Jump to content

User talk:Red-tailed hawk/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

WP:INVOLVED

Hi RTH. Do you not consider yourself WP:INVOLVED in the I-P topic area (to the point where you shouldn't comment as an uninvolved admin at AE), and if not why not? Levivich (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I don’t consider myself WP:INVOLVED broadly within WP:PIA, as I am not broadly a participant in the various disputes within the area in my capacity as an editor.
There are some particular disputes in the area for which I would not act an admin, such as in any RM in which I have !voted, or any AfD/merge discussion in which have !voted, or user conduct disputes arising from comments made in other content discussions in which I’ve participated as an editor, but these are fairly rare for me within the broad Arab-Israeli conflict area. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 20:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Granted, Arab-Israeli conflict is a broad topic. What about the more specific topic area of Israel-Hamas war (current)? Is it your view that it doesn't matter how significant an admin's participation is in a topic area, they can't be wp:involved in an entire topic area, or is it your view that your participation in this topic area hasn't been significant enough to become wp:involved? Levivich (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
No, I do not believe I am WP:INVOLVED broadly with respect to the ongoing hostilities. I do think that administrators who were part of a specific dispute can be WP:INVOLVED with respect to that dispute and, with respect to it doesn't matter how significant an admin's participation is in a topic area, they can't be wp:involved in an entire topic area, I disagree provided that one can narrowly/properly construe a topic area.
The basis for the guidance is that people can be incapable of making objective decisions in disputes [1] to which they have been a party or [2] about which they have strong feelings (numbers mine). I do think that admins who have been a party to a large number of contentious content disputes with a particular editor, or who has strong feelings about particular ongoing or past disputes, probably should not be the ones issuing sanctions against that editor or with respect to those disputes. If those disputes cluster around one particular topic area, then it would be wise for that administrator to avoid taking action themselves in that area.
For an example applicable to me: Roughly 10% of my edits to article talk pages are to Talk:Persecution of Uyghurs in China (far from the only talk page in the Uyghur Genocide topic area I have been active on), I have been active in the topic more or less since I started editing actively, and the topic has at times brought up strong emotions both with respect to content (such as when I was new and noticed content being removed) and with respect to harassment I have received on- and off-wiki. As such, I would never personally take a WP:GS/UYGHUR action that relates to civil POV pushing in the context of the persecution of Uyghurs in China, because I feel myself to be involved too much in the substance of disputes there to be an uninvolved administrator.
I just don't think that the extent and kind of my participation in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, or those of my participation in the narrower but still broad topic area of the ongoing war, renders me wp:involved broadly in either context. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. Yesterday, Nishidani posted a list of 100 articles created since the war began. I went through the xtools for a few of them, and I was surprised to see your name come up over and over. I then looked at your xtools, and your edits to AE, and I was surprised by what I saw there. Maybe these tools and statistics are inaccurate, or maybe I'm misreading them, but here's what I saw:
  • Talk:Israel–Hamas war is your all-time #3 most-edited article talk page, with 58 edits. These weren't "admin" edits (like reverting ECR or using OCA; 14 out of 58 were OCA), they were votes in RMs, commenting in content disputes, the usual stuff editors use talk pages for.
  • You created Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip
  • You are the #1 author of Kfar Aza massacre; #3 by edits; #2 by added text; that article is #14 on your list of all-time most-edited pages
  • You are #6 by edits at Re'im music festival massacre
  • All four of those pages are among your top 30 most-edited-pages all time.
  • Your RFA passed on January 5, 2024. Your first AE post as an admin was in an ARBPIA-related AE thread on January 15, ten days later. Literally the first ARBPIA AE since you got the bit. I'm sorry to see this, but you're another of those RFA candidates who said they wanted to do things like speedy deletions, CCI--nothing at all about arbitration enforcement--and then you went straight to arbitration enforcement in a topic area where you were objectively one of the major contributors, and which objectively is among your major contributions
  • Since then, you've consistently commented as an uninvolved admin at ARBPIA AE threads
  • You were the most vocal to push for an arbcom case against the regulars
  • You closed the last thread
  • You listed yourself as uninvolved at your ARCA filing
  • You did not disclose your involvement in the topic area at any of the AE threads or at ARCA
I think you should to disclose the above at ARCA, and move yourself from "uninvolved" to "involved" at ARCA and AE. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I am admittedly busier that I would like, and I apologize for the resulting delay and brevity of my reply. I do not think what you have pointed to above renders me broadly wp:involved across the whole current war, and I will use Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip as an example:
I did create the article that eventually took the title of Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. On the 13th and 14th of October, I (along with other editors) created a stub/start-class article that can be viewed here. As you might note, that was three weeks before the invasion actually happened, and the article was (as of 14 October) titled at 2023 Israeli ground operations in the Gaza Strip because there had merely been some probing operations. There were some talk page discussions about the title, article scope, notability (a dispute with a block-evading sock) that occurred fairly contemporaneously and prior to the actual invasion occurring.
My subsequent contributions to the article have been to add whitespace, move a paragraph, tweak that paragraph, and to consolidate content within a section; to the best of my knowledge, none of these edits generated disputes, and the most recent edit was 3 November.
Again, I don't think the kind and extent of my participation here renders me broadly WP:INVOLVED w.r.t. all disputes that are related to current war. Surely, I am not going to close the RMs/AfDs/RfDs in which I have participated, but those situations are specific rather than broad. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I am puzzled here as well. Non ECP editors are forbidden from editing this topic broadly construed, but now there's a more narrow definition of what's construable. In general, editors and especially admins are forbidden from closing discussions/taking admin actions where they are involved. Even within the sole context of October 7th, you argue there is a carve out between "this war" which apparently started in late October and not earlier in your view? Do I understand this correctly?
The broadly construed topic is all of PIA in my mind, not mere date-ranges of recent current events. I personally see a direct involvement and conflict of interest, but even if you disagree, I would ask you to consider to avoid ABRPIA in your administrative capacity because it gives the appearance of impropriety. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

RTH, in my opinion your understanding of what "involved" means is not correct. It doesn't mean that you can play editor in some articles within a topic area and play administrator in others. ARBPIA is one of the best defined topic areas, as well as one of the most dispute-ridden, and you have played a part as editor in multiple articles and talk pages in that area. Not only those which Levivich listed, but also International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war (where you described unnamed Arab states as Hamas allies without a source), its talk page [1] (a dispute) and [2] (an RM vote), Ein HaShlosha massacre (merge vote), Misinformation in the Israel-Hamas war (starting an RM), Killing of Shani Louk (dispute over photos), and Israeli permit regime in the West Bank (RM vote). I'm an administrator who edits in the ARBPIA area and I wouldn't dream of playing admin in any ARBPIA topic whether or not I had edited that specific article or been involved in that specific dispute. Please note that I'm not accusing you of malfeasance here; what I am saying is that in the light of your substantial past involvement as editor in ARBPIA, you should avoid the appearance of impropriety by recusing yourself from administrative tasks there. Zerotalk 08:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Zero, you’re an admin who is heavily involved in the topic area. In comparison, if I remember correctly RTH is at 3% — and honestly, I don’t think it is practical to ban admins from behaving as admins in topic areas that they have made just three percent of their article and talk page edits in.
Unless there is something more to show than a small amount of activity, I don’t see an issue here.BilledMammal (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
BM. You have a well-deserved reputation for arguing in very close detail on policy to justify your edits. Here, you ignore reading the relevant policy, and make a statistical argument to mitigate a stringent application of that policy in order to appeal for latitude.(I'm referring to your argument that SelfStudier is a civil POV-pusher for using different criteria for similar RfCs) In ARBPIA editors are held to the highest standards of conduct. Red-tailed hawk took particular exception to a single innocuous phrase, 'barely qualified IP editors', (statistically verifiable and half of the accounts were dubious, sockish or compromised) in order to advocate 'enforcing a tight leash on civility issues'. in my regard. I mention that as my WP:COI here.
Precisely because editors are held to these uncompromisingly tight punitive standards, applied even to piddling minutiae like the above, they have a natural right to demand of their judges not only rigorous neutrality, but its appearance. Extending them a tolerant latitude policy-wise, while insisting that those they judge must adhere impeccably to stringent readings of conduct policy is a recipé for creating distrust. It's not a matter of percentages. One can refrain 97% of the time in a topic area and then, with a single decisive intervention on a crucial issue, become a determining voice. There's no room for ambiguity.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I have a very broad view of WP:INVOLVED - one that the community in the past has rejected as too broad - but even my definition doesn’t include an editor becoming permanently involved for a broad topic area due to a small number of edits within that topic area.
I don’t think such a definition is supported by policy or consensus, and thus unless there is reason for concern beyond having made some edits I don’t think that makes RTH involved for the entire topic area. BilledMammal (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Not to be a jerk about it, but I'm pretty sure that if anybody ran for RFA and answered Q1 with "I want to do arbitration enforcement as an uninvolved admin in a topic area I've been editing for the past 3 months," that wouldn't go over well. The 3% statistic is a red herring ("lies, damned lies, and statistics"). We're not talking about fixing typos and stuff; between my examples and Zero's examples, Hawk was clearly a regular participant in the topic area, and recently. You can't edit with people one day and judge them as an "uninvolved" admin the next day; you can't be involved in content disputes one day and decide conduct disputes the next. Levivich (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
This actually came up at my rfa, dealing with skeptic topics. I said I did not consider myself involved in the topic broadly, but would be involved with several of the editors. Some smart people voted for me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
In any case, this should be resolved by third parties. Since serious doubts do exist, personal assurances are immaterial. I would suggest that this form part of the deliberations at ARCA. Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this is more of an AN thing, to get the community's view. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I am certainly not going to entangle anyone in AN reports. I've never mentioned this before in 18 years, but it is somewhat frustrating to have admins cite my blocklog to confirm some suspicion of incivility, when any more than a cursory inspection would tell them that most of it consists of admins making quick, flawed judgments (User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry User:Jehochman, User:Snowolf, User:Samwalton9, User:Dennis Brown, all in good faith) that are almost immediately reverted or overturned (not to mention User:Swatjester's peculiar behaviour in refusing to unblock me for a sanction on violating3R that, it emerged, I did not commit). Those oversights stick like shit on my record. I'm not a whinger. Notwithstanding those things, I consistently express my understanding for the difficulties arbitrators face. But I expect some rigour of conscience to kick in (here recusal) when doubts do emerge. Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Why are you casting aspersions at me? I do not remember what you're talking about and am too busy in real life to dig it up. Please leave me out of your machinations, whatever they are. Jehochman Talk 01:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Come now, Jehochman. It is highly improper to read as 'casting aspersions' my note in defense of my bona fides and civility that, of necessity, had to refer to the historic record, in which you played a small part, in good faith. If you haven't the time to grasp the context I alluded to, then I'll do the legwork for you so you can recall it by a quick click on a few diffs.
  • A key diff used by Arbcom in May 2009 to prove my putative ‘ incivility’ and ‘personal attacks’ on editors was precisely
  • the one you cited for blocking me for a week on 1 April. That block was overturned when several editors noted you had completely misread it. Your response to my decision to leave Wikipedia in protest was ‘Meatball:goodbye’, since, despite what others argued you remained convinced that I must renounce incitement and drama mongering as editorial tactics, when your evidence for this was non-existent.
  • If you want the details see my explanation, after User:Red-tailed hawk (whose indulgence I beg for having to use his talk page to this end) once again cited it to prove my ‘incivility’ went back to this diff cited by Arbcom. I had to write all of this silly history up recently because of the case made against me by just one more compromised account. It’s too long to read but for the record it’s all here.
  • In every case, your diff misunderstanding included, either on my page or the admin’s page, I expressed both regards and understanding for the contretemps to the excellent arbs I referred to above. No resentment. Fuckups happen, and rancour is infantile.Nishidani (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at AN Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_involvement_of_Admin_in_ARBPIA_area ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft

I have wikified Draft:E. Michael Jones quite a bit. Do you think, it is ready for entering mainspace? Would appreciate any input. Biohistorian15 (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not think it is ready, for both the reasons I have listed above when replying to Liz, and also that nuking sections on certain published works altogether rather than completing them is exactly the opposite of what the drafting stage is for. There is no rush to get this published and, since this is a biography of a living person, we should take our time to get the article to a better state before moving it to mainspace. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 11:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I also don’t love the copying the structure/phrasing from <encyclopedia.pub>, which itself is copied from handwiki (and may be from a deleted version of this page). — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 12:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, if you're planning on having a section on basically each of his major books, I don't see how this would be workable. I think we/you should focus on a solid and accurate (yet interesting) summary in one or a few (sub-)section(s) of "Views" or "Work"...
If you look at other articles like this one (e.g. in my "See also" addition), they are absolutely impossible to maintain with so many moving parts. There is a cheap and easy case to be made (over and over again) that these wouldn't be notable enough/are "WP:PROFRINGE" in such detail. I think you might be making it harder for yourself than it has to be. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it would be impossible to maintain once it is initially written. One has to be careful to write the sections in line with the neutral point of view policy and the fringe theories guideline, but I do think that the drafting stage is exactly that sort of time.
I agree that there are sources that more or less point to The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit as a turning point in Jones's focus, but there achieving parity of sources regarding the book itself takes time. There is, of course, the (infamous) review from Gilbert, portions of the ADL profile/extremism glossary, and various other mentions. I suspect that there's enough here to get something written on them and expand the article before publication in mainspace. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I'll leave the draft up to you then. You might still want to restore my "See also", the infobox expansion etc. though. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
That's fair. A see also of some sort and restoring the number of kids to lead makes sense. My apologies for the mobile edit being so blunt. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Armenian–Azerbaijani cultural relations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Armenian–Azerbaijani cultural relations, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian–Azerbaijani cultural relations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That's an odd script error; the source page appears to be giving me size contributions for all of the revdel'd diffs. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

RM comments

Have you seen the RM comments I brought up at AN here? I'd like to hear what you think or thought of those with respect to whether or not you are involved in PIA. RAN1 (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm certainly WP:INVOLVED with respect to those requested move discussions. And, as I was a direct participant in the discussion about the page title, I would certainly not close any RMs on that page (or ones that are obviously related in substance, like Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war) going forward. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Both you and Levivich were involved in those RMs, which were about how the war should be named. Levivich's reports concerned conduct in the discussions about how articles should describe other aspects of the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Why should those disputes be treated separately? RAN1 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I am someone who, from time to time, edits about current events in the news. This is how I came to co-write Igor Mangushev, for example, among other items. As for Why should those disputes be treated separately, I am a bit confused here. I believe that my contributions have been fairly limited in time and scope within that conflict, and that I am WP:INVOLVED with respect to the content discussions in which I had participated. As for whether or not that extends to the entirety of the conflict broadly construed since prior to the First World War, no, I do not think so. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The RMs in which you and Levivich disagreed were about how sources named the parties to the war, and the report you closed and referred to ARCA was about conduct in disputes over how sources characterized the parties to the conflict. The parties to the war are largely the descendants of the parties to the conflict during the twentieth century. To me, that makes the disputes so closely related that they should be grouped together as the same topic. RAN1 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Seattle All City Marching Band

Information icon Hello, Red-tailed hawk. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Seattle All City Marching Band, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

ARCA and WP:INVOLVED

Hi RTH, now that the AN has closed, please update your filing at ARCA to remove yourself from the "uninvolved admin" list and disclose to arbcom that this listing was in error. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Quod scripsi, scripsi. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you fixing your incorrect statement is better than me asking arbcom to fix it and explaining that you refused when requested. Think about it. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I have written that I was a referring administrator. If you have issue with the current way of breaking people out, you are free to point this out to Theleekycauldron, who made the title that way. Perhaps "participants other than the referring administrators" would be better and closer to my original intent.
If by disclose to arbcom that this listing was in error you would like to argue that the ARCA filing was in error, you are free to do so, as you have done already. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Your error was acting as a referring administrator while wp:involved. That error was not made by TLC or anyone else. I'm asking you to take steps to correct that error, by removing yourself from the list of uninvolved admin, and disclosing to arbcom that you were wp:involved when you made this referral (and when you otherwise participated at AEs as an uninvolved admin). Levivich (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I see no issue noting the discussion at AN, which I have done. But I was certainly a referring administrator at the time, and I am correctly listed as such. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I made that change because Zero0000 is an admin :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
If Arbs cannot agree among themselves on a simple issue like conflict of interest among one of their number, that undermines our faith in their ability to make fair impartial judgments on issues of editing that are far more complex in their multiple aspects, dealing with the work of numerous peons who actually write articles. One can only secure respect if the rigour expected of peons here in their interactions is mirrored in an equally stringent demand by arbs that they live up to the rules, violation of which allows them to sanction the rest of us.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Sorry, I'm not following? Red-tailed hawk does not have a conflict of interest in the Wikipedia sense; neither he nor I are arbitrators; AE administrators don't have the final call on whether other AE administrators are involved, that is a job for ArbCom or AN; and I'm not aware of any administrative actions from Red-tailed hawk in the war topic area since AN designated him as involved. I'm not really sure how this is relevant to the topic at hand. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Change arbs to admins, one step down the hierarchy, and it becomes clearer. If admins don't give an example of a strict care for their own conduct, - their neutrality must be above suspicion -then the faith of the peons they rule is diminished. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red-tailed_hawk/Archive_10&oldid=1254813446"