Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:55, 17 August 2024

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

bunny

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43

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

Regarding an odd behavior

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish. I hope you can suggest what I should do in this situation: some time ago a user made removals in this infobox which we had a dispute about on talk . After several comments back and forth, I partially agreed with the user and made my last comment on 16th July . I waited for a week with no response, so I've implemented the changes I had proposed . Here's the odd part; after my edit comes a new user hours later, who never participated in the discussion or contested my comment during that week, and fully reverts me and makes a comment on talk .

For the record, I wasn't aware of RFCs from 4 years ago, but even if we go by this user's logic, how come they are restoring something that had RFC consensus from 4 years ago (the "alleged" part), but then removing something that ALSO had RFC consensus (the mercenaries)? How odd and selective is this? I wanted to comment on talk but I couldn't gather my thoughts to comment something in good faith because of this selective behavior - what am I supposed to do? The user comes out of nowhere, reverts, then links two 4yr old RFCs as if it's be-all and end-all of everything, then goes and restores one thing per RFC consensus but removes the other? Even if we go by their logic, which I think is flawed since consensus does change and I already had a discussion with the initial user for weeks that they had not participated in, the selective editing doesn't make sense to me. Vanezi (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We had 2 RFCs on the content of the infobox that decided that Turkey can only be listed as "alleged by Armenia". I mentioned that on talk, and provided the links. Vanezi removed "alleged by Armenia", which is against the community consensus formed by 2 RFCs. That was the reason why I reverted his edit. As for Syrian mercenaries, I have no problem with them being mentioned in the infobox, and I mentioned at talk that we had a consensus on mentioning them too. They are mentioned under the "Units involved", but I have no problem with them being mentioned under the belligerents either. So I'm Ok with Vanezi restoring that part. And to change a wide community consensus, we need another RFC, as the closing comment at the last RFC was "Future reporting and investigations may change this, and a new RfC may be appropriate at that time, but there does not appear to be consensus at this time among editors that Turkey qualifies a belligerent". Grandmaster 08:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

With respect, I asked a question to ScottishFinnishRadish, not you. And you didn't comment in the talk discussion I had with the other user for weeks, you only reverted and commented after my "per talk" edit - but your comment here gives the implication that I had removed the "alleged" part after you provided the 4yr old rfc link, which is false.

And by your logic, you linked about the mercenaries rfc too but that part you instead choose to remove, only keeping the "alleged" for Turkey - you could've made a partial revert like I did here, but you didn't. Anyway, again, I didn't ask you a question, with respect, so please let the admin answer. Vanezi (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I commented after I saw you removing "alleged by Armenia" part from the infobox. RFC results are binding, and cannot be removed without another RFC, as was mentioned by the closer. And RFC being from 4 years ago does not make it invalid. Maybe I should have made a partial rv, my apologies. I did not notice that before your edit another user removed mercenaries from the "Belligerents", but kept them under the "Units involved". As I mentioned at talk, there was a consensus on mentioning the mercenaries too, and I have no problems with you restoring that part. I believe this resolves the issue. Grandmaster 08:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Vanezi Astghik, does this address your concerns? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to add, if I had actually wanted to remove the mercenaries, I would not have stated at the talk that there was a consensus on mentioning them too. It makes no sense. Grandmaster 13:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Not quite; if a now outdated RFC consensus from 4 years ago can only be changed by another RFC (which I legitimately don't know if it's true or not by our rules), then why is other RFC consensus material being removed yet again against said RFC consensus? This despite the RFC link for mercenaries being provided on the talk page. Vanezi (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The 2 RFCs are from 3 years ago (not 4), and they are not outdated until superseded by another RFC. The closer stated that another RFC is needed to form a new consensus in the future. And the RFC outcome must be respected, or a new RFC should be started with regard to a particular or all belligerents. Grandmaster 09:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yet again, I didn't ask a question to you (and 3 or 4yr isn't too much of a difference btw, it's still outdated imo), I'm literally replying and asking a question to ScottishFinnishRadish. How many times we have to go through this? Do I have to mention verbatim: "my question is to ScottishFinnishRadish"? Vanezi (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I just want to know if same RFC logic applies to this edit too, which goes against its RFC's strong consensus . Vanezi (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely sure if 3yr old RFCs trump all and you can only change their verdict by another RFC, but if this logic is going to be used for "alleged" to be kept, it's only fair for it to be used for the other RFC too. Which is why I restored the mercenaries and commented this on talk, just letting you know. Vanezi (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Perhaps you have missed my question above: I would appreciate your advice. Thanks. Grandmaster 09:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As long as it is every participant and the notification is neutral, that should be fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. I pinged 2 RFC participants. Vanezi and I are already involved, and another user has since been topic banned. And I hope I worded the question in a neutral fashion. Grandmaster 16:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The RFC participant responded and commented something similar to me , are we good now? Also this kind of behavior post RFC awfully looks like forum shopping:

WP:FORUMSHOP: Forum shopping, admin shopping. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want.

My question to ScottishFinnishRadish: since Grandmaster is so eager to bring up 3 yr old outdated RFCs for another article, shouldn't we respect the consensus of this most recent RFC (and even post RFC comments) and not waste other editors' time? They opened the RFC and now they are not happy with the conclusion, which, in fact, was voted in their favor. Vanezi (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever other users say. If there is no consensus for mentioning the villages, then the question is settled. I'm only trying to resolve the disputes by consensus and in accordance with Misplaced Pages rules, and seeking third party opinions is in line with the rules. I never raised the same issue on multiple forums. And it would be good to mind WP:AGF and stop making personal comments about other users. Seeking an advice on dispute resolution is not forum shopping. Grandmaster 07:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

broadly construed, again

may I have a clarification of precisely what "broadly construed" means, as I am unfamiliar of what the boundaries are and I do not want to run afoul of them.

how and where am I prohibited from discussing the episode? the article and its Talk, obviously, but everywhere? am I prohibited from kindly responding to editors who now suggest I am a conspiracy theorist because of the episode?

I continue to not contest the sanction and want to remain in full compliance with it, and I do not suggest lifting it.

just as a parenthetical aside, I remain unclear whether I was sanctioned for my activity on the article and its Talk, or for my activity on the ensuing ANI discussion that was opened by an editor who characterized me as a "far-left conspiracy theorist," inviting others to examine my Talk page for proof that does not actually exist in the remotest sense, thus eliciting others to pile on with a semblance of a kangaroo court, leaving me no option but to defend myself, so perhaps I was perceived to be bludgeoning, disruptive and violating NPOV in that context. as another admin advised during the Talk discussion: don't take the trollbait (smh, will I ever learn?). or, did my good faith dissent on article/Talk, admittedly committing Misplaced Pages heresy against reliable sources the day before I was sanctioned, constitute bludgeoning, disruption and violating NPOV? that's actually just a parenthetical, rhetorical question, I have no further interest in the article, I want to be rid of the whole thing. I had not encountered you before, though I had observed and respected your judgment. as some with sharp reading and critical reasoning skills observed during the ANI discussion: I was not pushing conspiracy theories. good faith dissent. just sayin' is all. soibangla (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, generally speaking discussion the episode is covered by the topic ban as the episode is specifically about the assassination attempt. I think your best bet is to just sigh, shrug, and let it lie for now. The reason for the topic ban was your behavior both during discussions about the assassination attempt and the ANI thread. I wasn't terribly impressed with your behavior around the assassination, and I saw that you weren't going to |stop digging]] and figured the best for everyone was to just to end it there. This saved everyone at ANI hours of piling on and saved you talking yourself into a severe sanction.

I really think you should reflect on the behavior that led to the ANI report, your behavior at ANI, and your current behavior and determine if you should just let it be water under the bridge. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 England riots

As you previously protected 2024 Southport riot, I thought I'd ask for a review of further protection. CNC (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Please bring this to RFPP. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Already done, thanks. CNC (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:BlackOrchidd

Hi, I wonder if you'd noticed this edit that they made after you'd pblocked them from the Assassination of Ismail_Haniyeh article. Given that they're already tbanned from ARBIPA articles and are now causing issues in ARBPIA, my temptation is to say "enough". Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm definitely INVOLVED here, but in my experience they've just been unwilling to learn to follow the PAGs, and the ARBIPA TBAN didn't do anything to change that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Black Kite, no objections from me for a tban. Looking at their history I feel like we're on track for an indef soon anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed restriction amendment request archived

An amendment request to which you were listed as a party was archived with rough consensus among participating arbitrators that the "edit request" exception to the extended confirmed restriction does not include requested moves. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.9t5 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

appealing

hello i'm appealing your enforcement action https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Astropulse (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you missed one

When you revdelled the BLP vandal's edits at ZillaKami, I think you missed this version while accidentally deleting some of Binksternet's adjacent revisions. Left guide (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's hard to select a bunch of revs using a phone. I appreciate the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, thanks for helping clean up that article. Left guide (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?

Not sure how regularly you watch ANI, but there's this discussion which started out as a normal edit-warring report, but is actually ARBPIA-related. The user was first alerted back in 2015, and now appears to be trying to defend themselves with questionable interpretations of ARBPIA rules. I don't think the regular ANI crowd alone is easily able to handle the situation since it's an Arbitration matter by this point, so was wondering if you or the folks watching this page might be able to help out there. Left guide (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion

FYI, based on their edits to SosMula and their IP address, it seems clear that 2001:56a:dfe3:50bf:0:1a:9e53:b501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same editor as 2001:56a:f471:5500:252d:abf4:e374:4638 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whom you blocked earlier today and whose block is still active. CodeTalker (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A quick question on RfC procedures

Hello SFR. I know in the past you have closed a few RfC's including the Killing of Jordan Neely one, so I thought you may be able to offer advice (and I will admit ahead of time, I am probably overthinking this one).

With something like the above discussion, I remember it was reopened a short time after to oppose the close. WP:RFCBEFORE says that editors should attempt to resolve their issues on the talk page/noticeboards, but it seems to suggest it is optional. WP:RFCOPEN further down states Make sure that all relevant suggestions have been tried. suggesting it is not in fact optional but required. I know in general, discussions should be had to avoid RfCs, but are they required to be ongoing/current to avoid a procedural close for no RFCBEFORE?

Thank you in advance for whatever you reply. Awshort (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is not required, but it really should be done. There are some times when it is obvious there won't be consensus among the involved parties when it makes sense to go straight to an RFC when there is no need to workshop the options. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I actually have a similar question due to this comment on my talk page One can see that we had a substantial discussion at talk of the article before I started the RFC. My understanding is that RFC is one of the recommended DR steps per WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, when the parties fail to reach a consensus. Grandmaster 08:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's correct. I normally go for an RFC once I realize further discussion is unlikely to determine consensus. There's no need to talk something to death before discussing it again in a more structured format. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. Thanks for the clarification. Grandmaster 18:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this opinion; if editors jump or prematurely open RFCs, they risk wasting valuable editor time and prevent genuine discussion since RFCs by nature are more about quick positions and votes rather than back and forth. That's probably why we have WP:RFCBEFORE. And in highly controversial topics such as AA, there is a possible risk of canvassing (which defeats the RFC purpose entirely), and not many users from broader outside topics are eager to even participate in AA RFCs, from my experience. Vanezi (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

August music

story · music · places

Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

... and a third, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about education, 10 years OTD after lecturing our founder). Music for today's feast is Monteverdi's, the best concert we ever did (so pictured again on my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

I hope that this isn't a stupid question. Exactly what did you do, either as an administrator or as an editor, that caused 9t5 to self-destruct in a fit of anger against you? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't use my administrator tools at all, so just as an editor. As far as I can tell, it was a combination of asking them to change their signature and nominating an article for deletion. Based on their history I believe there may be some COI involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, asking them to change their signature can be seen as an administrator prerogative, whether or not it really is one. Nominating an article for deletion is a privilege of registering an account. And they self-destructed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I think I found it. Was it the Mateer article? I don't know what your reason is for suspecting COI, but I have my reason, which might or might not be the same as yours. There has been name gaming, the unnecessary use of different disambiguators for the same person, using his middle name, and calling him a musician, and calling him a filmmaker. That is done to avoid the history of previous deletions. It is almost always done on purpose, and is done either by COI editors, or by ultras, a fanatical fan club. This isn't a case of a fan club, so it was paid editing. Maybe you already knew that. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on their editing I don't think it's paid editing. At this point I don't think we're doing anyone any favors by discussing it further, though. They're clearly upset, so discussing them in a place where they can't take part isn't going to lower the temperature. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk page

L'utente civetta goffa merita di more you might want to adjust tp settings? Or let them scream into the void for a while. Either way... Knitsey (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

With situations like this sometimes it's best to let them spend their time disrupting their talk page rather than create another sock and disrupt an article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Good thinking. The void it is then. Knitsey (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It was getting a bit excessive so I pulled tpa. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Rage against the (wiki) machine. Knitsey (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

1RR filing

Hello. I am filing a 1RR report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring on Baratiiman (talk · contribs) who has been warned on their talk page before by another user but has continued to do so at Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in at least 2 subsequent occasions in a case of WP:IDNHT. Can I use this report: or do I need to generate my own warning? For reference, these are the total diffs I am referring to:

Borgenland (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland occasional talk page stalker here - both you and RTH have given him more than enough warning, and his responses indicate a clear "I can't hear you" attitude. I'd say you're more than good to go on a report. The Kip 05:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

I wasn't sure anyone would even see that. Is there some protection in place on the noticeboard, or some new policy to minimize humiliation? I see other things being posted to the talk page recently. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been intermittently protected due to an LTA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible multiple 3RR

Hello! Do you mind taking a check at Non-cooperation movement (2024)? There appears to be an ongoing edit war and some editors may have intentionally or otherwise violated 3RR within the day. Also appreciate suggestions on how to protect the page if necessary. Borgenland (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There's been >100 edits in the past 24 hours, can you give me some diffs of the edit warring? It would save me a lot of time. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Some of them may be partial rvs: but I'll give a sample:

Borgenland (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Disclaimer: The user responsible for the edits is the subject of a complaint on the article's talk page. Borgenland (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI

Just a courtesy ping that you were mentioned (in a nice way) here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

YGM

The Kip 20:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

IP block

Spotted that you blocked the talk page editing ability of 104.175.14.159, but the block message says they can use the template for requesting unblock - surely that ain't right? Might be a tool issue so I thought I'd mention it. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's a revert and block tool, I think by WritKeeper. I think in the situations it's used it doesn't overly matter what the block message is. I'll check my scripts, though, and let them know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It's User:Enterprisey/revert-and-block.js, and it's no longer maintained so probably won't get fixed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi, I do not typically look on my talk page so I have only just noticed your numerous messages regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict and topic bans involving myself. Is there a way to get this overturned as I would like to be involved in the discussions taking place and editing statistics on the article etc. Regards Ecpiandy (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You responded after the topic ban and first block here, so I find it unlikely that you only just noticed. The instructions to appeal the topic ban are in the topic ban notice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

AN mention notice

Hi, just letting you know I mentioned you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#List of Israeli Massacres in Gaza 2023-2024 just because you were the one who EC protected the list under discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Hi, an article was nominated for deletion by someone who has a topic ban which should apply to the article, what are we supposed to do in those cases? The article is Unstoppable: Conversation with Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks, and Ossie Davis and the ban was posted by you and is about American politics after 1992 broadly construed. This is a film which is a discussion by three political activists. Thank you. AppleInYourEye (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC statement dispute

After the last time, I want to immediately defer this to an uninvolved admin.

At Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Al Jazeera there is a dispute about the statement. It initially read "a discussion of prior discussions where an RfC was recommended" based on the editor who closed those prior discussions saying "I strongly urge editors to convert the next RSN discussion on Al Jazeera's general reliability into a formal request for comment".

Selfstudier changed that to "a discussion of prior discussions where it was said The current noticeboard discussion appears to be evolving into a full RfC. When this happens, I urge the RfC starter to ask responding editors to evaluate the aspects of Al Jazeera that I mentioned in the #Discussion review (Al Jazeera) section, and to list the RfC as a centralized discussion", which I reverted, explaining the above.

They then restored their preferred version, saying "Undoing misrepresentation (note this RFC is unsigned)". Note that TarnishedPath has repeatedly stated that I opened the RFC, so any content in the statement is attributed to me.

Courtesy ping to Selfstudier. BilledMammal (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I am including a pertinent quote from Newslinger as to what the RFC should cover and saying that it should be listed at CENT (which hasn't been done either). It's an unsigned RFC, BM has no ownership of it and I or anyone else can amend it as necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

What's the reason for your strong objection to the change? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It suggests that the previous discussion (the BEFORERFC) prompted the recommendation, when in fact the recommendation pre-dated that. BilledMammal (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Does that matter enough to care? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that editors are saying that by opening the BEFORERFC and RFC I am being disruptive, yes. BilledMammal (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how it matters either way. I don't think your original statement was misrepresentation, and I don't think the changed text is an issue either. It barely matters, and it seems like a poor use of time and effort to argue about it. Is it listed at cent yet? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It is now - I had forgotten that aspect until Selfstudier mentioned it, and as I’m currently on a phone I had been hoping they or some other participating editor would add it.

It changes whether the RFC was necessary generally, or only because of the BECORERFC. Perhaps that distinction is smaller than I see it, but either way I don’t think it was appropriate for Selfstudier to repeatedly revert with no more explanation than "undoing misrepresentation" BilledMammal (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that if you believe it's that severe of an issue you add it too your evidence tally for the upcoming arb case, and let it go for now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Referral from the Artibration Enforcement noticeboard regarding behavior in Palestine-Israel articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)