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 8 Archive 9 Archive 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red-tailed_hawk/Archive_10&oldid=1244564025"