User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

This user is a farmer in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

bunny

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34

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

I am being repeatedly attacked by other another user (specifically @TylerBurden) for being TBAN-ed in an area. He brought this up twice: first in the context of a content dispute (see here) and second in the context of an AE statement (see here). In both of these cases, this was brought up unprovoked. My impression is that I was being eminently reasonable in these interactions but you can be the judge.

I don't think it is fair or right that established editors in an area can attack or push away newer editors in that area purely because they have been sanctioned previously in another context. My hope is to rehabilitate myself as an editor but if I am being attacked by others for my past constantly it is difficult to do this. JDiala (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple ways to see this. One is how you're reading it, a bad faith invocation of your tban as an ad hominem. The other is a good faith warning that you're stepping into a similar CTOP and situation. It's only come up twice so far, so there's not really a pattern of harassment. What I'll do is this:

TylerBurden, please don't bludgeon them over the head with their topic ban. Good faith warnings are acceptable, but there's no need to mention it when it doesn't directly apply to the situation at hand. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another question worth asking is, given that the 9-11 article's lead says ' Al-Qaeda's cited motivations included U.S. support of Israel', does this not fall into Jdiala's topic ban form article related to the israel;-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Imagine one of the first sentences on the 9/11 article writing something like "the attacks killed dozens of soldiers in the Pentagon, as well as around three thousand civilians".? Yeah, that's technically a violation, broadly construed, but I don't see it as discussing the topic area, rather as looking for apt comparison in style.

JDiala, be careful, the topic ban applies everywhere on the English Wikipedia and in any context. Try and find your examples as far from ARBPIA as possible, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I made a recent edit on the 9/11 page which was a definite violation as it was on a sentence directly pertaining to the topic ban country, as pointed out by Kentucky. This was a genuine mistake and I self-reverted by myself before anyone pointed it out. Please accept my apologies for that. The edit itself was just a copy-edit for grammatical style.

However, I did not think discussing 9/11, or editing parts of the 9/11 page not relevant to ARBPIA, are TBAN violations. 9/11 was a terrorist attack on American soil and most people do not identify it as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Do you have a different view on this? JDiala (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US support for Israel was one of the cited reasons for the attack, so I'd say it's related. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I'll stay away from this. This was a misunderstanding of "broadly construed". JDiala (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context related to the temporary ban listed at the bottom of User_talk:165.189.75.1, please see User_talk:Czello#Shared_IP_address

165.189.75.1 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your action here was reasonable; however I don’t think it’s really appropriate for someone who arguably has a conflict of interest here to be closing something that could potentially affect them. You are an editor at Wikipediocracy, if I’m not mistaken. Dronebogus (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a forum, so there are no editors. There are also many users of other offsite forums and social media sites. In fact, I would reckon that almost every editor uses some form of off-wiki communication. I don't think that makes me involved in such a way that I can't close an obvious time-sink. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case I think you’ve made yourself sufficiently involved that I’d strongly advise against any further closures in this thread. There are plenty of other admins who don’t have multiple conflicts of interest going on. Dronebogus (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that someone has COI merely by having a WPO account is a very odd accusation. Your claim basically presumes that WPO users are a homogenous group which is without a basis in fact. TarnishedPath^talk 02:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're used to it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created an account recently so I could bring up other user's previous comments. I just find it completely bizarre that an editor would WP:ABF and make presumptions about a whole class of WP editors (those having WPO accounts) without any basis in reality. TarnishedPath^talk 05:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:INVOLVED: Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. With due respect for Dronebogus who I've always quite liked, there's nothing in this close that suggests SFR is "involved" in this dispute or unable to close a segment of the discussion.

Simply having an account on a third-party website does not automatically imply membership of a cabal of all other accountholders or an inability to fairly perform admin roles. There's clearly some community interest in another debate on the role of WPO, but perhaps let's not start it with assumptions like this. :)

Oh and disclaimer if required: I don't have a WPO account and don't care what its denizens say. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: SFR has involved himself in the discussion proper and is clearly at least somewhat biased towards WPO in a matter that concerns the acceptability of conduct on that site but is staying out of further closures, which I approve of. Dronebogus (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate clearly at least somewhat biased towards WPO, or why it would matter in this situation? As far as I can see when looking at this current rhubarb I'm the only admin who has recently blocked AtG. Too bad no one had just approached me with the most recent diffs. We could have saved dozens of editor hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, with one of the provided diffs falling under BLP CTOP, I went ahead with the block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Describing it in positive terms like you did in the discussion implies some bias. Dronebogus (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better keep your eyes open, there's a site called "wikipedia" that a bunch of editors belong to as well. They should probably stay away from anything tangentially related to it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dronebogus, I am sympathetic to your skepticism of the Wikipediocracy 'thing' (full disclosure: I have an account but have never posted). But even given the most capacious interpretation, no one in that thread is complaining that AtG is on Wikipediocracy, the complaint is that he is uncivil both here and there. Whatever one thinks of that other site, I think you're stretching the notion of 'involved' a bit beyond the breaking point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also gross when you thank me for placing a block notice on another editor's talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It was a good call. Dronebogus (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SFR. Just curious if this is for on-wiki comments, off-wiki comments, or both? 28bytes (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the specific diff I cited in my block notification and the AE log. This falls under CTOP/BLP and I gave them a logged warning and have already blocked them once for NPA/incivility. If I had seen all of the diffs earlier I would have acted earlier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks for the explanation. 28bytes (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to know I do appreciate you blocking AtG, even if it feels like it was under a technicality to prevent it being anyone’s “fault” if a community sanction went through. Whether or not that was your actual intent, maybe it’s for the best that the ANI thread didn’t go to completion. A popular editor getting blocked always results in a solidified support base and cries of “witch hunt!” Dronebogus (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only CT alert I see for Andy is under the gender-related disputes case. Where was Andy made aware of the BLP case? If he was not then you may not issue an arbitration enforcement block. You could of course block them as a normal admin action, but not an AE block. nableezy - 14:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, feels like a technicality. SFR should just have blocked him for incivility by admin fiat if they were going to block them without community consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ATG is formally aware of CT/BLP, having alerted someone else to it a couple months ago. See WP:CTOP footnote M. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:AndyTheGrump#Civility in contentious topics, where I said You're aware that BLPs are a contentious topic, so I'm going to skip the template on that. They're clearly aware of all sorts of CTOPs, demonstrated through their editing at AE, and even if they weren't aware of the BLP CTOP my warning served to provide that alert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether to just keep it to myself or not, because I don't really have a big problem with a 1 week block. But (1) the only diff you actually cite is a response to a troll, and seems an odd choice to hang your hat on, and (2) I don't understand how this is related to CTOP/BLP. Did you mean another diff that is worse, and does relate to CTOP/BLP? I feel like kind of a jerk nitpicking, but I'm confident you'll take this in the spirit intended. Also, Andy would laugh at the idea that he wasn't aware of CTOP/BLP... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was in response to actions on a BLP, so it falls under BLP arbitration enforcement. I agree it wasn't very bad, but after a logged warning and a block for the same behavior I went with another block. Doing it as an AE action has the added benefit of requiring a clear consensus to overturn and can only be challenged by the one sanctioned so hopefully that heads off any additions to an already 1.5 tomats clusterfuck. The other option is the thread on the one week block stays open for another week or so, gathers up another 0.6 tomats worth of text, and if it closes with a block Andy would have already have been unblocked.

Basically, after you've been recently warned and blocked for a behavior doing it again, even if it wasn't too bad, isn't ok. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree with both points to some extent, but not enough to argue further. I was just telling someone else how exhausting it must be to make a decision, and then have to spend hours calmly and coolly defending it. And thanks at least for putting us out of our misery. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civility violation? Definitely. BLP violation? I just can't make it stretch that way. Sorry, but even if the block was defensible, CTOP isn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a violation of WP:BLP, it's a violation of WP:CTOP Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and...comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice; and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Decorum Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To this peanut in the gallery it seems like you are basically making your block in to a "super-block" but on tenuous grounds. Pointlessly I might add. But ty FFF for pointing me to Andy alerting somebody else, as that does indeed establish awareness. nableezy - 15:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he had blanked that message on his talk page with "go away troll", would you have felt able to make that same block? Because the step from "troll" to "moron" is barely noticeable. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Andy needs to stop the personalized commentary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Handling those closes that had a lot of charged feelings.

LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just doing what I can. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the effort you put to read through my TLDR. Beyond the call of duty, really. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby request that the topic ban that was imposed against me today at 10:49 UTC will be lifted, for the following reasons:

1. I am a good faith editor - Most of my edits were not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. All edits not relating to the conflict were constructive and were done on good faith - look at my edits before yestrerday. I have contributed to the project (see this edit), even on articles related to Israel that don't have anything to do with the conflict (like this edit). I know that these edits don't have to do with the conflict, but that shows that I'm a good-faith editor, which makes it likely that I'm constructive about the conflict as well. About the conflict - some of my edits (such as this move) were uncontroversial and weren't met with opposition. Some other edits are correcting an actual bias (for example this one, an edit to the Israeli settlement Kalya, where I removed an entire section speaking about the settlement's status under international law - something that shouldn't exist and doesn't exist in any other settlement article). Other edits were actually biased and I am truly sorry about those.
2. I believe that it is not fair, appropriate, nor "fits the crime" to punish me forever for something that I did once, especially considering all the above.
3. My talk page edits - I am sorry for what I said to User:Selfstudier, including my aspersions. I promise to obey the ArbCom restriction that prohibits me from editing conflict articles until I'm extended confirmed. When I'll be extended confirmed, I will refrain from adding bias to such articles.

In conclusion, I would be very thankful if you will consider lifting my topic ban. Thank you for the time, Uricoh (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be lifting the topic ban, but I will remind you that indefinite is not infinite and productive editing in other topics will make an appeal much easier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this kind of thing acceptable? I ask not to get someone in trouble but because this kind of rhetoric is the rule not the exception on I/P talk pages. I assume this editor was expressing this view in good faith, because it is, after all, the norm. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is all too common, and I don't believe it is acceptable discourse. I've reverted, alerted, and warned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not acceptable discourse? How so? What exactly is "needlessly inflammatory" or unacceptable about the comment in question? They just stated their opinion that "this is a massacre. No one can deny this. It is a massacre against defenseless civilians with the excuse of killing a militant. Israel has repeatedly carried out mass attacks using this excuse." This is not contrary to many academic opinions on this current war — see Gaza genocide.

Francesca Albanese, for example, UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, stated in a March 2024 report essentially the same thing (and indeed herself referred to the specific attack in question as a massacre in a tweet[1]). In her report she stated that "Israel considers any object that has allegedly been or might be used militarily as a legitimate target, so that entire neighbourhoods can be razed or demolished under fictions of legality. [...] Israel has thus de facto abolished the distinction between civilian objects and military objectives. [...] Rationalizing patterns of attacks on civilian objects, knowingly killing civilians en masse, has become a military strategy [...] This strategy reasonably and solely infers a genocidal policy. [...] Israel has also sought to provide legal cover for indiscriminate attacks by misusing the notion of ‘collateral damage’, unlimitedly expanding what can be considered ‘incidental civilian harm’. Examples of indiscriminate attacks include attacks that by any methods or means strike multiple lawful targets at once in areas with high concentrations of civilians or civilian objects. To justify killing members of the protected group, Israel has defended such actions as causing only incidental harm to civilians, proportionate to concrete and direct military advantages anticipated."[2]

Is is this considered unacceptable discourse on Wikipedia? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Francesca Albanese the gold standard of acceptable discourse on Israel. The U.S. State Department, which commonly doesn't go around flinging accusations of antisemitism, said in March, in response to comments that she made very similar to the ones you cite, [3] that she has a "history of antisemitic comments" and made remarks in Decmber "that appeared to justify the attacks of October 7th." This is just the tip of the iceberg of the criticism that she has received for her comments on Israel. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The US State Department? Really? Accusations of antisemitism against Albanese are simply to discredit her (see: weaponization of anti-semitism) and this is covered in our article about her. Besides there are many other experts and RS which have similar views regarding Israel committing intentional massacres and genocide in Gaza (see: Gaza genocide), and these views are in no way 'unacceptable discourse'. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt whatsoever that Francesca Albanese would fit right in if she was a Wikipedia editor in the I/P pages. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, people don't agree on who to listen to. Please don't argue about it here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a massacre. No one can deny this. It is a massacre against defenseless civilians with the excuse of killing a militant. Israel has repeatedly carried out mass attacks using this excuse. Identify what part of that deals with Wikipedia policies and how it applies to the name rather than just the editor's views on Israel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It directly applies to the requested move discussion as they proposed moving/merging the article(s) and naming it "13 July 2024 al-Mawasi massacre". They made a suggestion for the title and gave a brief explanation of their reasoning, how does WP:NOTAFORUM apply? And how is any of this "inflammatory" or 'not acceptable discourse'? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up to vent about your views on a nation's actions is not a policy based argument, it is NOTAFORUM because it's a general statement about that editor's views. It is inflammatory because it does nothing but express the personal negative views of an editor in an already fraught topic. The fact that we're here after a complaint is evidence that it enflamed the situation. If there were an RFC dealing with a politician and someone replied just with their views on that politician that would also be a NOTAFORUM violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in their comment that is "venting", nor is it "nothing but express[ing] the personal negative views of an editor". There's actually not even anything "negative" in their comment at all — they've just just given their assessment that the attack was an intentional massacre, and that the title should reflect that, which is not even a WP:FRINGE view as the example of the UN expert I just cited demonstrates.

The comment states that "It is a massacre against defenseless civilians with the excuse of killing a militant. Israel has repeatedly carried out mass attacks using this excuse." Albanese herself makes this exact same point when she says that Israel "[invokes] the concept of ‘proportionate collateral damage’ to knowingly shell large numbers of members of the protected group [the Palestinians]", citing as an example of this the 31 October 2023 Jabalia refugee camp airstrike which "killed at least 126 civilians, including 69 children, and injured a further 280", after which "Israeli military personnel affirmed that the target was one Hamas commander in an underground base."

There is nothing "inflammatory" or 'not acceptable' about any of this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(a)It would set an extremely dangerous precedent to set guidelines of what is acceptable or not acceptable' in wiki discussants' remarks about 'states' ('acceptable discourse on Israel'), as opposed to individuals. Most editors' comments in these for/against discussions express opinions which are either personal or which, to those familiar with the topic, mirror widespread and often authoritative judgmnts. If the opinion reflects widepread conclusions made by competent authorities (that Israel appears to have abolished the legal distinction that underwrite proportionality and in doing so, repeatedly bombs areas where civilians are amassed to kill one or two Hamas militants regardless of the 'collateral damage', then there is nothing controversial about an editor writing that. Any more than Aryeh Neier is being 'inflammatory' by drawing this conclusion. As he states, his judgment refers to a state, not to the individuals (Jewish) who form the demographic majority of that state.

(b)The fact that we're here after a complaint is evidence that it enflamed the situation.

That is not only extremely incautious, but illogical. To lay a complaint with an admin is not in itself evidence of anything other than that one plaintiff dislikes, or thinks it fit to denounce what an opposing editor said, not that the situation was 'inflamed' by the other's comment. Nishidani (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish I think you overstepped here a bit. Three editors are now in agreement that the comment was perfectly acceptable (plus, its author). "The page should be renamed a massacre because it was a massacre, forming a pattern of massacres" is a factual statement about the proposed rename. RM discussions are not only about Wikipedia policies, they are also – primarily in fact – about whether the proposed new name aptly captures the article subject. Besides, since when !votes that don't include policy acronyms should be removed? I hope you can restore the comment. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that statements like "The page should be renamed a massacre because it was a massacre, forming a pattern of massacres" are just irrelevant noise. Statements that are not policy based should have zero value from the perspective of content decisions. There is no policy-based reason for a Wikipedia editor to care what an anonymous person on the internet with access to Wikipedia's server thinks is or is not a massacre, or terrorism or a cake or a biscuit etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughgly agree. Only most of these discussions consist of 'like' votes, opinions and whatever, and only a small percentage are RS-fluent, policty-based rationales. To take exception to just one, and in those terms, because it was singled out for a complaint, is problematical. Or the ruling is applied to all the noise, or disregarded as incapable of addressing the real issue, which both you and SFR identify. Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had the time and attention span to monitor all of the millions of words of discussion on the topic, but I don't. What I have done is revert well over a thousand talk page messages for violations of WP:SOAP[4] and WP:NOTAFORUM[5] (there's more that don't have it explicitly stated in the edit summary. I'd estimate around 2500-3000 total). I wish I could apply it to all the noise, but there aren't enough hours in the day. What crossed the line in this instance was the unsourced allegation that Israel is repeatedly and purposefully targeting civilians as a response to a RM. That unsourced allegation is needlessly inflammatory, in that it adds an unrelated point to argue about, and had nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is how to apply WP:Article titles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"What crossed the line in this instance was the unsourced allegation that Israel is repeatedly and purposefully targeting civilians" — Yes, it does seem that this is what you were referring to when you spoke of unacceptable discourse. As I've pointed out above this is not a WP:FRINGE assessment and there are plenty of RS which support this. Removing a comment because it is WP:OR or because it doesn't cite sources is one thing, but removing a comment because of its conclusion, "that Israel is repeatedly and purposefully targeting civilians", is clearly out of line. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your extensive work in that is appreciated, also because it must be exhausting, but given we all recognize how much noise does gets through without objections, one practical measure would be to ask anyone in RfCs or talk page support/not sections to follow a guideline that would state_'when expressing one's position on a yes/no question, provide a reliable source relevant to the argument on which your position draws in choosing one option over another. The source should not be the same as others used by other editors contributing to the discussion. That won't happen, but it would stop adventitious foruming.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's not an "unrelated point" in any way. It's their suggested title. We do have articles titled similarly such as the Flour massacre, Tel Al-Sultan massacre, and Al-Awda School massacre, all committed by Israel during this same war. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A country's behavior in other situations has no bearing on the name of the article about this situation. The New England Patriots won a whole lot of football games, but we don't call many of their recent games wins (to my great dismay). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening at this point. The comment you removed stated essentially "This article should be titled as a massacre. It is Israel's MO to kill civilians under the pretext of targeted strikes." ("It is a massacre against defenseless civilians with the excuse of killing a militant. Israel has repeatedly carried out mass attacks using this excuse.")

Removing comments because they are WP:OR or unsupported opinion is one thing, but removing comments because of their conclusions is another. The fact that you've admitted that the "allegation that Israel is repeatedly and purposefully targeting civilians" is an important element of what made the comment to be "crossing the line" is incredible. And clearly that is exactly what the original complainant objected to as well — the actual conclusion itself rather than the fact that is was unsourced.

If you won't acknowledge your removal was wrong I will open a thread for this to be reviewed somewhere. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My removal was well within WP:TPNO, so I won't be offering that acknowledgement. Perhaps you haven't noticed, however, that they have restored their comment with extended commentary, and have been asked by another administrator to provide a rationale in-line with what is expected. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favour of clamping down on WP:OR and unsupported opinions, we need more of that kind of moderation in the topic area. But it can't be done selectively for only certain 'not acceptable' opinions/conclusions. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe my enforcement has been selective? I make the same type of reverts when the subject is Hamas and Palestine, and Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#User sanctions (CT/A-I) shows all of my arbitration enforcement sanctions this year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I've ever seen a talk page comment be removed because it didn't include RS to support it. And such comments are extremely common.

We definitely need to be be putting a stop to WP:OR and unsupported opinions but surely the solution is not the immediate removal of any comments which don't include RS. Presumably that's not the approach you will be taking from now on, to remove all comments which don't have RS to support them?

And again, you made the point that the comment was "inflammatory" and somehow 'not acceptable discourse', suggesting that stating Israel has committed massacres is somehow especially egregious and contributed to the comment crossing the line. That is not reasonable and the content/conclusion of the comment should have no bearing unless it is blatantly nonsense. We shouldn't be censoring opinions, especially ones which are consistent with scholarship and RS. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, "Israel has committed massacres" is not what he said, and if it was, I don't think it would have been removed. Levivich (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference from what they said? Their comment was essentially "This was a massacre. Israel commits massacres of Gazan civilians under the guise of targeted strikes." What is wrong with this? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Israel has committed massacres" and "It is a massacre against defenseless civilians with the excuse of killing a militant. Israel has repeatedly carried out mass attacks using this excuse." are two different statements. The first one is a statement of fact. The second one is a statement of intent.

It's one thing to say Israel has committed massacres -- many countries/governments have committed massacres, it's unfortunately not unusual in history -- but it's quite another to suggest that committing massacres is Israel's goal, and that "killing a militant" is just an excuse to commit massacres. It's the difference between saying Israel does not do enough to avoid civilian casualties (undoubtedly true), and saying Israel wants civilian casualties and that killing militants is just an excuse to kill civilians. That second statement is, I agree, inflammatory and outside acceptable discourse (and certainly negative).

It's also a pretty obviously false statement. I mean, we can all imagine Israeli gov't/military officials thinking Deif is in a place and sending missiles to that place and not caring about who else is nearby (to be clear: this is a war crime). But it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that Israeli gov't/military officials are like "Hey, let's kill a hundred Palestinians. How do we do this? I know: let's tell everyone Deif was there!" This goes back to the million-dollar question of whether genocide is the intent, or just the effect, of Israeli policies. Levivich (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not one agrees with it, there are high quality RS which support the premise that Israel is committing deliberate massacres targeting Palestinian civilians. I've already given the example of the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, who has made conclusions in a report to the UN almost identical to the comment that was removed; and another example would be historian Ilan Pappé, who has stated "What we see now are massacres which are part of the genocidal impulse, namely to kill people in order to downsize the number of people living in Gaza".^[1] I'm repeating myself but we have an entire article dedicated to the alleged Gaza genocide.

Whether or not one agrees with these analyses, the idea that any of this should be considered "outside acceptable discourse" is completely baffling. I don't even agree with the editor that the article should be titled as a massacre, but the idea that this suggestion, or the assessment that the IDF's intention was to target civilians, is somehow not acceptable and needs to be removed from a talk page discussion is unbelievable. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other administrator's action of warning the editor to provide RS [6] is the more appropriate action, and such warnings are actually quite needed in this topic area. Perhaps if an editor makes an unsupported comment, are asked to provide RS and fail to do so, then their comment could be removed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How such statements are evaluated is one thing (it's up to the closer), and whether they should be removed is quite another. Besides, your last sentence is a doble-edged sword – since you are also an anonymous person on the internet, why should other Wikipedia editors care about your comments? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not quite anonymous, I use my real name by choice. Not a fan of online anonymity unless there is a good reason for it. But regardless, a double-edged sword is better than a single-edged sword. Even I don't care about my personal opinions. And when it comes to content decisions, my personal non-policy based opinions are absent, or at least as far as that is possible. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it's likely that Gianluigi02 also uses their real names, much like you. They are as much entitled to an opinion as you. So I fail to understand the resason behind your derogatory words about an anonymous person on the internet that Wikipedia editors apparently should not care about. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The words are intended to be an objective statement of fact rather than derogatory. No one is entitled to write their personal non-policy-based opinion in a discussion where the objective is to make a policy-based content decision, including me. Where does this sense of entitlement come from? It's not in the policies and guidelines. There are rules describing how content decisions are made. We all know what they are. And yet many people act like they are reliable sources, that their personal opinions about the real-world matter here, with an expectation to be treated like a reliable source in content discussions. This attitude is one of the root causes of so much conflict and wasted time here. "I am not a reliable source" is something any Wikipedia editor should be able to live by. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to understand the logic behind your reasoning. How is my opinion invalid as a "random person" on the internet, but yours is valid? Aren't you also a random person on the internet?

do you use your real name? I do it too. Gianluigi is an Italian name, a union of Giovanni and Luigi. Gianluigi02 (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did 29,675 edits here on Wikipedia, you did 32,912. Quite a similiar number. If you want to turn this into a challenge to who is more legitimate, then you are not or you are as legitimate as me Gianluigi02 (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gianluigi02 Welcome here. Thanks for clarification. I suggest @Sean.hoyland to strike their derogatory comment as it's essentially a WP:PA. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be striking anything. Gianluigi02, my opinion about whether a thing is a massacre or an act of terrorism or red or green has zero validity and zero value here. I am not a reliable source approved for use in Wikipedia. It's "what do the sources say?" not "what does sean think qualifies as a massacre or an act of terrorism or red or green?" This is not my reasoning, it's a direct consequence of the rules governing how content decisions are made. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland: Firstly, Talk page comments do not need each to quote a source. They are an open discussion, not wikilawyering. Secondly, I'll still add an acronym if you so wish: WP:SKYISBLUE. Happy now? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Comments do not need to quote a source. I'm all for open discussion. But content decisions about things like article titles need to be based on source sampling and policy. Let me put it like this. If an editor wrote a comment or an edit request like that and they were not extendedconfirmed and I saw it, I would delete it. I delete things like that almost every day, many from Israel supporters of course, so my views are partly based on 'be careful what you wish for'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors? I think maybe 300 or 3000 may be more apt. But they're still inflammatory and inappropriate and "all too common," as SFR correctly pointed out. That actually reinforces the point of view that the atmosphere on I/P pages for editors who are not overtly anti-Israel is overheated and hostile. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TBH Wikipedia community is very restrained in its reactions to the actual brutality ongoing in the Gaza Strip. Editors who dare to say too much are getting sanctioned and their edits reverted. Compare this to the Russo-Ukraine war, where anti-Russia narrative was let run free both on Talk pages and in mainspace. The real concern is not the existence of such fairly innocent comments: it's the creeping POV censorship. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I view it differently. What I see is that when an admin tries to police civility rules in I/P pages, they almost inevitably are beset by an army of editors justifying the incivility. The result is that very few admins, being human and also being volunteers, will venture into this subject area and thus it has become a kind of "Wild West" hostile to editors who don't throw around words like "massacre" to describe Israeli actions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no WP:CIVILITY issue in the matter at hand.

Re. particpation, the proportion of participating admins roughly reflects their proportion in WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE and is no different to most other areas. Just feel free to check, say, Talk:Donald Trump, with all its heated discussions, for the number of admins. Good luck. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gianluigi02; I might agree with your opinions, but I wouldn't voice them, (nor do I agree with removing them). I mostly agree with Sean, here. The thing is: (as I have said before): I try to keep a high signal/noice ratio. And the Gianluigi02-edit is -mostly- "noice". And you can (easily!) spend 100% of your time in the IP area "making noice". But then you get 0% work done.

Now, a way to "get more signal through", ie get the article moved to 13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi massacre, would be to look at the articles which have "massacre" in their names; say, Kfar Aza massacre, Kissufim massacre, Netiv HaAsara massacre, or Psyduck music festival massacre (all took place on the 7th October): do these massacres have more people killed than at 13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi? If not, why are they called "massacres", while what happened 13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi is not? Are some lives worth more than others? And of course see what WP:RS say about it: I saw twitterati use the word "massacre", which is why I suggested it (That, and the appalling number of dead), Sorry; I don't have the time to through all WP:RS. (User:Gianluigi02: most of what you think, or mean about things in the IP area is better left unsaid on Wikipedia. Just my 2-cents.) Huldra (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach, - so 3 times Mozart if you click on "music" ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish be renamed and moved to Wikipedia:Place where people debate ARBPIA at great length.

• Support, as proposer, per WP:SPADE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)'[reply]
• Support. This has long been the preferred method of retribution for those of us who have been sanctioned by SFR; might as well formalize it and provide guidance to sanctioned editors seeking retribution in the future. Levivich (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I surrender. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? Just when you could start charging a fiver per post? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of SFR to allow his page to be used for general queries in advance of the drama boards. But this is his page, and it's up to him how much he wants it used for that purpose and for related debates. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance if this is an obvious question. Per WP:ONUS, "responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" but per WP:NOCON, following a discussion where no consensus is reached "the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." This seems contradictory. If we have longstanding existing content on an article, then someone BOLD-ly removes said content, which in turn is disputed by other editors and there's a discussion, and there's no consensus in that discussion, what should happen? Is the disputed content retained or not? Thanks. JDiala (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mystical, legendary event that has many an editor has heard of, but none can exactly put their finger on. Some say that it only happens on a blue moon, and others day the planets have to align in to the correct pattern, but I personally believe that when you see the first fireflies of early summer it happens. Article content becomes the status quo. Once that magical moment passes you generally need consensus to remove rather than keep, and an edit to it is BOLD, not a revert.

The real question is if it's really so important to have it in one specific state while you work through dispute resolution. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JDiala, you've hit on one of the most frustrating policy conflicts we have. Many have tried and failed to fix it. The problem is that there are many people who have recently had an extremely frustrating experience with someone using ONUS to keep out obviously appropriate material, and there are many people who have recently experienced someone abusing NOCON to keep in obviously objectionable material. Conversations on resolving the discrepancy tend to bring out both parties, and the needle can't move in either direction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like my answer better. ✨🌈 🌆 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's spiritually accurate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's awkward to find myself here, but don't 30/500 editing restrictions apply only to CT articles specifically designated as such by admins? It may be a bit of gray area, but that noticeboard doesn't seem to be designated as such. Or maybe it's just a breach of individual sanctions by that particular editor, in which case I guess the message for them could have been a tad more clear (esp. given their penchant for details)? — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to the entire topic anywhere on en.wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, WP:ECR says The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed. All edits covers everything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Kip ^(contribs) 17:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that account, as well as some of the edit summaries - would you be able to revdel the rest? Needless to say, I don’t take too kindly to some of the insults within them. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Ingenuity took care of this. Not sure how I missed them. As always, thanks for picking up my slack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You seem like you deserve one of these. Thanks for all your help :) The Night Watch (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page.

I'm guessing this talk page is not eligible for this exception...? Emdosis (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an edit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently an appeal involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a sanction you imposed. The thread is here. Thank you. — JoeJShmo^💌 23:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]