User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 33

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)

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)

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)