people-affiliated source M - but absent similar context I don't think it is. BilledMammal (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: From my perspective, the "action" of editor A was adding the sentence "50 people died in the tornado." Nothing more, nothing less. The "action" is literally just the diff. Your alternative definition of "action" seems to require making a motivational inference. This gets dicey for anything remotely controversial or disputed. For instance, in some scenarios, editor A might not merely want the most recent figure but actually consider the number 50 itself to have significance. In this case, the alteration of the number 50 to 51 would constitute a meaningful reversion of editor A's intended action. But there's lots of subjectivity involved with such definitions involving motivational inference and it doesn't seem appropriate for "hard" rules like 3RR/1RR.

In any case, I'd be interested in hearing SFR's thoughts on all this. JDiala (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

As a thought experiment for the both of you, say editor a wrote that there were 50 deaths and editor b changed it to 51 with a source. Seems like a plain update. Now what if the source used was deprecated? What if other current sources were still reporting 50? Just because something is sourced doesn't make it not a revert. For the most part these aren't treated as reverts because it's part of the normal editing process, but when there is conflict they can definitely be seen as a revert.

When dealing with bright-line rules it's best from the editor perspective to treat anything that can be construed as a revert as a revert, or at least understand an argument can be made that it's a revert, especially when dealing with contentious topics ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm generally referring to when the underlying source is the same; the National Weather Service said 50 yesterday, and today they are saying 51. If someone reverted to 50 I wouldn't re-implement my edit, but absent that I probably wouldn't be willing to self-revert a different revert based on the claim that changing 50 to 51 is a revert - and I wouldn't be willing to ask someone to self-revert on those grounds either.

If the National Weather Service is still saying 50, and the Department of Homeland Security is saying 51, then that could easily be a revert, as I described in my final sentence, but that situation is less common and generally switching between the two is more obviously controversial. BilledMammal (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Some observations with which the admins here may find fault: 1.) If you are going to bend a rule, make sure it is near impossible for anyone to consider the edit anything other than an improvement to the project. 2.) Never do this if the change looks like it fits a POV which you have demonstrated in the past. 3.) Don’t bend a rule unless you have a lengthy, glossy clean record. Part of that in CTOPs is to have a record of arguing against your own POV on a regular basis. 4.) If you can, use the TP to get someone else to make the change for you -- that is the correct path. (Someone will accuse you collusion, but it won’t stick.) 5.) If you make such a bold edit, state in the edit summary that you don’t mind a reversion. 6.) If it is a bright-line rule, realize that you may not get sanctioned, but may have to spend annoying time at a drama board. 7.) Never make a post like the one I am making here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No, youre wrong here. Editing is not reversing. Only if somebody changes the 51 does going back to 51 become a revert. For the caselaw, see for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72#Nableezy (though be sure to click on the right one, that was in the good old days where there would be 3 threads about one problematic user). nableezy - 22:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the report by No More Mr Nice Guy? I think that closed as "no consensus" - and the definition of 3RR has become clearer in the 14 years since. BilledMammal (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely concur with BilledMammal about that thread. There was disagreement even then, and it seems to me that things have been clarified. For what it's worth, the interpretation I see most often used is the "bright-line" style in accord with SFR's take. That said, there is also the practical reality that de minimis non curat Wikipedia. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. And the policy actually says about the same thing as it did 14 years ago, that The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. The WP:AN3 template also says t may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert. You need to be returning material to a prior state for it to be a revert. Copy-editing is not a revert. Updating is not a revert. Those are edits. nableezy - 22:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

A plain reading of the policy (to me, at least) would indicate that is not true. Let's say I add a paragraph to an article. In the next edit, you decide to do away with the last sentence of my paragraph. You're not returning to a prior state. The article is in an entirely new state. That's not a revert? Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Doing away is not editing. That is a partial revert. Editing your last sentence but still relaying all the material you added is not a revert. Or even changing your 5 sentences into 3 but still relaying all that information, that too is not a revert. nableezy - 22:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, but I am still fuzzy on where you are drawing this line. Let's say you take out my last sentence, but add your own. Revert? Or not? Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It depends, do I still relay the material you added? If not, yes, if so, no. nableezy - 22:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Got it now. Reasonable minds can certainly differ. The only issue I have with your interpretation is that it seems to me it would greatly blur that "bright line." With that I will apologize for interjecting and wish everyone a good rest of the day. Dumuzid (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

A slightly differnet hypothetical; lets say that I add "BilledMammal is a platypus", and you change it to "BilledMammal is not a platypus". All you've done is add a single word - but you've entirely changed the meaning of the sentence. Is that not a revert, even though you haven't returned material to a prior state? BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

A better example would be The strike did [not] target a civilian center. That's a lot closer to what we're dealing with most of the time now with edge cases. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Changing "BilledMammal is a platypus" to "BilledMammal is not a platypus" reverses your edit, but changing it to "a random user on Wikipedia says BilledMammal is a platypus while another random user contended that he was in fact not so" does not and is not a revert. nableezy - 22:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

In the same vein as @BilledMammal's alternative, I wonder about "50 people died in the tornado according to local health officials" -> "50 people died in the tornado according to R-affiliated local health officials" where the town the tornado took place is controlled by controversial political party R some believe inflates tornado-related death statistics. JDiala (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm really confused, how is this different from a plain modification of an article's content? So what, the only edits that don't count as reverting are the ones that are purely about adding content??? — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 23:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You think that's confusing? Wait until you try to figure out how long something has to be in the article before removing it is bold edit and not a revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That's easy! 6.4 quatloos, exactly. Dumuzid (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

So, I think we can all agree that it is subjective and depends greatly on context? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to add another data point, my sense of what counts as a revert is similar to SFR's (I think), and I take the template's discussion of a article's previous state to specific to the passage where the text is altered by the possible revert. If, say during rapid editing, a whole additional section is added to an article, and I leave that section intact while removing a sentence someone added to the section I care about, that is a revert and the fact that the "previous" diff is non-identical for other sections or passages of the article is irrelevant.

Also, on the example given by BilledMammal, I would assume a literal approach is the most robust: if an editor added "BilledMammal is a platypus" and I insert "not" - where nothing of the like had been in the article before - that's not a revert. But if the text initially added by an editor was "BilledMammal is not a platypus" and I remove "not", that is a revert because there is a previous (and recent) article state without "not" in that passage. Does this reflect fundamental principles of justice? Probably not, but as someone who has been accused of reverting when I tried to reformulate a prior version to be more accurate and less contentious - and in so doing removed some words from a passage - I have found it best to be both cautious and literal in evaluating whether an edit I'd like to make counts as a revert. Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)