User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 27

Not sure if I pinged the right admin, so here is a link to it as I believe that you are certainly engaged in that area

I left a comment on user talk: JPxG, which is titled Complaint: Questionable actions of a User on AfD and the RSN . Looking back, I am now not sure if he was the right person to ask. Would it be possible for you to take a look? FortunateSons (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That would be better handled at AE or ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. It’s non-urgent and therefore AE, right? FortunateSons (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

AE and ANI are both the same as far as urgency goes. AE is a structured discussion where action is based on a consensus of uninvolved administrators. ANI is a free-form discussion where action is based on a consensus of uninvolved editors, and WP:CESSPIT redirects there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Based on that, I still prefer AE ;) FortunateSons (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I will wait if the user takes further problematic actions and not take any actions for now. Thank you for your help! FortunateSons (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Request

Id appreciate if you would take a gander at Talk:UNRWA October 7 controversy#Page title, specifically the part uncollapsed here. nableezy - 19:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs

Am I correct in recalling that you warned Coffeeandcrumbs regarding his "Zionist entity" rhetoric subsequent to this discussion? Because he is again using that kind of nomenclature on the same talk page [1]. Coretheapple (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Request about FAIT (if permitted)

Could you take a look and tell me if continuing making those edits would break a rule here?

(I am pretty sure that this request is permitted, if it is not, please make me aware of it)

Thank you for taking the time! FortunateSons (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

While the close is being challenged the consensus is on hold and you should not edit as if it were consensus. Even moreso because it's headed towards an overturn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. May I ask two follow-up questions:

1. Am I allowed to respond to a person who improved one of the places where I removed it?

2. May I cite this exchange if someone else edits during a challenged closing?FortunateSons (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by your first question, and for the second, it depends on how they're editing during the challenge. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Just to clarify the first question, I removed EI and they replaced it with a (better) source, I just wanted to thank them for the edit. FortunateSons (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:ARBECR

I'm just wondering if Special:Diff/1202100023 is a violation of WP:ARBECR. My first instinct was to revert and place {{subst:Welcome-arbpia}} on their talk page but I figured I would use this as a learning moment. Thanks in advance! Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That's close enough to an edit request where I would let it slide. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Leaving the welcome template and CTOP alert would still be a good idea though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, that's why I asked! Just wanted a second opinion, thank you very much! Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I took the advice and added both the welcome and alert/first to their talk page. By the way, I really like the welcome template. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it's effective. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain my ban?

Please quote what's relevant to CIR.

Please quote what's relevant to DEADHORSE.

Please quote what's relevant to IDHT.

You said you're an 'uninvolved administrator'. I don't get that, but the above three things might clarify that.

Why didn't you have a discussion with me, or give some kind of warning, before banning me? Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The totality of your contributions in the topic of American politics have demonstrated that you lack the necessary understanding of the policies and guidelines to contribute constructively. Your lack of understanding of what uninvolved administrator means is just another example of many that demonstrates this. In the extensive talk page discussions other editors have tried to explain the policies and guidelines to you, but you continue to edit in a way that shows a lack of understanding. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of gaps here Scottish. Are you going to quote me? Why didn't you have a discussion with me first?

It wasn't that I didn't understand involved admin's vs uninvolved admin's. The issue was I wasn't sure what you were applying CIR, DEADHORSE, etc. to -- my post in ANI or the RFK Jr Talk tab. Scottish, you found me in the ANI page and went out of your way to look through my history and look through the conversations in the RFK Jr Talk tab and you didn't like what you saw. This is a red herring from my post, and so made yourself an involved admin.

"but you continue to edit in a way that shows..." I'm not sure what you're talking about Scottish. The RFK Jr page is extended-protected and has been ever since I first saw it back in like June of last year. I can't make edits to that page for another 400 'edits' in that Talk tab or actual edits to other pages that aren't protected. I mean, your issue is not with me having good faith discussion in the Talk tab right? I'm confused. Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You were made aware of contentious topics here. WP:CTOP designation allows uninvolved administrators to unilaterally sanction editors for their behavior. I have the RFK Jr. Page on my watchlist and have been intermittently monitoring it. Seeing your ANI post was the final proof of disruption and evidence of WP:CIR that I felt necessary to issue the sanction. Reviewing your edits does not make me WP:INVOLVED.

Your edits to the talk page are disruptive, and your consistent failure to take on board the advice and warnings of the other editors on the talk page is disruptive. After my topic ban two other administrators supported an indefinite block because of your behavior. That you continue to not understand how others see your editing is another example of WP:IDHT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, giving you notice that I posted an appeal on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Scottish, you found me in the ANI page and went out of your way to look through my history, Cmsmith, this is what ANI is for. When you create a section at ANI, you are explicitly requesting that uninvolved administrators look into the dispute and evaluate if administrative intervention might be warranted. This means evaluating the whole dispute, not putting on blinders and assuming that the reporting party is in the right. This can sometimes result in what's called a WP:BOOMERANG: a report in which it's ultimately determined that the reporter has been disruptive, not the subject of the report. I'll note you were warned about this phenomenon by RegentsPark earlier. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It's really disturbing to see an editor (Cmsmith93) whose main focus is on the behavior of other editors while not making constructive edits or attempts to improve content. Their focus is in the wrong place and is a detriment and disruption to the project. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Disturbing? thats their job they do their job and are a vital part of the project
Also who the heck are you •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Cyberwolf, you may be misinterpreting Valjean's comment. Do you think Cmsmith93, the editor V is talking about, is a "vital part of the project"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait my bad
😣 •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I added their name so there is no confusion in the future. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Gorilla, I just gave a huge response to a couple of Admin on my Talk page so feel free to check that out and know that I won't really continue things here, especially since mine and Scottish's conversation has ended. I do quickly want to say though that it definitely wasn't clear to me that that's how ANI was for. And this should be pretty obvious for a couple of reasons.

1. I built a case against the user, hence why I quoted the hell out of him, while he interacted with multiple people, and from so long ago because I just started at Archive 1, instead of just quoting an interaction or two between me and him.

2. I was confused at first, as seen above, what Scottish was even applying CIR, DEADHORSE, etc to; my ANI post or the RFK Jr article. It didn't make sense to me why he'd be looking at me when I've just provided all of these quotes of someone else being rude. Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Sort under template discussion becoming uncivil

Can I get some help at Template talk:Sort under? I recently added this template and one user is very insistent on changing something to their preference without consensus, even though they can accomplish the center alignment with an existing class. The discussion has become or is becoming very uncivil and I'm not sure if administrators need to get involved. Thank you in advance if you can help. Jroberson108 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Moved to WP:ANI. Jroberson108 (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Sock possible of User:Requiem of Entanglement

• Requiem of Entanglement (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Cave of Neuroticism (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I see similar behavioral edits of this user compared to that of User:Cave of Neuroticism. See Special:Contributions/Requiem of Entanglement and same activities on Hina Rizvi. CSMention269 (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Cultural and intellectual destruction of Palestine

Hello, could you help me find where can I request the data from this page? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @JoaquimCebuano: Cultural and intellectual destruction of Palestine was deleted and this was explained to you. Normally, you could go to WP:REFUND to ask for the content back but as you don't meet WP:ECR, it's pointless for you to ask. Wikipedia already has too much contentious content and we don't need more from new-ish editors who haven't met our editing restrictions. Such pages just create problems for readers and editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not ask for your personal judgement on the matter and I dont consider this to be an ethical behaviour for an editor, as it could be read as a form of intimidation and gatekeeping. The admin in REFUND doesnt seem to have read my request with attention, and you are wrong about my present status as ECR. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@JoaquimCebuano: You made your 500th edit last night. You made a bit over 100 of them in the last 24 hours in what appears to be an attempt to game the system. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That is generally what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about whether I should bring it to WP:AN when I have a bit more time, as there's no firm consensus on gaming from what I've seen. Most of the edits were just adding wikilinks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that we need to go to AN to get EC removed. That's part of our mop & bucket. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It has been contentious around ARBPIA, and a couple of my removals have been challenged, so I've been going to AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is the first time I've done it. We'll see what happens. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I agree that it was gaming, I just didn't have the time to action it assuming it would be a a whole thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

So you are going to revoke my status? If not, this seems to be an a justification outside the rules to reject my request. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I have just revoked your EC rights as I believe you gamed the system. You were told yesterday that you were not EC, so you made the additional 100-ish edits you needed so that you would be EC. That's gaming the system. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I just want access to the archive of the article I created, with or without the status, i cant see why i shouldnt have this right. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you make nearly 100 edits, mostly minor wikilinking, in about 6 hours to meet the technical requirements for becoming extended-confirmed? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I created a new page, linked it with related content, then worked with some categories. Of course i wanted to become a extended confirmed, since i have been asking for the archive of the page you deleted, and some editors have been posing unnecessary hurdles. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I've emailed you a copy of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Also i would like to say would that article be coi idk maybe leave the article creation to a neutral editor
Just my thought •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What is coi? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What is my interest? I am brazilian, catholic and white. What makes me anymore interested than anyone else? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You publicly support Palestine I think that alone should be coi or a publicly disclosed bias in the arpia debate same with Israel i dont really think right tho :\/ •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I disclosed this myself, because I believe this makes me more reliable, more clear, not less. If you accuse people of conflict of interest based on voluntarily disclosed political beliefs, then you will end up promoting secrecy, not neutrality.

If i support climate action and i am aware of climate science, you shouldnt suppose i am aware of climate science because i support climate action, rather the contrary. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I am wrong, to be honest eh. I dont pick sides because its not one who’s right and i dont like having controversial opinions but i kind of blindly say stuff •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:COI - UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe Wp:coinotbias should be overridden with arbpia
When an article is created A side is written by A side B side irons out issues they have •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

They appear to have a strong POV, not a COI. let's not mix up the two, they are quite different and have different means of managing them. Acroterion (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I support the independence of the State of Palestine. If I supported the independence of the State of Brazil, would it imply i have a 'strong POV'? Why the difference? Shouldn't states be independent? Isnt this just basic international law? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong pov in terms of opinion controversialness but im not acroterion his reason may be different •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

A title like "cultural and intellectual destruction of Palestine" speaks for itself. You would need a substantial set of reliable sources that call it that to sustain an article. Your POV appear to be that Palestine has been or is being destroyed culturally and intellectually. That you gamed the editing restrictions is of concern when combined with that apparent POV. Please be aware that reaching the 500 edit threshold simply grants an ability to edit in that area, it does not guarantee that you will be permitted to continue if you violate the contentious topics restrictions.Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you seem the sources to conclude it was not reliable enough? I consider UNESCO to be quite reliable.

Moreover, I was open to improvements, even in the title, but all these hurdles are nothing but the extension of what made the death of ten thousand children acceptable... JoaquimCebuano (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Rhetoric like all these hurdles are nothing but the extension of what made the death of ten thousand children acceptable is unacceptable. Due to a very long history of disruption in the topic area there are draconian rules in effect. They apply to everyone involved in the topic area, regardless of their POV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

More than one user actively discouraged me from creating this page, for reasons unrelated to the rules discussed here. But I will leave now, instead of disturbing even more your user talk page. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see the article that was deleted, can I request it be refunded to my userspace? nableezy - 20:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's at User:JoaquimCebuano/sandbox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hatting of discussions

Just a heads up that I unhatted a talk page discussion that was hatted on the Talk:Israel-Hamas war. [2] I'm rusty on hatting-unhatting but I'm fairly certain that active participants on a talk page are not generally allowed to hat discussions that are on-topic for the reasons stated here by the hatter. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

implications of racism

Would you please review everything below this comment? Thank you. nableezy - 18:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Nableezy, I've hatted that discussion and left some messages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

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.^Queenof_Hearts 01:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What are the rules regarding this?

Could you take a look at my latest topic on User talk:nableezy?

I have two question: 1. Are blind reverts permitted if it turns from Depreciated into Gunrel, or does an edit require justification comparable to including a Gunrel source? Or something in between? 2. Are the edits that predate the noticeboard (and my knowledge thereof) not covered by policy, or only those after it was opened (26 January 2024), while my first edit on the topic was on 09 Jan? FortunateSons (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

There are situations when generally unreliable sources can be used. If someone is objections to your removal then it should be discussed on the talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

So just to clarify, generally adding the citations which I removed with partial or full justification due to the depreciation of EI/reverting my edits is not permitted without making a specific argument regarding the concrete use? Regardless of the fact that the closure was successfully challenged? FortunateSons (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The use of the source should be explained if challenged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you mind if I tag the user here? FortunateSons (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume they've seen it, but sure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate the help!

@Nableezy FYI, I kindly request that you acknowledge once you have seen it. FortunateSons (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a difference of opinion when it comes to interpreting your statement, would you be willing to clarify here, as the user requested no discussion on their user page. FortunateSons (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

As I've noted here, subject-matter experts (here Joseph Massad) are considered differently from generic editorial material, per WP:EXPERTSPS, and different considerations apply when weighing such sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you weren’t meant by that, your edits were fine, afaik. FortunateSons (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

All I did was explain WP:BRD. If there is something you'd like me to look at please just tell me what it is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Per the linked talk page above, the user is continuing to revert my edits with descriptors such as „ Restore, not deprecated“ and restoring citations to a formerly deprecatiated and now gunrel source (EI). While some may be valid (ex. I missed an expert), that is not apparent from the edits, which generally offer no further explanation. I would like them to be selective and explain their actions.FortunateSons (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am reverting removals of source that is not deprecated that was removed for being deprecated. I feel that to be self-explanatory. If there is some other deficiency with some particular source, it should be explained and can be removed. But as a number of edits removed a source as deprecated on the basis of an RFC whose close has been overturned I am returning those articles to their prior state. FortunateSons here would like you to tell me to stop doing so. Now I have no idea if you will or wont, but I dont personally see a cause for doing so. You have surprised me once or twice before though so who knows. nableezy - 21:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn’t that you are adding them again (for example, the first one described by Iskandar was rightfully reverted), it’s that you a) do not appear to be doing so selectively, b) do not provide explanations beyond 'not depreciated' and c) seem to ignore the fact that it was ex ante justified. If you address all 3, I don’t mind you actually evaluating them and reverting/changing my edits (preferably also attributing EIs statements, which wasn’t always done) where you feel it to be appropriate and then having this discussion on a talk page. Blindly doing so, however, is not in accordance with what I believe to be policy FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am reverting edits that were made on the basis of the source being deprecated with the reason that it is not deprecated. I am directly addressing the cause for removal. You removed those sources indiscriminately and your edit summaries, the sole justification for the edits in nearly every case, said the cause for removal was the deprecation. You are attempting to shift where the status quo was, and I decline to participate in that effort. You are perfectly capable of looking at my edits and provide a new justification for the removal of these sources and then revert them. Nobody has stopped you. But edits made with a rationale that does not apply are what I am reverting, and I think that to be a totally reasonable view and as such I am continuing with that. nableezy - 21:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You made bold edits, the rationale given no longer applies and they are being reverted. Now comes discussion. It seems like you're looking for a policy silver bullet to make Nableezy wrong, rather than establishing consensus for your removals. You said above, I would like them to be selective and explain their actions. That also applies to your removals. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I often provided additional arguments, such as referencing BLP or past issues with the source. I think saying „source has no issue in this area“ or „this author is an expert“ is a reasonable expectation, is it not? If it isn’t, I’m happy to open separate talk page discussions for each, but that feels less than productive. Thanks for taking the time. FortunateSons (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe the disconnect arises in Fortunate believing the source should still be purged for being GUNREL, versus the assumption that the GUNREL sources sit ensconced on the pages for either A) good reason, or B) consensus. Short of Fortunate investigating the authors of each and checking the talk pages for past discussions, they will not have properly assessed this and so I agree with Nableezy that the material should be given the benefit of the doubt and restored pending the provision of better elaborated deletion rationales. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a decent summary.

Regardinh my actions, I generally read or skimmed over the article, checked the talk pages, but usually not the archives, and about 75% of the authors in areas where I wasn’t sure. As I believe to have showed when responding to you, I am willing to be in favour of inclusion when policy supports it. If Nableezy actually provides arguments for inclusion, I am happy to debate those, but otherwise a significant amount of talk page entries will simply be „source has a history of poor quality in the area of Israel/Palestine and is generally unreliable, therefor using it (worst case: for BLP) is not appropriate here“. If he writes „Person X is a subject matter expert and therefore addresses the issue of gunrel“ we can either have a productive conversation or I can agree with him, which I believe to be more productive for everyone involved.

Oh, and I don’t believe it should always be removed (and didn’t when making the edits, see this diff), just generally FortunateSons (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems like WP:BATTLEGROUND editing from FortunateSons. Is there somewhere I can raise my concerns about this without accusing/reporting the user at WP:ANI or WP:AE? It is my understanding that those venues are for reporting proven misconduct, but I'm wondering where I should take concerns which are more than evidenceless but less than proven. @ScottishFinnishRadish. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is already on the talk page of an uninvolved administrator, which is the step before AE or ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for me to provide here additional examples from this editor which I suspect constitute WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and civil POV pushing? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can do that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect @FortunateSons is a single-purpose account here to push a pro-Israeli government POV.

I have concerns that they have engaged in EC gaming and also that they have demonstrated double standards to the point of contradiction.

Their voting to deprecate Mondoweiss [3] as well as their vote to deprecate Electronic Intifada (and the arguments they have made there) [4] are contradictory with their option 2 vote for NGO Monitor [5]

The only consistency in these votes is they are aligned with a pro-Israeli government point of view. Mondoweiss and EI are both partisan sources which tend to be critical of the State of Israel, while NGO Monitor is even more partisan and less reliable but with a pro-Israel POV.

I'm not aware Wikipedia has a policy or guideline about double standards but I think it probably should, as it seems to me to be a very strong indicator of bad faith partisan editing. And in this case especially I think we can see double standards to the point of contradiction.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would have to count, but I assume about half of my edits are not directly related to I/P (a better ratio than many others, but this is a new account, so that is hardly a fair measure). I have continued editing in the same areas of interest after reaching EC, which isn’t proof, but is a decent indication that my interest in both is genuine if you ask me.
• Regarding voting, my choices and a variety of arguments provided can be found in my noticeboard contributions, but voting one way on NGOM and another on Mondo or EI is quite common, I am happy to look for people who did if you disagree with that assessment. My voting is generally based on facts (particularly visible in regards to NGOM, where I contributed at length and did cite my sources) and I rarely am the only person bringing a particular argument, so it’s unlikely that I merely bring up very fringe opinions.
• I simply disagree with your assessment of the reliability of the sources, which is acceptable, but if that was the standard, we could drag dozens of people in front of the admins/arb. It’s also important to note that the type of accusations against NGOM where easier to substantiate or disprove as they were not covered by fog of war, something significantly harder to do for the other two.
• On the other hand, you seem to have a habit of throwing less than substantiated accusations in the direction of me and others: I am not a fan of your conduct in the hatted discussion here.
• pro-Israeli government POV. is also really not a great tone to use with someone, just FYI, and also factually inaccurate. My opinion of the current government cannot be expressed without violating policy, and even if I liked them, just throwing that kind of statement at someone is impolite unless they literally have an „I love Likud“ userbox.
• Last but not least, both SPA and and civil POV pushing are essays and not binding policy; while both actions can be prescriptively characterised as 'bad', they are not binding policy in the strictest sense of the word.

FortunateSons (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, civil POV pushing is an important essay on controversial articles[6] Seems to me a discussion of this type at this length is unusual on an admin TP. And sorry, but now it looks like Wikilawyering. In my mind, you have two choices. Go to a noticeboard or back to the TP. The first may result in a WP:PETARD. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding EC gaming, I would be interested in getting feedback from FortunateSons, ScottishFinnishRadish and anyone else who wants to voice an opinion, on whether this data for FortunateSons does or does not indicate EC gaming, and why. The notion of EC gaming seems to be a bit of a fuzzy concept in Wikipedia as illustrated by the statements by IOHANNVSVERVS and FortunateSons. Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It's very fuzzy. We need to have a community-wide discussion about it fairly soon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion Wikipedia should implement an alternative control to protect contentious topics which have been repeatedly targeted by partisan bad faith actors, either to replace or to add to ECR. There seems to be a plague of sock accounts and bad faith actors in this topic area and it's really getting out of hand in my opinion. Only a few days ago another pro-Israel sockpuppet account was caught after having made many edits in the topic area: User:ManOnTheMoon92. - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I can agree with the need for a discussion.

I can say that the data shows me editing in bursts and a habit of minor edits which may or may not be necessary (including yesterday, if you look for it). Regarding editing style, I do prefer making many smaller edits, as I find them to be easier to reverse if I miss something or forget something, however, that neither began nor ended after EC. Regarding edit frequency, it is mostly an improvement to two pages, which had multiple issues, specifically red links, a lack of RS, old statements and content that was of questionable quality, all of which I addressed (in a few days, but such ‚marathons' are a common occurrence for me, which is pretty visible in the data. Those are often (but not always) aligned with either vacations or right after exams, or times where I can’t sleep.

I also have made a bunch of edits after, so even if I unintentionally did so, I would have most likely long exceeded the EC mark anyway, so the significance is limited here.

Just for the sake of my curiosity, would you be willing to create a similar model for @IOHANNVSVERVS? FortunateSons (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I will provide the same information for IOHANNVSVERVS. However, your question revealed a mysterious bug in my binning, so bear with me. FWIW, my view on your data, is that I would label it as EC gaming because of the spike near the 500th edit. The challenge however, is that the label is subjective and has a dependency on what you did after the 500th edit mostly related to biased sources, so, not an ideal way of labeling. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, here is one for BilledMammal. I would also label that one as indicating EC gaming. I should say that I'm not very interested how EC gaming is handled, but we should at least be able to label things based on data, somehow. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I think your query is still flawed; the low edit size period (related to this mass moves) starts and finishes later than your graph suggests? BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Entirely possible. The query is okay but what happens after that may not be. Will have a look. Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean now. The flat line represents your move edits on 2021-07-03 that took you from about 290 to just over 500, and the histogram didn't reflect that, it was offset. There is some persnicketiness around shared axes and ticks in the library it seems. I've replaced the links. I think your data is a useful example of the fuzziness. As I said, I would label it as EC gaming. Maybe you would too in an anonymized dataset. But whether those labels would be correct is unclear to me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it is still erroneous; there should be no edits over 1000 bytes from 309 to 555, but looking at your chart it shows no edits over 1000 bytes between ~280 and ~510.

It doesn't really matter, but I thought I should let you know. BilledMammal (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. I'll have a look to see whether I'm missing some revisions, like new pages perhaps. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Here you go, the data for IOHANNVSVERVS. Not sure what to make of that (other than better visibility around the 500th edit might help when edits are spread out over a long period). As for BilledMammal's statement "mostly by making edits to articles covered by ECP while under 500 edits", I don't know whether that is the case, I haven't looked, but non-EC editors editing articles covered by ECP is common (see Rafah for example). Most ARBPIA articles covered by ECP have not had ECP protection implemented as far as I can tell having looked at a few categories. That is another issue that should be discussed somewhere...probably. We should at least be able to see what ought to be ECP protected and isn't currently protected, but that is not as easy as it sounds in seems. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That’s very interesting, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Just noting, since IOHANNVSVERVS has alleged FortunateSons has engaged in ECP gaming, IOHANNSVERVS obtained the permission mostly by making edits to articles covered by ECP while under 500 edits.

On the general topic, I've opened a VPI discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"IOHANNSVERVS obtained the permission mostly by making edits to articles covered by ECP while under 500 edits."

This isn't true.

I did make edits to talk pages which were covered by ECP but that was only because I was unaware that ECP applied to talk pages. When I was made aware of that I stopped doing that.

It's not even close to being true that my first 500 edits were made "mostly to articles covered by ECP".

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

To add to this, I am seeing issues with my editing prior to being EC confirmed, for example these edits to Indonesia Hospital (not the talk page) involving sensitive content: [7]

But this was done out of lack of understanding of ECP and of which articles were covered, as I was new to editing the Arab-Israeli contentious topic at the time. I think it shows my confused understanding when around the same time as I made those edits to the Indonesia Hospital article, I was simultaneously making edit requests on other A/I articles. Again, this inconsistency was due to lack of understanding of how ECP works in the topic area and which articles were covered.

I'm willing to answer any questions about my past editing regarding these issues.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Do @Sean.hoyland or @ScottishFinnishRadish have any comment on the double standards concern here raised? It's the more significant issue than the possibility of EC gaming. I understand that it requires some knowledge of the content but it doesn't require a deep knowledge by any means. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

On the general matter of bias in editing, double standards, things like that (that don't include deception), I do think there needs to be a way to manage it more effectively. I guess in theory, bias, double standards etc. shouldn't matter because there should be some kind of slow-motion homeostasis provided by a large community of editors keeping content within reasonable bounds. In ARBPIA, the population seems too small to manage it very effectively. Biased editing (and sockpuppets) can obviously have a significant impact (at RSN for example) and gradually skew content over time. But there doesn't really seem to be a place here that addresses whether an editor is HERE vs NOTHERE or editing in GOODFAITH vs BADFAITH if making that decision would involve (lots of) information about patterns, content etc. rather than specific clear cut behavioral issues. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that has an easy fix or else someone would have figured it out already. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• This very long discussion on a user talk page is disconnected from the actual articles in which the sources have been used. Yes, generally unreliable sources are just that, generally unreliable. But their use is determined on a case-by-case basis, and therefore discussing their use here doesn't seem very useful. I would suggest that someone link to the articles in which EI use is at issue, and that the discussions continue in those more appropriate locations. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t disagree, but the question at hand is merely about acceptable and required conduct, not about a specific use or lack thereof FortunateSons (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I realize that, but reading above it appears that approaching it as a conduct issue is not going anywhere. Dealing with it as a content issue is likely to be more useful. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  You’re probably right FortunateSons (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Right now there's a fair amount of the spiderman pointing at spiderman meme happening here. There's a lot of evidence of battleground editing to go around, but nothing has been pointed out that requires immediate unilateral action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  However (now that I have a clearer understanding of the situation) I now see that there has been mass kneejerk reverting. I am not sure that my assumption was correct that there is no user behavior issue here. Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  It seems disruptive to do all that reverting with the fate of EI's usability still pending. So yes, it is a content issue, but I did not quite grasp in my first remarks just how much reverting went on and is still going on through a swath of multiple articles. I think FortunateSons has a point. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  There was mass indiscriminate removal. I am simply returning the citations to where they were prior to the blatantly improper deprecation close that was relied upon to remove them. Again, you can demand that a new status quo be enforced to your liking, but I decline to participate in such a fantasy world. nableezy - 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  The fate of EI is still pending, and going back and reverting over and over and over again strikes me as disruptive, that's all. I don't know what you mean by "fantasy world," btw. Can you explain what you mean by that? Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  The world in which an improper closure allows for the mass removal of a source but the overturning of that closure does not allow for the return to the status quo ante. I am only returning citations that were present prior to the improper close, that was the status quo prior to the indiscriminate removal on the basis of that close. If somebody wants to challenge any individual citation they can do that on the talk page. But you dont get to demand that you can use a closure that had a clear consensus for being improper as justification to maintain the effect of that closure, that being the mass removal of these citations. Or you can, and you can add about 26 kB to an admin's talk page demanding that be done, but there isnt any basis for it. SFR, I do not think I am guilty of any battleground behavior here, I think I have been exceedingly reasonable and will continue to be so. If there is something in particular you think I am doing wrong feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. But I dont think adding to the kB here is all that productive, so Ill leave yall be and continue on my merry way. nableezy - 19:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Here's my understanding of the situation: EI was found to be deprecated and an editor removed all of the sources. This was a correct thing to do as the sources were deprecated. The decision to deprecate was overturned. That did not resolve the situation. It is still being discussed. But you went ahead and reverted anyway even though the fate of EI's status was not formally determined. Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  The decision to overturn returned the situation to the status quo, and thus Nableezy restored affected articles to the status quo – what exactly is the source of confusion here? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your behavior isn't what I was referring to as battleground editing. IOHANNVSVERVS and FortunateSons are the two spidermans pointing at each other over EC gaming and battleground. If there were a community-wide discussion on gaming I'm fairly certain both of them would end up on the wrong side of the line, and both are exhibiting battleground behavior here. The appearance of gaming and the battleground behavior exhibited by both of them is inching closer to being the examples of editors who have gamed EC editing disruptively that are being requested at discussions about ECR and gaming. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  What have I done that constitutes battleground editing?

  Also I did not engage in EC gaming. I only mentioned my suspicions of @FortunateSons' EC gaming as their >100 edits over 3-4 days made to Eberhard-Ludwigs-Gymnasium seemed quite obvious/egregious. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Those edits are partially translating work or summaries on the people (mostly because I have no clue how to make it look as nice as the German version), as well as a reasonable amount of verification and looking for sources. Most of those are above 20, and a significant amount above 100 bytes (link to VPI discussion). I also made an edit significantly after EC, so it’s probable to be a genuine interest. If you have a specific objection to one or more edits, I am happy to discuss it on the talk page, it genuinely needs a few people looking over it, as that’s the first time I have made major edits to an entire page. FortunateSons (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nableezy, we don't measure discussions in kB, we measure them in tomats. So far this discussion is about 0.2 tomats. There's even a handy template for it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  The mass removals deleted, at the very least, multiple perfectly viable sources in the form of subject-matter expert material from university professors on the grounds of deprecation, but such sources obviously absolutely should be restored with those grounds removed.Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  As I said to FortunateSons, it would be helpful to know precisely which articles we're talking about. There needs to be a listing somewhere, preferably RS/N. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  You're telling me! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  It makes this discussion hard to follow. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry about that, hope this remedies it:

  List of articles where the source is used, almost everything after If Americans Knew are new inclusions. Some definitely valid, some disputable, some in my opinion unjustified, most unexplained in the edit description beyond “not depreciated

  Examples of almost identical reversions:

  1. Special:Diff/1207011063 wrote a book, but closer to an activist than an expert, edit summary: not deprecated

  2. Special:Diff/1207010683 correctly restored as aboutself, but questionable inclusion in external links, edit summary: not deprecated

  3. Special:Diff/1207010455 book announcement by a former colleague (maybe friend), probably not an appropriate use, edit summary: not deprecated

  4. Special:Diff/1207009858 section about BDS (an area where a source with issues regarding I/P isn’t great), written by someone who is now at Vox (if the LinkedIn blurb is accurate), but not an expert, guess what the edit summary is.

  Thats not to say that all of my past edits are good, Iskandar did find that I missed an expert (but I disagree about another person alledged to be one), and a few not mentioned can be considered aboutself, but I think that occasionally adding half a sentence to the edit summary can be expected, as I have done for 1 and 3.:

  1. Depreciated source RFC: Electronic Intifada, not useable here due to relation with Zionism. Also Grammar

  3. Depreciated source RFC: Electronic Intifada about BLP, potentially non-notable

  On a short note, some of the edits add citations, and those most likely require attribution for EI, at least when it comes to I/P. Adding that should take a few seconds and be beneficial if the consensus ends up being in favour of keeping the source. FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  The first diff cited, which reinstates this article as a source to Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law clearly is a bad edit, in my opinion. This EI article is an openly biased hit job on Marcus and the Center. No, that is not an acceptable use of a source that is not generally reliable. The fact that the author of the article is writing a book is neither here nor there. There is no expertise here, just bile. Coretheapple (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Then remove it with that reasoning if you feel that way? But the only thing EI is used for is that there is no relation between the center and the university. If you really think it isnt reliable for that mundane fact then remove it, i dgaf. Anyway, that article has, I think, a talk page to discuss its content. Could try using it if you like. nableezy - 22:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I do find it odd that you would add that article as a source. It is essentially a screed. That was OK with you? Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that it is unaffiliated with Brandeis University is three or four words in a lengthy attack on Marcus. You see nothing problematic with that? You couldn't find a better source for such extremely routine information? Coretheapple (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for getting all those Popin Peggi's, SFR! Bringingthewood (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC) P.S. This may be her also: ThePeggiKing. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

All set. Glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again! You're always appreciated! Regards, Bringingthewood (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)