User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 33

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


 * I'm on my phone for now, so there's no easy way for me to move large discussions like that. If no one else moves unarchives it in the meantime I'll do it when I can. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It’s not urgent, I was just unsure who the right person to reach out to was, and you seemed like a good choice FortunateSons (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You could also bring it up on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah right, will do. Thanks FortunateSons (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * It's some LTA and I prefer to WP:DENY. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course. But do you know what they do it? What their point is? Do they also go around nominating Articles for Deletion? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I prefer to WP:DENY. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Once you have made a request you can no longer engage, and once an extended-confirmed editor has made a determination you cannot discuss it. Editors that are extended-confirmed can discuss the request after it has been closed if they believe it was in error. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you open another edit request that is more detailed or it is that also not allowed? 80.217.100.31 (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's getting into a grey area, especially as the first request was already declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Murder of Susana Morales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Christophervincent01#Speedy_deletion_of_an_attack_page

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


 * Just because other articles were bad and not caught doesn't excuse this article. Despite my best attempts I have not been able to patrol all 7 million articles, but I do take action when I see issues.
 * The article contained many flagrant violations of the BLP policy, focused almost entirely on a private citizen who has not been convicted of a crime. Despite not having been convicted you labeled the person as the perpetrator, said in wikivoice that he was stalking another woman, said in wikivoice that he made a false police report. The sources did not support these as statements of fact. Most of the article was focused on this person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It still isn't an "attack page" due to the aforementioned reasons. Secondly, would it have been better to name the section "suspect" instead of "perpetrator?" The sources also very clearly state that he stalked another woman (e.g. 1, 2), as well as the charge of him making a false report (his jail booking information). The page was mainly about the suspect since currently, there are more sources on him. This article doesn't meet the G10 criteria and isn't an "attack page." Christophervincent01 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think that A metro Atlanta woman said and A Snellville woman says is sufficient to say that someone was stalking someone else in wikivoice you shouldn't be editing BLPs. Having been charged with a crime does not make someone guilty of that crime. You really need to review WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you not read the aforementioned sources, where one of them includes surveillance camera footage of loitering outside of  residence, as well as his burglary charge, which was related to his alleged stalking? I also specifically stated in the article that he was charged with making a false report, rather than being guilty, as well as added this reference, which specifies on it. Nitpicking a few instances where I forgot to specify that it was alleged, when the main parts of the article stated for example: He was the "accused murderer" or is "facing trial for the murder, kidnapping, and attempted rape of Susana Morales," isn't a reason to falsely accuse me of creating an "attack page" and threatening to block me over it. Read WP:AGF, if you've forgotten about it. Also, this article was highly salvageable and should've been left in the draftspace. Christophervincent01 (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article was ~700 words, ~550 words are about the suspect. ~365 words are under the heading Perpetrator with a criminal infobox listing the suspect as having committed the crimes. It wasn't a few instances where [you] forgot to specify that it was alleged, it was almost every single case. Again, read WP:BLP, which states Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. We don't move it to draft space to clean it up, we remove it immediately. These violations are egregious, which is why I warned you. When 80% of an article is egregious BLP violations and BLPCRIME violations targeting a living person who is not a public figure, that is an attack article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Having viewed the deleted article, I share SFR's view that included multiple serious and clear BLP violations. To answer your question, yes, it would have been better to name the section "suspect". Generally, the violations were of that type: stating as a matter of fact that a person committed crimes which are as yet alleged. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that there were BLP violations. However, nitpicking the minority that were included isn't a reason to falsely accuse me of creating an "attack page" and threatening to block me over it, per WP:AGF. Christophervincent01 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not willingly put itself in a legally invidious position purely because someone moans about ABF. Your article flushed some guy's reputation, such as it is, down the Kermit; where's the good faith in that?  ——Serial Number 54129  12:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Christophervincent01: You are getting caught up on the speedy deletion criteria when you should be worried about the BLP violations present in the article you published in main space. In the future, be more careful when creating articles about, or related to, living people. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't dismiss serious BLP violations as "nitpicking". You need to calibrate your editing to comply with BLP, not double down on this issue. – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like the OP just got themselves an ArbCom banhammer. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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


 * , FWIW, ~40% of their edits being to yiwiki doesn't fit well with candidates in your proposed sockmaster set. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How is that? It's the Yiddish-language edition of Wikipedia, but I don't see how that is a counterpoint. - R9tgokunks   ⭕
 * What would you think if someone filed an SPI report claiming that you were a sock of an account who made 40% of their edits to ruwiki compared to zero for you? It's a consideration if you assume that correlations between accounts tell you something about the probability of matches. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only, somewhat flawed approach, available to non-checkusers. There are numerous ways to compare accounts and look for correlation and non-correlation. The distribution of an editor's contributions across the various language editions is one of them. Something should happen to the likelihood estimates and suspect ranking when there are non-correlations in language contributions (although a mismatch doesn't rule anyone out of course). It's tempting to only look for correlations between accounts, but mismatches are helpful too as a sanity check and to rank suspects because, very inconveniently, the checkuser policy does not allow 'fishing'. The yiwiki contributions would make me less inclined to consider sockmasters that have never contributed to yiwiki. The possible exception in your current list is BedrockPerson, but a handful of correlations across 6.8 million articles doesn't tell you much. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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


 * This may come as a surprise but I don't see everything that happens in the ARBPIA topic area or even every one of the 5,328 pages on my watchlist, nor do I action everything I see. I have to weigh the opportunity cost of every action I make against the 22 ducklings in my basement, the 30 rabbits I just slaughtered and butchered, the care of the rest of my livestock, the maintenance of all of their shelters and pens, my garden, my day job, my personal leisure, regular errands, and, of course, my wife.
 * I glanced at that talk page and saw that someone asked them to strike a comment, which they said they did. I then went to their talk page to do a quick review and saw that you had made an incorrect assertion about 1RR and figured a quick word would remedy your ignorance. I didn't care to look deeper into anything because I'm just a volunteer and I had better things to do.
 * With that I'm going to enjoy my garlic scape and basil pesto over rabbit and homemade linguine. I suggest you scale back your flagrant displays of bad faith, especially while you're cruising towards a topic ban at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification, and I hope you enjoyed your meal. JDiala (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of copying your reasoning about ducks, rabbits and livestock for the next time I was overloaded with work. Might not work well for me as I live in Manhattan. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You could probably do the rabbits in an apartment, although you'd be flushing your toilet a whole lot, and disposal of the unusable parts might be difficult. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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


 * The requirement for discussions that relate to the Arab/Israel conflict is WP:Extended-confirmed, which is 30 days and 500 edits. Fewer than 10,000 edits is fine, as long as it is greater than 500 and the account is older than 30 days. Are there specific editors you're concerned have gamed this?
 * As far as Talk:List of peace activists goes, the subject is certainly related to the Arab/Israel conflict, and as such you are prohibited from taking part in discussions about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's grand I'll leave the discussion on it.
 * I believe the user Vegan416 gamed to achieve that access, their account was made in 2016 though they only had 15 edits before 20OCT2023 immediately proceeding to edit articles related to the Arab/Israel conflict until the ban was enforced and they proceeded to repeatedly make edits to numerical pages and otherwise over an incredibly short period in what (to me at least) looks like gaming the system to achieve this access as they proceeded to return to the Arab/Israel conflict and also have frequently used their new position to police other edits from accounts with similar ages though without the extended user rights. Galdrack (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Tag teaming
What do you know: out of nowhere, alludes to an edit I made to an entirely different page a month ago and, out of nowhere, seven minutes later, you revert that edit. I'm sure it was just a coincidence... why are people bothered by these off-wiki cliques, again? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Someone wise once said that I insert myself into every drama and have Strong opinions on everything. Possibly, just possibly, I think your removal was silly all on my own and reverted it. I'm not sure why this is any sort of issue, but I fall on the side of ease of access to associated communities with the transparency that comes with that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't see an issue, there musn't be an issue, of course. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As opposed to you seeing an issue so there must be one? You're not exactly arguing from a position of consensus here, just on your personal view. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Violation of the 1R restriction
violated 1RR with this edit, their third revert within 4 hours (see first, second and third). When I asked them to self-revert the last one, first they ignored me and now they are saying that they haven't violated 1RR. While their first revert is not major, there is no excuse for the other two or the refusal to abide by the rules like everyone else. Please advise. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, they've now self-reverted three. Also, one appears to be a revert of and ; six months is generally long enough to be stable (and while this is only a personal rule, and I don't know whether admins would agree, I don't consider changing format without any change to meaning to be a revert unless it is restoring a previous version; otherwise, uncontroversial copy-editing would be virtually impossible) BilledMammal (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I already said that the first one is not major (it was only mentioned for the sake thoroughness). M.Bitton (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While I am happy to argue the legitimacy of the first two reverts (which to clarify took place over 4 hours apart), I will not unless asked. The third revert, was adding back in a sentence at the beginning of the first paragraph to make the lede read better, while keeping the information that was being fought over by other editors. I have self-reverted. If the standard 24-hour ban wants to be given, I'm happy to take it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't block if someone self-reverts. It's too easy to cross the line. I just ask in the future you self-revert as quickly as is reasonable. If it turns out they were not violations you can restore them, and if there's a pattern of falsely claiming violations you can report it. Thanks for the self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. All's well that ends well. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's great that you finally self-reverted the last one. M.Bitton (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I updated the numbers to the most recent, with a citation showing the up-to-date numbers. Are you really arguing that updating information to what is current is a revert? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It can be, yes. That's because 1RR and its cousin WP:3RR are bright line rules. When you find yourself exasperated by that head to the talk page and drop the source and the numbers and see if anyone else wants to make the edit, or wait 24 hours. It's not great, but everyone in the topic area has to deal with it and it's better than implementing consensus required or enforced BRD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Today I wanted to write a happy song story, on a friend's birthday, but instead we have the word of thunder on top of it, which would have been better on 2 June, this year's first Sunday after Trinity. The new lilypond - thanks to DanCherek - is quite impressive. As my 2 Jun story said: Bach was fired up. - Today's Main page is rich in music, also Franz Liszt and a conductor. Compare Liszt and Schumann: do you see a difference in the infoboxes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Today is "the day" for James Joyce, also for Bach's fourth chorale cantata (and why does it come before the third?) - the new pics have a mammal I had to look up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * Yes, by the letter of the rule that is a revert, as it is partially undoing someone else's edit. I don't often see reports based on reverts like that unless there is disagreement in or about sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've never considered that a revert, as I don't think it meets the requirement of reversing other editors actions. The action of the editor A who added "50 people died in the tornado" was to provide the most recent figure; the action of the editor B who updated it to "51 people died in the tornado" was to provide the most recent figure.
 * The most recent figure has changed, but the actions are complementary - B hasn't reversed the actions of A. This is particularly true when the action of editor A was to update it from "49 people" to "50 people", which is the version we most commonly see in topics under 1RR.
 * It can easily become a revert - if editor A wasn't providing the most recent figure, or if editor B changed from using the value provided by tornado-affiliated source N to the most recent value provided by people-affiliated source M - but absent similar context I don't think it is. BilledMammal (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, the "action" of editor A was adding the sentence "50 people died in the tornado." Nothing more, nothing less. The "action" is literally just the diff. Your alternative definition of "action" seems to require making a motivational inference. This gets dicey for anything remotely controversial or disputed. For instance, in some scenarios, editor A might not merely want the most recent figure but actually consider the number 50 itself to have significance. In this case, the alteration of the number 50 to 51 would constitute a meaningful reversion of editor A's intended action. But there's lots of subjectivity involved with such definitions involving motivational inference and it doesn't seem appropriate for "hard" rules like 3RR/1RR.


 * In any case, I'd be interested in hearing SFR's thoughts on all this. JDiala (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As a thought experiment for the both of you, say editor a wrote that there were 50 deaths and editor b changed it to 51 with a source. Seems like a plain update. Now what if the source used was deprecated? What if other current sources were still reporting 50? Just because something is sourced doesn't make it not a revert. For the most part these aren't treated as reverts because it's part of the normal editing process, but when there is conflict they can definitely be seen as a revert.
 * When dealing with bright-line rules it's best from the editor perspective to treat anything that can be construed as a revert as a revert, or at least understand an argument can be made that it's a revert, especially when dealing with contentious topics ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm generally referring to when the underlying source is the same; the National Weather Service said 50 yesterday, and today they are saying 51. If someone reverted to 50 I wouldn't re-implement my edit, but absent that I probably wouldn't be willing to self-revert a different revert based on the claim that changing 50 to 51 is a revert - and I wouldn't be willing to ask someone to self-revert on those grounds either.
 * If the National Weather Service is still saying 50, and the Department of Homeland Security is saying 51, then that could easily be a revert, as I described in my final sentence, but that situation is less common and generally switching between the two is more obviously controversial. BilledMammal (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Some observations with which the admins here may find fault: 1.) If you are going to bend a rule, make sure it is near impossible for anyone to consider the edit anything other than an improvement to the project. 2.) Never do this if the change looks like it fits a POV which you have demonstrated in the past. 3.) Don’t bend a rule unless you have a lengthy, glossy clean record. Part of that in CTOPs is to have a record of arguing against your own POV on a regular basis. 4.) If you can, use the TP to get someone else to make the change for you -- that is the correct path. (Someone will accuse you collusion, but it won’t stick.) 5.) If you make such a bold edit, state in the edit summary that you don’t mind a reversion. 6.) If it is a bright-line rule, realize that you may not get sanctioned, but may have to spend annoying time at a drama board. 7.) Never make a post like the one I am making here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, youre wrong here. Editing is not reversing. Only if somebody changes the 51 does going back to 51 become a revert. For the caselaw, see for example Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72 (though be sure to click on the right one, that was in the good old days where there would be 3 threads about one problematic user).  nableezy  - 22:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the report by No More Mr Nice Guy? I think that closed as "no consensus" - and the definition of 3RR has become clearer in the 14 years since. BilledMammal (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely concur with BilledMammal about that thread. There was disagreement even then, and it seems to me that things have been clarified.  For what it's worth, the interpretation I see most often used is the "bright-line" style in accord with SFR's take.  That said, there is also the practical reality that de minimis non curat Wikipedia.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. And the policy actually says about the same thing as it did 14 years ago, that The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. The WP:AN3 template also says t may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert. You need to be returning material to a prior state for it to be a revert. Copy-editing is not a revert. Updating is not a revert. Those are edits.  nableezy  - 22:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A plain reading of the policy (to me, at least) would indicate that is not true. Let's say I add a paragraph to an article.  In the next edit, you decide to do away with the last sentence of my paragraph.  You're not returning to a prior state.  The article is in an entirely new state.  That's not a revert? Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Doing away is not editing. That is a partial revert. Editing your last sentence but still relaying all the material you added is not a revert. Or even changing your 5 sentences into 3 but still relaying all that information, that too is not a revert.  nableezy  - 22:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I am still fuzzy on where you are drawing this line. Let's say you take out my last sentence, but add your own.  Revert?  Or not? Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It depends, do I still relay the material you added? If not, yes, if so, no.  nableezy  - 22:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. Got it now.  Reasonable minds can certainly differ.  The only issue I have with your interpretation is that it seems to me it would greatly blur that "bright line."  With that I will apologize for interjecting and wish everyone a good rest of the day. Dumuzid (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A slightly differnet hypothetical; lets say that I add "BilledMammal is a platypus", and you change it to "BilledMammal is not a platypus". All you've done is add a single word - but you've entirely changed the meaning of the sentence. Is that not a revert, even though you haven't returned material to a prior state? BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A better example would be The strike did [not] target a civilian center. That's a lot closer to what we're dealing with most of the time now with edge cases. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing "BilledMammal is a platypus" to "BilledMammal is not a platypus" reverses your edit, but changing it to "a random user on Wikipedia says BilledMammal is a platypus while another random user contended that he was in fact not so" does not and is not a revert.  nableezy  - 22:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the same vein as 's alternative, I wonder about "50 people died in the tornado according to local health officials" -> "50 people died in the tornado according to R-affiliated local health officials" where the town the tornado took place is controlled by controversial political party R some believe inflates tornado-related death statistics. JDiala (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm really confused, how is this different from a plain modification of an article's content? So what, the only edits that don't count as reverting are the ones that are purely about adding content??? — Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa  23:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You think that's confusing? Wait until you try to figure out how long something has to be in the article before removing it is bold edit and not a revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's easy! 6.4 quatloos, exactly. Dumuzid (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the 51 was not present prior, it's a bit hard for me to see how it reverses or undoes actions in some way. It's certainly not a reversal (there was no 51 prior) and it's hard to see how that undoes something (as it doesn't restore literally or substantially something that was present at some point in the past). There are some changes that don't reverse and don't undo things even if they do change something that was present prior. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 01:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Call this neurodivergence, but to me this is simple: removing the "50" once it has been added is an obvious revert. Newimpartial (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One of the biggest holes in the "revert" paradigm is that adding new text--even if it completely changes the meaning of the content--is not a revert.
 * Example 1:
 * Editor A adds "the sky is green." Not a revert because it's a new addition.
 * Editor B removes it. That's a revert.
 * Editor A reinstates it. That's a revert.
 * Editor B cannot remove it again because of 1RR. Editor A has successfully edit warring in new content with the help of 1RR.
 * Example 2:
 * Editor A adds "the sky is blue." Not a revert because it's a new addition.
 * Editor B adds "not": "the sky is not blue." Also not a revert because it's a new addition.
 * Editor A removes "not." That's a revert.
 * Editor B reinstates "not." That's a revert.
 * Editor A can't remove "not" again because of 1RR. Editor B has now successfully edit warred in content with the help of 1RR.
 * And that's how you game 1RR. Happens all the time. Levivich (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, true, that first one (and the second one in a way) is a BRD "breach" and because BRD is not a compulsory thing, editors can and do, do this. But if there is a pattern of them doing it, then I would make an issue out of that on the grounds that the editor is constantly trying to force through their POV. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, in theory. In reality, if there is a pattern of them doing it, then they will continue doing it until someone decides to volunteer hours of their time gathering diffs and convincing uninvolved admins that there is a pattern of them doing it, and even then the chances of a sanction preventing it are 50/50 at best. Levivich (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's always consensus required, but then it pretty much kills article development. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The more I think about it, the more I reaize this whole crowdsourced encyclopedia idea is never going to work. 😂 Levivich (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sooner that we move to "The Encyclopedia that anybody can edit but SFR makes all final and binding decisions as the only person who is correct 100% of the time" the better off we'll all be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all true, Levivich, and this is where another editor can revert and invoke WP:ONUS (where it applies) or a "last good version". Each of which can also be gamed, but in different ways. Newimpartial (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So, I think we can all agree that it is subjective and depends greatly on context? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to add another data point, my sense of what counts as a revert is similar to SFR's (I think), and I take the template's discussion of a article's previous state to specific to the passage where the text is altered by the possible revert. If, say during rapid editing, a whole additional section is added to an article, and I leave that section intact while removing a sentence someone added to the section I care about, that is a revert and the fact that the "previous" diff is non-identical for other sections or passages of the article is irrelevant.
 * Also, on the example given by BilledMammal, I would assume a literal approach is the most robust: if an editor added "BilledMammal is a platypus" and I insert "not" - where nothing of the like had been in the article before - that's not a revert. But if the text initially added by an editor was "BilledMammal is not a platypus" and I remove "not", that is a revert because there is a previous (and recent) article state without "not" in that passage. Does this reflect fundamental principles of justice? Probably not, but as someone who has been accused of reverting when I tried to reformulate a prior version to be more accurate and less contentious - and in so doing removed some words from a passage - I have found it best to be both cautious and literal in evaluating whether an edit I'd like to make counts as a revert. Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that, if this parliamentary issue is actually an obvious smokescreen for some specific petty on-wiki dispute, I do not know what it is, nor do I give a shit, nor will I attempt to find out, nor will I care if someone attempts to explain it to me.
 * However, while everybody is here I am a little curious about this one, not the specific example given, but a slightly different one: the Gettier case one.
 * Let's say that Bill Butthead, famous and well-liked celebrity, gets hit by a bus (oh shit! his open-source projects!) and he goes to the hospital and there is no further information. Since he is famous, a bunch of randos show up from tiktok or whatever and start claiming all kinds of random stuff: he's in a coma, he's dead, he is fine but fractured his spleen, he's made a full recovery, et cetera, they link to whatever article we're citing that is being updated in real time, let's say Bus Plunge Daily. But of course they are wrong: on August 21 nobody knows anything besides he's in the hospital. Now, let's say on August 22, the hospital does respond to a press query, and they say "Mr. Butthead is feeling fine and he just fractured his spleen". Now, we look back to the random IP diff, citing the Bus Plunge Daily article and saying that he fractured his spleen: this was wrong, at the time, and it was vandalism at the time, but it is now a referenced true belief. Is it a "revert" if some diligent user (e.g. Dr. Reverend Ezekiel Citeswell IV) rvs to that version? jp×g🗯️ 00:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Placing this cognitive dissidence just prior to Lev's "intelligent adults" remark strikes me as potentially misleading to the casual reader, who is more likely to be suffering from a ruptured screen than from a "fractured spleen".-- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 08:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me, ReplyTool makes the rules, I just post here. jp×g🗯️ 09:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I kinda feel like I know all the people in this discussion as being intelligent adults and I want to ask you all: am I the only one who reads this stuff and thinks this system is like completely fucked up? Why do we care if something is a revert or not? Why do we want to care? Why do we want to edit Wikipedia under a system where we need to care if something is a "revert" or not? How long before everyone agrees that this concept of "revert" is stupid and broken and we just need an entirely different paradigm here, something that makes sense and doesn't revolve around arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Is it just me--does this seem like a good system to everyone else? Because I'm amazed that so many good people have tolerated such a bad system for so long. Surely there's a better way? Levivich (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are not alone. I don't understand reverts. It would be nice if people could write down an algorithm to decide whether something is a revert that could be implemented with code. Anyway, another thing that seems to complicate things and might be more important is the role of the observer. Many edits seem to exist as a sort of superposition of revert and not-revert until they are observed, at which point they collapse into one or the other. Someone might think that there is no relationship between whether something is a revert worthy of reporting and where the reporter and reportee are located on some axis, like Mandarin language proficiency, views on the Israel-Palestine conflict etc. But weirdly, not only can I, the observer, with the best of intentions and without breaking any rules, choose to only observe and collapse edits into reportable actions made by people whose user page says they speak Mandarin, but I can also report them at AE on that basis as long as they are actual violations without having to say anything about how I'm sampling the space of all edits. I mean, given that there is probably no relationship between whether someone can speak Mandarin and the number of 1RR/3RR violations they make, it would be very odd if cases at AE against Mandarin speakers were always filed by non-Mandarin speakers and vice versa. And yet, something like that seems to be the norm for PIA related AE cases, even if everyone acts with the best of intentions. It's like weaponization is built into the system without anyone having to doing anything wrong and the confusion over reverts doesn't help. ​Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest, for PIA it's not like we're any worse than the rest of the world. It's a battleground everywhere, and Wikipedia is just made up of the same people, so it stands to reason that it'll be a battleground here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if people could write down an algorithm to decide whether something is a revert that could be implemented with code when an addition of a comma to a sentence can either alter its meaning or have no significant impact at all, there can't be set rules for such a decision. Has to be case by case basis. — hako9 (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I disagree. If someone can make decisions on a case-by-case basis, they are using an algorithm to make the decisions. There's no magic to it, only algorithms, or let's call them functions - something goes in, something comes out. If we can learn how to do it, a machine can learn how to do it. But I agree with IvanVector below that it would start the bot vs POV warrior wars as people probe for gaps. Maybe one of strengths (and weaknesses) of Wikipedia in terms of countermeasures against undesirable/disruptive behavior is diversity in the views of decision makers. It's quite hard to accurately predict the outcome of any given AE case for example. There's a stochastic component. Maybe this a good thing (or maybe it isn't, I can't tell). Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're not alone. Although after nearly 20 years of it being engrained into me I find it almost impossible to get out of the BRD habit, even though I know most normal people find it confrontational and off-putting. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * or, How many pins can be twerked into the head of an angel (with a big red drill) in a single (uninterrupted) 20-year sentence? -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 09:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Much like a lot of other systems on Wikipedia its the best of the other bad alternatives and at this point it has enough momentum to be very difficult to change. There needs to be some way to objectively measure things like edit warring, and there's not a lot of other options. What would really be great is if we didn't have to enforce restrictions on reverts and edit warring because people didn't edit war and discussed things amicably. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Revert isn't an objective way to measure edit warring, as you pointed out earlier in this discussion. An actual objective way to measure edit warring: "don't repeat edits without consensus." That method also has flaws, but at least "repeat" can be objectively measured (a bot could do it), unlike "revert." Levivich (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But then you're in the grey area of what is "repeat" for purposes of edit warring.
 * The Palestinian ministry of health
 * The Hamas-run ministry of health
 * The Palestinian ministry of health
 * The Palestinian ministry of health, run by Hamas
 * The Palestinian ministry of health
 * The Hamas controlled Palestinian ministry of health
 * A bot isn't going to pick up anything but the returns to status quo, and if the status-quo was reverted to by a couple different editors it wouldn't see anything. I would see that as plain edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A pywikibot could identify 3 and 5 as repeats. A decent LLM would identify 4 and 6 as repeats. A human, even a dim one like me, can identify 3-6 as repeats, and explain why they're repeats easier than trying to explain "revert."
 * And to ask a broader question: why do we care whether or not some series of edits is or is not "edit warring"? Why do we want to care? Why do we want to have a system where we need to care? Etc. The entire paradigm is unhelpful.
 * It's a little less unhelpful when it comes to 3RR--that's kind of hard to cross unintentionally, so it makes more sense as a bright-line rule. But 1RR doesn't save us from disruption IMO, it just gives people a stick to hit each other with, and it impedes the improvement of articles by making people literally avoid actual editing in favor of talk page argument, as if that's better. Levivich (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but that's what we're dealing with now. That's not to discourage coming up with something better, but 20 year old institutions with layers of rules, guidelines, interpretations, and conflicts built up over that time aren't normally receptive to drastic paradigm shifts. Look at the RFA reform as an example. Almost everyone agrees RFA is for shit, but what was agreed on? And now there's calls to roll back the first trial as not an improvement. I guess administrators could abandon CTOP enforcement, or enforcement of certain sanctions, but without something better as a replacement the outcome would just be worse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm more optimistic. Admin inactivity requirements, elections, and recall, are examples of significant reforms -- one might say drastic paradigm shifts -- that took a long time and great effort to enact, but in the end were actually enacted. ARBECR and the DS/CTOP reforms are other examples. And ECR is a "big deal" insofar as it directly pushes back on the "everyone can edit" ethos, which is hard-baked into Wikipedia. So I have optimism that we can someday get beyond the hard-baked "edit-warring"/"revert" paradigm.
 * Another example of a paradigm we should ditch: ONUS/longstanding-version. For the same reasons: who wants to live a life where we all have to concern ourselves with trying to calculate some formula involving the time since an edit was made, how many intervening edits and page watchers there were, in order to determine if a revert is a revert or if the disputed content should remain out per ONUS or whether it's a new bold edit and yadda yadda yadda. I hate having to have that argument, I know everyone else hates having to have that argument, let's all just agree to not do that anymore.
 * Using your hypothetical, here's what WP:ANEW could look like if it was "repeat" instead of "revert":
 * Someone changing it back to "Palestinian ministry of health" more than 3 times in 24hrs can get sanctioned for edit warring, because they've repeated verbatim the same edit more than 3 time in 24hrs. Literally, a bot could deliver the 3RRNO warning in that case, just as a bot tells me when I've left a disambiguation link in an article.
 * Someone changing it to "Hamas-run" and "run by Hamas" wouldn't get flagged by a bot, but a human being reviewing an ANEW would correctly perceive that as repeating the same edit and could also sanction for edit warring.
 * Someone changing it to "Hamas-run" and "Hamas controlled" would have to make a cogent argument that these two phrases are meaningfully different such that they are not repeats. And then it'd be up to admins at ANEW to either accept that argument or not.
 * That third scenario would be the gray area. It would involve argument. But still, arguing about whether "Hamas-run" means the same thing as "Hamas controlled" would be better than arguing about the definition of "revert." At least each argument would be about different words! :-)
 * A totally different idea: why not just sanction people for disruptive editing, and not have bright-line rules at all? After all, whether repeating the same edit is disruptive or constructive really depends on the context, so why not just embrace the reality that disruption is context-specific and we need humans to evaluate the context each time in order to determine if someone's editing is a problem or not? The obvious downside is that people can conform their conduct more easily to bright-line rules than context-driven analyses, but that's only true if the bright-line rule is actually a bright line, and since "revert" has no objective definition, 3RR/1RR are not actually bright-line rules, even if we say they are. It seems like, as between having bright-line rules and not having bright-line rules, the worst possible choice is to have rules that we call "bright-line" rules where the line is actually very dim and fuzzy and has no objective boundaries. That's just stupid. But it's what we do. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So basically, as far as your bulleted list goes it's the same system we have now, only there's a bot that will report the most obvious cases, although most of those will actually be reversions due to vandalism rather than actual edit wars. It all comes back to how an admin views reverts/edit warring. Again, I want to be perfectly clear, I'm not defending what we have as the best system, nor am I saying there is no way to improve it. I'm just not seeing your quick quasi-proposal as any better.
 * Also, keep in mind that 1RR is a CTOP thing, so we can't really change it without arbcom, or without a strong enough community consensus to over-rule arbcom. That's doable, but it would have to be something rock solid to veto arbcom. Keep in mind that 1RR has been the law of the land in ARBPIA since like 2012, so this isn't a new issue we're dealing with, and it has been examined multiple times since then with the sanctions only becoming more draconian. Is the problem in ARBPIA 1RR enforcement, or the fact it is the same battleground on-wiki as it is off?
 * As far as the disruptive editing blocks go, it is always easier, both from a rationale and opportunity cost perspective to go with a bright(ish)-line violation block rather than something more subtle. Many AE actions get examined thoroughly, and they often have strong enough disagreement that arbcom included the need for clear consensus to overrule any actions taken. A 1RR block or topic ban has a much lower opportunity cost and is much easier to point to the breach than a disruptive editing block or topic ban. But again, the bright-line 1RR rule comes down to arbcom in this situation.
 * Once again, this doesn't mean what we're doing is the best, or even a decent, way of handling this. But the multiple arbcases are pretty strong evidence that there are a lot of problems in the area, and a lot of people chosen by the community have looked into it and come up with the best they could. I personally don't have a better answer to the issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Query for the old-timers: is there less disruption now than there was prior to 2012 when 1RR was instituted, and if so, is 1RR the reason? Levivich (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for sure. Edit-warring was one of the primary issues in these articles back then, I think all of my topic bans pre-SFR were for edit-warring (they still should be but we are where we are I suppose). This at least stopped that dead in the tracks, and the multi-party edit-wars now have protection applied to them. Part of it was also NoCal socks being blocked earlier, they were always one of the bigger instigators of edit-wars, and the other part is extended confirmed knocking out all the one-off IP/named account socks pushing people over a revert ledge.  nableezy  - 16:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm technically an old timer but cannot speak about AI topic area that far back. My impression is that the 1R rule reduces disruption. Even with it and BRD, there are users who will still BRRD but I think if you didn't have it, everyone would BRRRRD, if you see what I mean, because they could. Is it possible to improve 1R, idk, perhaps. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I'd balance the "more reverts but fewer 1RR reports at AE" effect of rescinding 1RR. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the number of 1RR reports is an issue, but the 1RR has reduced from white hot to red hot the editing in this topic, so Id say thats a win.  nableezy  - 17:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My belief is that if we strictly enforce 1RR we won't need to enforce 1RR; if it is clear to editors that they need to be careful, and if they make a mistake they need to self-revert, then the only editors who end up at AE will be the ones who refuse to abide by the restriction, rather than those who accidentally violate it. BilledMammal (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * BilledMammal (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Or would this give another fitness advantage to people willing to employ deception? Let's say I'm a dedicated partisan. Why should I care about AE if I can simply edit war, get blocked and switch to one of my many other accounts or create a new one? It's not much effort to become extendedconfirmed, especially if I do a little bit everyday across multiple accounts. This is something I struggle with, the potentially self-defeating nature of enforcing compliance in the absence of effective ways to reduce dishonesty. Strategies should probably take into account that there are effectively 2 classes of editors, and sanctions only work on one of them. But how? It seems intractable. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would rather that we waste some time blocking these accounts through AE for 1RR violations than that they remain unblocked and able to contribute to forming false consensuses. Further, enforcing compliance shouldn't have a negative impact on good faith editors, as they'll self-revert when requested. BilledMammal (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the idea that it "shouldn't have a negative impact on good faith editors, as they'll self-revert when requested" is quite optimistic. It may only be the case if the person asking someone to self-revert is actually acting in good faith and is perceived to be acting good faith by the recipient of the request (assuming the revert-ness of the edit is not crystal clear). If I ask someone to self-revert, I don't even know whether I'm acting in good faith or out of some unacknowledged bias to be honest, but maybe that's just me. So, if someone refused because I'm an antisemitic Hamas supporter or whatever, this is unsurprising, I don't think it tells me anything about whether they are a good faith or bad faith editor, and I wouldn't mind. I would ask an admin to look at it. Similarly, if someone I didn't like or trust, someone I thought was not complying with other rules related to advocacy, sockpuppetry etc. (regardless of the actual objective accuracy of my view, which doesn't seem to matter as much as it should), there's no way I would self-revert. I'd rather be blocked. This is why I sometimes think enforcement - requests to self-revert, filing AE reports etc. - might be best left to admins. I mean it's fun that we can all play cops and only pull over black drivers of BMWs or whatever, but PIA is so polarized that it sometimes seems that the energy required to cool things down ends up heating things up, unless it is an admin doing it. Unfortunately, an admins-only approach is impractical as we only really have ScottishFinnishRadish doing his fine community policing work in PIA, so I guess editors will have to continue doing whatever they think will help. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be pedantic, it would be Ministry of Health, or the health ministry. Capitalize the name, dont capitalize the description.  nableezy  - 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To be pedantic, it would be Ministry of Health, or the health ministry. Capitalize the name, dont capitalize the description.  nableezy  - 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Would ministry of health to Ministry of Health be a revert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, but Ministry of Health to Ministry of Silly Walks might be without a good source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But what about the Hamas-run Ministry of Silly Walks? Levivich (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Playing out the pedant thread, only if there had been a prior change from MoH to moh would returning it to MoH be a revert.  nableezy  - 16:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

My latest comments on all this are on the AE thread, although perhaps I should have placed them here instead. I know you (SFR) will see them there, so just mentioning this for others who might be reading this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

, you might be interested in taking a gander at this discussion. There's a lot of takes on the whole revert thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the ping and the discussion. I largely agree with : when this many intelligent and rational commentators can't agree on a clear definition of a revert, then we're trying to apply a bright line rule to a situation in which there is no bright line. I also agree that focusing on what is a revert instead of what is disruptive is misguided, and has led this enforcement regime to be utterly broken. You say we need a method to measure edit warring but I disagree: we have these big brains in our skulls that enable us to analyze disruptive patterns, to discern intent, and to recognize good-faith editing in whatever form it takes. If enforcement of disruptive behaviour in these topics were so simple that we could get a bot to do it, then we would get a bot to do it. Personally I don't think that will ever be a good idea: if we can define disruption so clearly as to apply bright line rules, the disruptive editors will just find new ways to be disruptive without crossing those lines. Everyone here should read the comments and links posted at AE by Newyorkbrad, if you haven't already. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, but keep in mind that in articles on long-dead celebrities, massive warfare can and does break out over whether they should have infoboxes. I/P is just one example of the sheer hopelessness of the project when it comes to reigning in bad actors and POV content. Coretheapple (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How about this and this? Are they reverts by  for 1R purposes? Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, they’re reverts, and no, they don’t apply to 1RR
 * I’m not sure why you’re asking; they’re obviously reverts, and you know they don’t apply to 1RR.
 * The real issue there is involved editors trying to unilaterally remove an uninvolved they disagree with. I don’t know if the close is appropriate, but it’s obviously inappropriate and incredibly disruptive for involved editors to be allowed to make that decision. BilledMammal (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And involved editors doing repeated reverts? Pot and kettle. That ARCA doesn't let you off the hook for edit warring your POV, which is what you are doing. Good mind to take this to ANI. Selfstudier (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The amount of involved quasi-administration is over the top in this entire topic area. Any of these closes, uncloses, tag removals, an various other admin-light shit shouldn't be touched by anyone involved in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at User talk:Hemiauchenia (before BM decides on a third revert, preferably). Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Samuel Alito&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Help with moving
Hey, last time you helped with a move from Draft to Article on Bbb23's talk page. This time i worked at the Draft:Beach volleyball at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament and Draft:Beach volleyball at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament and wanted to move it to article space but it can't be moved since a redirect already exists. Can you help me with that? Kante4 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , CSD'd, you can move to mainspace now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, thank you. Kante4 (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Peak gaming?
Well, this and this don't look ideal. Rushing to 500 edits, jumping straight into Israeli settlement articles, changing the standard boilerplate about legality, adding unreferenced material etc. Might need some attention if you have time. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe this is all taken care of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't want to confuse WT:RFA
In that case, I don't understand what you're linking to. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Is it that they bogged down and got archived without a close? Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's that it's chronically understaffed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The few times I've commented there, it's given me a headache. And usually makes me sad too. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, CAT:UNBLOCK is also chronically understaffed, and whenever I resolve to help out, I get a headache and sad there too. But more admins doesn't solve that problem, more admins willing to put time in at AE and UNBLOCK would help solve that problem. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unblock might be the only thing worse than AE. And after a few weeks I expect you're completely jaded from dealing with the repeat offenders and lying. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely horrible. I understand why no one wants to do it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Whenever I feel like I've spent to much time dealing with that sort of crap I go look for backlogs at WP:PERM, where you have at least a chance of actually having a positive experience. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just randomly echoing this. I used to do unblock requests but its like wading through custard. In my opinion UTRS appeals are a better format: they allow back and forth discussion without the clunky templates and reduce the frequency of purely performative appeals. But on-wiki transparency, etc. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've given that a whirl too, but I never kept with it. I consistently forget that PERM even exists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Ltbdl's topic ban
You know just like me that this is nonsense. I urge you to reconsider.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * When if I were of the mind to I couldn't unilaterally reverse it, as it was based on a consensus at AE. I wouldn't reverse it, though. My reasoning is explained in my response at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How come you can unilaterally decide to do that, yet you can't similarly undo it? In any case, I'll make sure Ltbdl appeals it.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, Red-tailed hawk had a great point: unless there's a pattern of such behavior, a TBAN is not worthy.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't unilaterally remove the sanction because it was a consensus of El_C and myself. Appealing that requires a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE or uninvolved editors at AN. I would have been amenable to a warning or lesser sanction, but the lack of any defense, explanation, or assurance that the behavior wouldn't continue made a topic ban necessary to prevent disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Two admins can make an entire consensus now? When another admin was opposed to it?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At AE, where any admin can act unilaterally two is a consensus. Two is actually about normal for admin responses. Rth was involved so was not considered in the consensus of uninvolved administrators. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I decided to place my comment in the "involved" section, as I had commented in the RfC where the comments were made. For that reason, even though I am an administrator, my input was not treated as if I were acting in the role of an administrator. My understanding is that the intent of the ArbCom is thus, though I am genuinely struggling to find something written that spells this out other than the general principle of WP:INVOLVED. Perhaps SFR could provide the written policy/guidance that spells this out.
 * I do recognize that I've been a bit more dovish here than SFR and, and I do remain that way, but I don't think my proposal of lighter sanctions has a bearing on the consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's just the regular INVOLVED, but generally people are a bit more careful around the edges of possible involvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While I'd personally advocate for a warning, a topic ban was an appropriate response considering what Ltbdl wrote. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 03:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the expectation is when a user refuses to engage with an Arbitration enforcement proceeding, only to state: i am aware of this, and have nothing to say (diff). In order for a given position of a user subject to an AE complaint to be accounted for, that position needs to, well, exist. Which I don't think is a very high bar and I'm surprised I even need to say this. Thanks. El_C 05:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Apndrew
FWIW, I think your block of Apndrew was excessive. Sure, he broke the rules, but my first guess is more cluelessness than intentional disruption, and reverting the case request was sufficient. If it was felt that additional warnings/education weren't going to be effective, I would have started with something like 24 hours. Just my personal opinion. RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, they were warned, with SFR telling them: If you continue to violate WP:ECR you'll be blocked (diff). So what else is there to do? El_C 05:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I normally start ECR blocks at one week because the purpose is to get them to actually read and agree to abide by the ECR sanction. A demonstration that they understand and will follow the sanction will lead to an unblock. Going with 24 hours just leads to people waiting it out and immediately returning to the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can see here that is the standard ECR block I go with, and this example of why I prefer to have some evidence that they understand the restriction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

24 June 2024
Hi, I hope you won't mind me picking your brain regarding the interpretation of a RfC close.
 * Chetsford (the closer) said: To cut to the chase, there was no consensus to include the paragraph and no consensus to exclude the paragraph. Our policy on WP:NOCONSENSUS provides further guidance on what to do in situations like this.
 * WP:NOCONSENSUS says: When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
 * The content was added in March. The bold edit to remove it was on May 23 and the proposal (a RfC with no RFCBEFORE) was started on May 24.

The same two editors who tried to remove it almost two months after it was added, namely and, used this discussion (about NPOV, which was started a day after the close) as an excuse to remove the content again while claiming that "no consensus" means removal of what is essentially stable content. Your input on how one should proceed in this and other similar situations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say that, generally, per WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. and WP:NOCONSENSUS When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. I don't know that two months before someone noticed and removed it really counts as a stable version, and I see an addition of what will clearly be contested as a bold edit. All of that said, I'm speaking more about the generalities of that type of addition and RFC as I try and stay away from the RFCs in this topic area because I don't want to have any say on the content decisions that I may end up enforcing with my admin tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The only thing that I still can't get my head around is the notion of what is stable. As far as I know, the concept is not clearly defined in Wikipedia, which makes it open to interpretation (two months for some, six months or perhaps years for others). Don't you think that's something that should be addressed in WP:NOCON? M.Bitton (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In every discussion I've seen it's a bit different, and often depends on how contentious the material is. Also, WP:EDITCON/WP:WEAKSILENCE cover that the implicit consensus is the weakest form of consensus. Also, having looked a bit further into this, it was initially added here, and was challenged by reversion six hours later, so that weakens the case for it as a stable version. WP:SILENCE, which is only an essay, says You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others. What I saw happen here was it was added, reverted, reverted back in, someone added a bit of summary from the main article, and it sat until someone noticed it. As far as I can tell no one else worked on the summary as mentioned in the edit summary, added basic information, needs more summary that I can't do rn, here. That fails the sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others test.
 * As far as addressing it in NOCON, pretty much all we could say is "stability is just as murky as what exactly is covered by REVERT." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also realize that this doesn't help much, and it's definitely just my take on it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that others didn't bother working on the summary because of the link to the main article. As for the NOCON, while the murkiness of the REVERT can be addressed through other avenues, I find it a bit odd that such ambiguity is tolerated in what is supposed to be the end of the consensus building process. In any case, your take on this has given me fought for thought, so thanks again for taking the time to address the issue. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We're firmly into the hard cases that make bad law at this point. Most of our policies have a fair amount of latitude built in, but when we're dealing with a situation like we are all of those grey areas are becoming points of contention. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Closure Request
Hi SFR,

You recently participated in a thread about me at ANE. If you have time, I was hoping you might close the thread about me at ANI.

Thanks, RP97 Riposte97 (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Riposte97 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Help with repeated BATTLEGROUND
has doubled-down on the tendentious and BATTLEGROUND behavior I reported them for recently. Not only have they opened numerous RSN discussions (sometimes without even reading the source material), they have edit-warred to restore a BOLD deletion of sourced content on 2021 Canadian church burnings, opened a non-neutral discussion announcement at RSN against me, and then accused me of saying Portland is in Canada (?). After I pushed back one their one BOLD edit, they proceeded to open 9 separate sections of discussion on Talk:2021 Canadian church burnings. Why are they allowed to continue behaving this way? ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:ANI is a better bet. I don't have time to take that deep a dive into this right now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks for taking the moment to reply. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate to use a news article as a source for AE sanctions related to coordinated editing?
Hello, there has been a recent news article claiming that editors are coordinating (or at least unduly cooperating) in a biased manner on a certain conflict. Would that be a) admissible, b) relevant and c) the appropriate avenue? FortunateSons (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in reading that article, mainly to see how they handled the evidence to support their claim. These kinds of claims are obviously quite popular in all sorts of domains, but it seems we are primed to see collaborative agency and purpose in action patterns even when they are absent, or only weakly present, or emergent rather than coordinated. Without evidence of communication, it seems hard to make a case for coordination as opposed to emergent stochastic stuff that just happens in complex systems. I wonder if things that look like coordination here are often more easily explained as something akin to random genetic drift (for content decisions rather than genes) where there is an editor population bottleneck. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will privately communicate it to you, just to stay clear of any doxxing/boomerang issue if this becomes an arbcom case. FortunateSons (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Only functionaries can consider off-wiki evidence so this would be best handled by Arbcom. I would be interested in seeing the article as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FortunateSons (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's really any evidence there of anything other than some editors sharing a similar POV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn’t the coordinating with the same views to change content about the same thing that happened with Camera? FortunateSons (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article states that there is no evidence they are actually coordinating. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, the channels name and the place it’s in are strong indications in my book? The groups chats obviously aren’t, those people can’t be conclusively identified. FortunateSons (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s impossible to link the users and directly to the anti-Zionist Telegram channel. But their comments attacking the ADL, in tandem with other collaborative projects aiming to tilt Wikipedia in an anti-Zionist direction, make clear that editors who harbor hostility toward Israel are already having a real impact in shaping public knowledge about Israel and about antisemitism. Unless there are is something more than a discord server and telegram channel then there is nothing going on that we can do anything about. There are similar modes of communication for the pro-Israel POV as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, those can’t be linked. But the discord group can, IMO. Considering they themselves use the word “coordinators”, I don’t think that this is clearly disputed. Is that permitted by policy? It’s clearly working together to push a POV. FortunateSons (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Who are you going to try to sanction if you cant identify any of the users? Or is it about overturning a discussion that had wide participation and an obvious result? Despite there being no evidence that any of the participants in said discussion were part of this supposed campaign?  nableezy  - 16:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If I couldn’t identify them, that would be true. Fortunately, some of them aren’t being very sneaky, and those are easy to plausibly link. FortunateSons (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you feel you can prove that a Wikipedia user is violating our guidelines and policies but you need to use off-wiki evidence you have exactly one option. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee.  nableezy  - 16:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know. The question was whether an (citable) article in a newspaper was off-wiki evidence, which it is according to SFR. I’m working on doing the work, but I’m rather busy, so it might take a bit. Does someone know how much of their own research Arb does? Is this a “building a case” or a “filing a police report” situation? FortunateSons (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Building a case. They're volunteers just like the rest of us, and their plate is normally heaped full of bullshit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. Would it be improper to file in stages, giving them a “pilot” of sort and see if they bite? FortunateSons (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. That would be between you and them. Like anything else on Wikipedia you'd be best giving the maximum amount of clear information in the minimum amount of words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will give it a shot FortunateSons (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Judging from the ArbCom case about AndresJerutHaim's (ongoing) canvassing, ArbCom seem to pay attention to and act on evidence that includes a complete causal chain with actual observable damage at the end of it that can be attributed to an individual editor. If there is ambiguity they don't seem to act. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that’s partially related to the volume of requests they receive? FortunateSons (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For me, the "in tandem with other collaborative projects aiming to tilt Wikipedia in an anti-Zionist direction, make clear that..." is the leap of faith, the fatal error. The article, like other post-RSN-decision articles, seems to be stuck somewhere in the 5 stages of grief. A lot of these articles come across like a person struggling to understand why their wife left them despite some friends gently trying to suggest that maybe it was the domestic abuse and addiction to heroin, rather than 'those conniving bitches', her friends. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think some of the news articles had understandable grievances, and some were very “why did my wife leave me”. This is the nature of such discussions; if some people’s plan to do the SPLC next leads to a downgrade of the sources reliability, we will likely get more of those. FortunateSons (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone believes there isn't off-wiki coordination going on. Without actual evidence there is nothing that can be done, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That and Ive been editing here since before either Telegram or Discord were founded ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.  nableezy  - 16:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re not the “target” here, don’t worry, and neither is Iskander. Based on my very casual research, it’s not primarily experienced contributors in this area, but rather some of the newer once doing the damage. FortunateSons (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasnt worried lol.  nableezy  - 16:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to be clear on that. FortunateSons (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, there is nothing going on anyway (from my end). Iskandar323 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of you are. I just wanted to let you know about this discussion rather than talking about you under the table. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (I guess we've all read the source in question) People who cheer from the sidelines or brag on those telegram channels, if they come through and pass the fatigue of 500/30 edits, and fail to master the very intricate protocols that govern editing here, are in all likelihood going to flag or be flagged very quickly. It's one thing to cheer from the bleachers, -anyone can do that, even kiddies. It's quite another to learn to play professional baseball or football or whatever.Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

BLP ban
I would like to appeal this ban. As per the appeal process page I'm contacting you as the administrator. I made a mistake editing an archived page, but I don't think this on its own merits an indefinite topic ban from BLPs. As pointed out by the other user, except the mistake I made editing the archived page my other edits seemed ok. Instead of an indefinite ban I would request one of a specific time frame, perhaps several months. Sentaso (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I cannot unilaterally change the sanction as it was the consensus of administrators at WP:AE. Indefinite is not infinite, however, and after several months of constructive editing an appeal could succeed. You've stopped editing since the topic ban was issued so there is no reason to change it to something you can just wait out without making sure you understand how to edit constructively when dealing with BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice close
I think that was a great closing statement. Kudos! Joyous! Noise! 20:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)