User talk:Robertsky: Difference between revisions

Regarding your close of this, I was wondering if you were able to identify a consensus for any of the sub-options, in order to avoid wasting that extensive discussion and simplify subsequent discussions?

In particular, I'm seeing a consensus to continue using "Israel-Hamas war" (although no consensus on whether or how to disambiguate it) given the level of support and that the argument’s for that title are at least as strong as the argument’s against it,

35 editors only supported options of that form, and four supported it alongside other forms. In comparison, just 16 supported a form that didn’t include "Israel-Hamas war" and that included editors voting for titles that are impossible to find support in policy for, such as "Gaza genocide".

That gives us a support level of somewhere between 64% and 71% support; more than sufficient to establish a consensus, in my view, absent sufficiently strong arguments that I don’t think exist here. BilledMammal (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal looking into this again today. Will update when I have a response. – robertsky (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, no rush. BilledMammal (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take you up on the 'no rush' part. Resolving an issue on my NAS at the moment. >.< – robertsky (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you've managed to resolve you NAS issue! I was wondering if you have had a chance to look at this yet? BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstalled TrusNAS OS (it was bonked during an update), and now waiting for a PCI to host 2 additional NVMe disks for TrueCharts.

Rewriting my initial closing statement at the moment, and possibly may also close the whole discussion. – robertsky (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progress, at least!

And thank you BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robertsky, can you review please my created article Hemant Meena?. 😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 14:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviram7 Looks like it has been reviewed. With the current backlog drive ongoing, many of the pending articles are been worked on at a faster rate. – robertsky (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late, but I just realized something: congrats on the first unanimous RfA since December 2022! ^Queenof_Hearts 22:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen of Hearts Thank you~ It's not too late. :) – robertsky (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello --Rofhiwa Marvin Marubini (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rofhiwa Marvin Marubini Hi? – robertsky (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a chart? --Strawberryweisscream (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Strawberryweisscream what kind of chart do you want to create? Do note that our go to {{Graph:Chart}} is currently disabled due to technical issues. – robertsky (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robertsky, congratulations on your courage in closing the discussion on Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war. I admit I find your change of mind surprising. As I see it, there was an evident lack of editors' consensus – no name variant has secured the support of even a simple majority of participating editors, not even mentioning consensus. That's why a new discussion was started below where options were revisited and are being further worked on. There was no need to formally close the preceding section – its lack of consensus necessitated the creation of new discussion.

So, you got it right at start IMO! I don't know why you then got swayed by an editor who, on top of everything, has been actively pushing the Israeli narrative in that discussion (i.e., one that Israel only attacks militant groups in Gaza) – a narrative not supported by the majority of participating editors (as I counted, option B received only around 35% of !votes).

I wonder whether you'd be willing to reconsider and either reopen the section or leave as you saw it originally, as no consensus which then required further discussion. Cheers, — kashmīrī ^TALK 05:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri, my re-close was after relooking at the discussion again, not just looking at his statements here on my talk page. No doubt BilledMammal has an agenda, so do everyone else. I don't have my notes at the moment as they are on another computer, and this is coming from my recollection. When I relooked at the discussion, I first grouped those who supported to remain at I-H v. I-G regardless of the placement of the year as the discussion was mainly between these two. The supporting argument was between common name and npov, of which I found common name a more substantiative argument, which is what I-H was supported on. Looking at the discussion it was ~3:2 in favour of I-H, regardless of variations. Now considering the variations among I-H, there was no consensus as to call this war "I-H war" as the common name, and it was roughly 2:3 I-H vs I-H with year placement. There are also some without a preference between either with or without the year placement.

The current discussion can continue regardless of my re-close, it has gone on for too long to halt it now. – robertsky (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that the close be undone altogether and leave it for another to close instead, if that's OK with you. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will leave the close as it is. – robertsky (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R u sure? After all, you apparently got it completely wrong the first time and then responded to prodding from an editor with an obvious interest in the outcome, I really would prefer a different closer tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One told me that I was right at the first time, and another told me that I was wrong. Which is which? I can't please everyone. Regardless who prodded me, if it was you, kashmiri or BilledMammal as well, I would have reclosed the same way upon reevaluation, one which I took way more time and care than I usually do. – robertsky (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to press the matter any further and I have also refrained from saying which close is "right". This is a contentious subject and the amount of time spent on a reevaluation should have been spent on the first close, should it not? Please do not close discussions in the topic area without proper consideration, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback and will take it into consideration for my future closes. – robertsky (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re the discussion continuing, , I trust you mean it will continue on the basis of your closing, which found "...there is a consensus to use 'Israel–Hamas war' as the base title. This includes variations such as 'Israel–Hamas war', '2023 Israel–Hamas war', 'Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)', etc. What isn't clear is whether to put the year(s) (as a prefix or in parenthesis) and in what form. If discussions go back to square one because one "side" or another objects, they will go on endlessly. A s you may have noticed, that is the tendency in I/P articles. Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the sock-strikes aren't correct. This is after just looking through the ip's accused of being socks. Can you explain in details? 88.239.12.37 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic starter, User:Wiki.arfazhxss and the IP address were CU blocked after an investigation. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arfaz_Hossain/Archive#10_December_2023. While CU results aren't supposed to tie IP address to accounts, the blockng admin may take into account other evidences, such as behavioural evidence to to block IP addresses as sock. Since the blocking admin as indicated in the block log is a SPI clerk, I defer to their judgement. Even though the IP address has since been automatically unblocked, as far as I am concerned, the comments made before the investigations are considered as made by a sock. Do query the blocking admin if you think that the IP was not used by a sock master. – robertsky (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the blocking admin to be Vanjagenije who blocked the IP 64.229.49.146. The ground for the block was that it was a suspected sock of the user Arfaz Hossain after a report by A.Musketeer (See [1]). Are you referring to this block, or the block of IP 45.248.151.129? Or 119.30.41.219? Because apparantly all of them are suspected socks and blocked currently, and all of them have reverted edits and sockstrikes. 88.239.12.37 (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije your advice on this? – robertsky (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also want to add that Vanjagenije blocked 64.229.49.146 after user A.Musketeer pinged Vanjagenije on 9th January after the IP started contributing to the talk page of Bangladesh Genocide (See [2]). The IP was first blocked on being a suspected sockpuppeteer of the user Wiki.arfazhxss based on a report filed by (again) A.Musketeer who have been the only one editing the page Bangladesh genocide. 88.239.17.21 (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Wiki.arfazhxss is currently blocked for filing an SP under another username Auvankar. The IP 64.229.49.146 is a suspected sock of the user, but CheckUser confirmed they were not socks (see [1]). The rest of the sockstriked IP's were clearly not the same user, based on their contributions. 88.239.12.37 (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the block log of the IP has additional entries on 9 Jan since I last cleaned up the talk page on 8 Jan, which logs affirmed that the IP address was at least used for block evasion by the sock master. – robertsky (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I am saying- they are suspected socks who were blocked only on grounds of reverting edits and also for contributing to the talk pages of Bangladesh Genocide and Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War- not for Sock-puppetry as it's been 'sock-striked'. The IP of 64.229.49.146 that have been blocked since the user Wiki.arfazhxss was blocked on 15th December was made on grounds of Block Evasion and Suspected Sock-puppetry but it was not a CheckUser block (I see [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector] who blocked Arfaz Hossain for their legitimate sock-puppetry and reverting edits but not 64.229.49.146, nor 45.248.151.129 or 119.30.41.219) but I can see their contributions to the talk pages have been sock-striked- all on suspected sock-puppetry.

IP 45.248.151.129 was blocked for suspected block-evasion by IP 119.30.41.219), and 64.229.49.146 for suspected block-evasion by Arfaz Hossain. The least you can do is strike them as Block Evasion Strike. 88.239.17.21 (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP user, first of all, "block-evasion" and "sockpuppetry" are not different things. "Block evasion" is a sub-type of sockpuppetry, when sockpuppet accounts (or IPs) are being used by a person to evade the blocked placed on that person. So, every block evasion is sockpuppetry per se. Second, you are not correct when you say that CheckUser confirmed they were not socks. Checkuers never confirmed anything. Ivanvector wrote No comment on the IP address (see [4]). That is the only thing Ivanvector could say because Checkuser is not allowed to reveal IP socking due to privacy. IP sockpuppetry can only be dealt with by examining behavior, Checkuser tool is not allowed to be used. After examining the behavior of IP user, I concluded that it is probably the same person that operates Arfaz Hossain account, and I blocked then for block evasion/sockpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By behaviour, did you mean they were both working on the same POV? Because that's the only behavioural similarities I could find after hours of reading through the discussions in Talk:Bangladesh Genocide. You could argue similarities in the activities of IP 45.248.151.129 and IP 119.30.41.219 since both reverted edits, but I don't think you can for the case between 64.229.49.146 and Wiki.arfazhxss. Have you read through the unblock request of Wiki.arfazhxss? Or at least checked the timeline of the edits made by the suspected sock-puppeteer (Arfaz) and the [[User:64.229.49.146|64.229.49.146]? I noticed they have edits between 49 seconds in range- how can two socks contribute at around the same time from two different time-zones? (I am assuming so since CU didn't show them to have similar/narrow IPs).

I disagree with your "CU never confirmed anything"-assessment because it seems very clear to me that if 64.229.49.146 and Wiki.arfazhxss were in fact the same socks, they would at-least have near-range IPs or similarities in their wordings, writings and activities (they clearly don't).

So, can you please elaborate on this-

After examining the behavior of IP user, I concluded that it is probably the same person that operates Arfaz Hossain account, and I blocked then for block evasion/sockpuppetry

88.239.17.21 (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot elaborate, because that would mean repeating what I already wrote. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you extended protection for TV9 (Malaysian TV network) as it is still vandalized by anonymous IP user who keeps making unsconstructive and disruptive edits, especially changing year of establishment. You can see the revision history of the article, which I have seen vandalism by the IP user. I suspect that these are the Indonesian IP user, not a Malaysian IP user. Thank you in advance. 180.73.176.125 (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]