User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 29
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:ScottishFinnishRadish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
ECR query
Greeting SFR; some queries for you (since you seem to be the ECR guy). Is there a list of topics subject to ECR? If an article has ECP it is subject to ECR? Bon courage (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's just WP:ARBPIA and WP:GS/RUSUKR. The Russia/Ukraine restriction isn't as hardcore as the ARBPIA one, since that allows constructive comments on talk pages, and ARBECR only allows edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Antisemitism in Poland might be covered too? WP:ARBECR should really link to a list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it should! Bon courage (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- For community sanctions, there's also WP:GS/AA and WP:GS/KURD. Both are less restrictive than ARBECR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I thought GS has been retired? Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think DS was retired in favor of CTOP. GS is alive and well and confusing editors and admins everywhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, was it just COVID GS become COVID DS (became CTOP) that I'm remembering? Anyway, I'm sure everything's ready for the US elections ;-) Bon courage (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think DS was retired in favor of CTOP. GS is alive and well and confusing editors and admins everywhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I thought GS has been retired? Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Good call
Thanks for this. I had just finished writing up my post to AN/I given that I was inclined to see myself as involved, but this solves it without the added drama. Thanks. - Bilby (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- No problem. Just trying to do what I can. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Technical question abt templates
Hi SFR,
What’s the template that admins subst to inform people of topic bans? I noticed a minor error in wording and want to make a template-protected-error-request on its talk page to earn brownie points toward eventually becoming a template editor.
Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is {{AE sanction/topicban}} what you're asking about? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
He is the author of Screams Without Words. Should his article be subject to Arbcom I/P restrictions? Also I think this kind of edit summary is suboptimal, as is the edit. BLP I think requires that a more balanced portrayal of the Gettleman article be included, especially that the Times stands by that story, criticism notwithstanding, but I'm assuming 1RR applies. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've left a clarification and a warning and protected the page for a year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll put a suitable template on the talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Ducks a quacking
Hi there. You were the blocking admin for this guy, Special:Contributions/Snugglewasp, a Bareham Oliver sock. Although blocked for other reasons, I'd lay money on Troll name 1 and Troll name 2 being the same guy (would be happy to show my working in email on that one). And now we have a succession of Virgin media accounts asserting the same kinds of edits. The latest being this one Special:Contributions/82.18.162.80. I can't open an SPI against an IP, but note that they have just tried to remove text from the Lucy Letby article that Bareham Oliver socks heavily edit warred over before, and when I reverted, they just reverted me back (per usual MO) and talking about Richard Gill (against whom they have a vendetta). Any chance you could take a look please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Taken care of. I think I got it all cleaned up, too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Have a good weekend. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Gaming ECR
Contributions? Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Selfstudier, definitely, but I'm too busy right now to pull the perm and write up a message. Please bring it to AN or another admin, or I'll take care of it in a few hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- No rush, just so you are aware. Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just got a chance to look back at this and saw they were indeffed by Widr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- No rush, just so you are aware. Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Whadjuk on a "Society, sports, and culture" 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Vishuddhananda Paramahansa
Thoughts on whether to PROD or RPP Vishuddhananda Paramahansa? One of the two needs to occur, and I can't decide which action to follow through on. Zinnober9 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Was already prodded, would need AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This user says that my comments on my RfC are bludgeoning, are they?
Per this edit. I do not believe this to be the case, as my comments are on topic, only engaging with this user and remain in an acceptable quantity (IMO). As both bludgeoning and falsely accusing someone of bludgeoning are not appropriate, I would greatly appreciate your assessment. FortunateSons (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- No that is not bludgeoning in the slightest seems tbh he’s just at this point gas lighting •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Monarchy of Canada
Howdy. FWIW, I think you might've meant "United Kingdom", rather than "Great Britain" in your RFC close. We can't leave out Northern Ireland. Also, clarity concerning the infobox status, might be required. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed, not sure how I made that mistake. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- No prob. There's a lot of folks out there in the real world, who use "England" instead of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Note, I've re-implemented the RFC result. But, I do think you might want to keep an eye on the situation. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Would you please step in & clarify your RFC closure? There's a dispute over what your decision means. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Another editor (via bold edits) appears to be going against the RFC you closed. We may need you to step in, again. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Should Watermelon (Palestinian symbol) be subject to ECR?
I'm pretty sure this fits under the broadly construed piece of WP:ARBPIA and it isn't ECP at this moment. Just wanted to flag this for you here. Thanks! ~~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Slotkin
Hi ScottishFinnishRadish: There's been quite a bit of flare ups around this article again after some meatpuppetry organized on Twitter and you've been helpful in untangling things and keeping civil in the past. Wondering if you would mind taking a look at both the article talk thread (originally the result of meatpuppetry, subsequently ECP which was helpful, so now just OrcaLord and I mostly) and the appeal of the enforcement. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
"That's a lie"
Is it absolutely necessary for editors to use edit summaries to accuse other editors of lying?[1] referring to [2] Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wasnt accusing you of lying, I was saying the claims of beheaded babies were a lie. But is it appropriate to put "allegations" for something that has been conclusively proven to have been a lie? If we're going to come running to SFR's talk page every issue we have, maybe he could remark on the POV editing of claiming a proven lie is an "allegation". nableezy - 15:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- You said "no that isnt neutral, that is a lie." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it is not neutral to call a lie an allegation. The second that, along with the these after that, is in reference to the material, the first that is in reference to your prior edit summary in which you claimed calling a lie an allegation is neutral. nableezy - 15:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well the "allegation" wording in question has been there since early January, such that one can argue it was consensus wording, and was changed today (by another editor). So it is not as if I dreamed up that word and stuck it in. I was reverting back to the long-used wording. As for "lie," maybe you can utilize less overheated language in your edit summaries and not accuse other editors of either lying or promoting lies. Either is unecessarily combative. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- You claimed it was more neutral to call what has been proven to be false, repeatedly, an "allegation". I said that it is not more neutral to call lies allegations. I did not accuse you of lying or even of promoting lies, but rather of non-neutrally representing what are lies. It also isnt ok to come to an an admins talk page to complain about somebody without notifying them, but whatever on that. nableezy - 15:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I'm curious what you define allegation as. By most definitions it is an unproven claim, even it has been proven false it was/is an allegation. I have no care on this particular battle how ever you both are saying the same thing in the article and an allegation does not mean it has actually happened only that someone accused them of it. No one is required to notify anyone of a discussion on another talk page, this isn't a noticeboard. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is correct. Even assuming arguendo that these claims are all "lies," then they are still allegations and saying in Wikipedia's voice that they are "unsubstantiated" is conclusory and non-neutral in my opinion. Further, I would suggest that it is an overstatement to say that these allegations have been "conclusively proven to be lies," but that is a separate matter as is the wording of that section. My concern here is that we should not be adding to the white-hot atmosphere of this subject area by throwing around words like "lies" in edit summaries. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- That they were unsubstantiated is well sourced, and that they are proven false is also well sourced. An allegation is something whose validity is still in the air. I dont see sources reporting on disproven allegations and not including that they were disproven. Regardless, that is something for the talk page, and here I was accused of calling an editor a liar where I did no such thing, Maybe running to an admin who has already sanctioned me out of the blue to complain about something I did without informing me is adding to the white-hot atmosphere of this subject area? nableezy - 16:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- (tpw) I can see how Figureofnine might take offense at that edit summary and feel that the accusation lying was directed at them. Nableezy, this is similar to the kind of thing I was talking about in my advice last October; it's not sanctionable misconduct, but it does nothing to improve the heat:light ratio or build trust between editors. I know this is an emotive subject, but as one of the most experienced Wikipedians in the topic area, I'd really appreciate it if you would try to build bridges and serve as a role model for the new editors a topic like this inevitably attracts. Figureofnine, please consider discussing issues with editors on their talk page before escalating to an admin's talk page for exactly the same reasons relating to heat:light ration and building trust. Let's all try to see each other as colleagues rather than opponents. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough, but I feel I need to repeat that it was not directed at them, it was about the material in that section. I think Ive learned my lesson not to direct any edit summary to any user already. nableezy - 18:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I believe you. I have absolutely no reason to think you intended that to be a personal attack but you could have been more careful to avoid the perception. That's not me saying you've done something wrong, just that people sometimes read things into what we write that we didn't intend (top tip: sometimes more verbose edit summaries can be helpful; if you'd written "the allegations were proven false" there would have been no room for confusion). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) I agree with your comment re discussing matters with other editors, up to a point. On 13 March I posted here about an inopportune edit summary, and I did first approach the editor in question. I received no response and came here. I think, judging from the colloquy in this section, that in this case doing so would have heated up the situation. So I agree that editors should consider doing so if in their judgment it will help and not hurt. Coretheapple (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding "if in their judgment it will help and not hurt", in practice, in contentious topic areas, I'm not sure the chance that an editors' judgement will accurately predict another editor's reaction is much better than random. That's what I've observed anyway. The way many of us think about other editors and react to information, seems to be quite error-prone, rich in false premises, assumptions, inference errors etc., which makes it very difficult to predict how someone will react to something they may perceive as a criticism rather than a good faith, possibly misguided attempt to nudge them in a more productive direction. Maybe it would help if people used an 'assume nothing' approach. Anyway, even if communication fails, nobody died. The quirkiness of editors is one of the things that makes Wikipedia interesting. For example, if someone came to my talk page and used the word "colloquy" I would be furious... Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's no question that my attempt to commence a colloquy on the talk page of the editor on 13 March may well have resulted in a colloquy of a heated nature. It is true that I didn't know whether such a colloquy would take place, and you are correct that attempting to predict the temperature of a colloquy is often mistaken in contentious subject areas. Such is the nature of colloquies. Coretheapple (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding "if in their judgment it will help and not hurt", in practice, in contentious topic areas, I'm not sure the chance that an editors' judgement will accurately predict another editor's reaction is much better than random. That's what I've observed anyway. The way many of us think about other editors and react to information, seems to be quite error-prone, rich in false premises, assumptions, inference errors etc., which makes it very difficult to predict how someone will react to something they may perceive as a criticism rather than a good faith, possibly misguided attempt to nudge them in a more productive direction. Maybe it would help if people used an 'assume nothing' approach. Anyway, even if communication fails, nobody died. The quirkiness of editors is one of the things that makes Wikipedia interesting. For example, if someone came to my talk page and used the word "colloquy" I would be furious... Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) I agree with your comment re discussing matters with other editors, up to a point. On 13 March I posted here about an inopportune edit summary, and I did first approach the editor in question. I received no response and came here. I think, judging from the colloquy in this section, that in this case doing so would have heated up the situation. So I agree that editors should consider doing so if in their judgment it will help and not hurt. Coretheapple (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I believe you. I have absolutely no reason to think you intended that to be a personal attack but you could have been more careful to avoid the perception. That's not me saying you've done something wrong, just that people sometimes read things into what we write that we didn't intend (top tip: sometimes more verbose edit summaries can be helpful; if you'd written "the allegations were proven false" there would have been no room for confusion). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough, but I feel I need to repeat that it was not directed at them, it was about the material in that section. I think Ive learned my lesson not to direct any edit summary to any user already. nableezy - 18:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- (tpw) I can see how Figureofnine might take offense at that edit summary and feel that the accusation lying was directed at them. Nableezy, this is similar to the kind of thing I was talking about in my advice last October; it's not sanctionable misconduct, but it does nothing to improve the heat:light ratio or build trust between editors. I know this is an emotive subject, but as one of the most experienced Wikipedians in the topic area, I'd really appreciate it if you would try to build bridges and serve as a role model for the new editors a topic like this inevitably attracts. Figureofnine, please consider discussing issues with editors on their talk page before escalating to an admin's talk page for exactly the same reasons relating to heat:light ration and building trust. Let's all try to see each other as colleagues rather than opponents. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- That they were unsubstantiated is well sourced, and that they are proven false is also well sourced. An allegation is something whose validity is still in the air. I dont see sources reporting on disproven allegations and not including that they were disproven. Regardless, that is something for the talk page, and here I was accused of calling an editor a liar where I did no such thing, Maybe running to an admin who has already sanctioned me out of the blue to complain about something I did without informing me is adding to the white-hot atmosphere of this subject area? nableezy - 16:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is correct. Even assuming arguendo that these claims are all "lies," then they are still allegations and saying in Wikipedia's voice that they are "unsubstantiated" is conclusory and non-neutral in my opinion. Further, I would suggest that it is an overstatement to say that these allegations have been "conclusively proven to be lies," but that is a separate matter as is the wording of that section. My concern here is that we should not be adding to the white-hot atmosphere of this subject area by throwing around words like "lies" in edit summaries. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well the "allegation" wording in question has been there since early January, such that one can argue it was consensus wording, and was changed today (by another editor). So it is not as if I dreamed up that word and stuck it in. I was reverting back to the long-used wording. As for "lie," maybe you can utilize less overheated language in your edit summaries and not accuse other editors of either lying or promoting lies. Either is unecessarily combative. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it is not neutral to call a lie an allegation. The second that, along with the these after that, is in reference to the material, the first that is in reference to your prior edit summary in which you claimed calling a lie an allegation is neutral. nableezy - 15:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- You said "no that isnt neutral, that is a lie." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thomas B started a thread on BLPN about Tim Hunt
Hi, I would like to ask you to consider taking action in your capacity as an administrator against User:Thomas B, who recently started yet another thread on Tim Hunt, this time on BLPN. While Thomas B wasn't formally broadly topic-banned from Tim Hunt, but just page-banned, obviously the intention was to prevent em from continuing to disrupt the editorial process over that article. WP:GAMING likely applies here. Moreover, since we very recently had an extensive discussion and an RfC over that article, this is obvious WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:STICK. NicolausPrime (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Arbcom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, --Thinker78 (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Recommending you take a look at this discussion on RSN
This discussion about the reliability of Al-Jazeera on the RS noticeboard has devolved into an utter mess featuring heavy bludgeoning and battleground behavior from a few of ARBPIA’s usual suspects. As it seems likely at this point to result in little to no changes re: reliability, I might recommend nipping it in the bud before said usual suspects say anything they might regret. The Kip 04:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have the free time to address this right now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Understandable, just figured I’d let you know. You're typically the most responsible/level-headed admin when it comes to that area. The Kip 16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Hallway monitor alert
Hi SFR would you be willing to make contact with MilkandStrawberryPutin and perhaps remind them of WP:ONUS? The talk page speaks volumes. In the interest of the peace, I'm not going to pursue WP:V any further... Cf. 26 March and the article page history for further evidence of attention-seeking. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since you're off bunnying I've gone ahead and summarized the problem on the talk page, providing a baker's dozen of sources... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 21:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've reported them to ANI, @SashiRolls. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Christopher Hitchens on a "Biographies" 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals declined
The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. You may view the declined case request using this link. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding your block. Per arbitrators Barkeep49 ("ripe" for arbitration), Aoidh (prior dispute resolution). The thread is Undue 7 day block by ScottishFinnishRadish against Thinker78. Thank you. Thinker78 (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Check
Can you check my unanswered request on Talk:Zadeh? Mobilustener (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Noah, AATalk 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hm
I did comment before on that thread? The general topic might be restricted, but I did not address anything, nor replied to anyone addressing, in either comment, a restricted topic.
People replied to my first comment without issue as well. What am I missing?
– 2804:F14:80EC:AB01:D0C2:97E3:6645:A903 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's an internal project discussion about how to handle something related to ARBPIA so you're explicitly prohibited from taking part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if CTOPs or just ARBPIA are supposed to poison talk pages with an ECR requirement like that, but I shouldn't have tried shorting The Eternal Cycle of comments anyways... it never ends.
- Guess I should just take my question about WP:PAID staying as an "it happened" and not the standard. – 2804:F14:80EC:AB01:D0C2:97E3:6645:A903 (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's just ARBPIA and a few other topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Bludgeoning
Is there anything to be done about excessive contributions/arguing at the reliable sources noticeboard recently? Specifically in discussions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian CTOP? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Bludgeoning as well as more general battleground and tendentious editing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Unless there is someone keeping their eye on the discussion you'll have to go to AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I posted about my concerns here at Wikipedia talk:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict, where you are (in no way negatively) mentioned. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Brothers of Italy 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
non-EC editor creating ARBPIA articles
Hi, on Jan 29 you delivered the ECR/ARBPIA alert to GvTara, and two days later you explained it further. On April 4, GvTara created Gan Yavne stabbing attack in violation of ECR and on April 7 made a large edit to another article on an obviously ARBPIA topic. We can take care of ordinary disallowed edits without administrator assistance, but it is unclear (and would perhaps be unwise) if I can use my administrative powers to delete the new article (since I edit in the ARBPIA area). So I ask you to please consider deleting it. This article is about one of a large number of similar events which has no notability of its own. Sufficient coverage of the incident was already added to another article. Thanks. Zerotalk 06:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I have a similar question to Zero0000's regarding an article that has been created by a non-EC editor. Your advice on how to proceed when a very important part of a created article (the Armenian Genocide in this instance) falls under WP:ARBAA2 would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk)
- I'm less familiar with ARBAA2, but I assume you're taking about the Armenian genocide mention in that article? I personally wouldn't csd it, as the majority of the article doesn't appear to be an ECR violation. I suggest if any contentious editing by non-ec editors is taking place that you bring it to WP:RFPP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Curiously, the page currently shows two maps (the source can be consulted online)
This is the original map which can be consulted at the bottom of the article in the "Maps" section: [[3]]. A user reversed the previous comments again. 151.47.213.4 (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
![[3]](https://web.archive.org/web/20161128050315/https://arielis.com/img/archive/holy_roman_empire_1138_1254.jpg){kind=link}
- [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:B127:F03:FBCD:A868:5F00:2539:3CEB (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- The interesting thing is that the sources and also the other Wikipedia pages with many sources declared that the Kingdom of Sicily was part of the Empire at that time but some registered users engaged in very questionable behavior.--2A02:B127:F03:FBCD:A868:5F00:2539:3CEB (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:B127:F03:FBCD:A868:5F00:2539:3CEB (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Request for administrative action to be taken
I hope this comment finds you well.
I believe this to be a 2in1 violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility, would you be so kind to take a look? FortunateSons (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, Selfstudier, knock this off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Theoracle1233
Special:Contributions/Theoracle1233 isn't looking great... e.g.[5] Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Taken care of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Addressing 'user conduct' in RSN discussions
Is the point Iskandar raises here correct, that it doesn't fall afoul of WP:NPA to chastiise "user conduct" in an RSN discussion if it doesn't chastise "the person"? So as not to be coy, I would suggest that that kind of personal comment is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that we don't need on RSN. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a personal attack, but it is mild incivility. There's not a lot I can do unless I can find the time to review that entire mess at RSN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Estonia on a "History and geography" 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I replied you on my talk page
@ScottishFinnishRadish There was concern which you raised on my talk page. Kindly be informed that I have replied and I treat this with every seriousness. Please, do clarify me on time before I move on with edits on Arab-Israel related topics. Caleb Ndu (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- SFR replied on your talk page @Caleb Ndu. Please do not edit in the topic area until you meet the requirements outlined in the welcome message. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. That's noted @Philipnelson99 Caleb Ndu (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Notice of WP:ARCA request
You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, Good day. the editor you just blocked reverted the warning and blocked messages and- stated "CUM shot" on his edit summary - see [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:83.30.172.40&diff=next&oldid=1219554601 HERE]. Maybe blocking them to write on their talk page is needed? Cassiopeia talk 13:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- At this point they've probably moved on to a different IP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Good work, painting with oils. ——Serial Number 54129 12:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
- Thanks, although I don't understand the painting with oils reference. I hope it has to do with Bob Ross. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ah. Yeah, Bob Ross was cool. Taught Oshwah's barber everything he knows :) ——Serial Number 54129 13:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Check
Since you're admin I'd be happy you look at Noor TV (US) which I've nominated for speedy deletion. Mobilustener (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| For administrating the high-heat topic areas and dramaboards no one else wants to, and making the hard sanctions that occasionally comes with it. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
That mess at/around I/P might get worse in the long run, as it was posted on a major subreddit
@ScottishFinnishRadish, this is more rude (and partially wrong, to add insult to injury) than something acute like doxxing, but there is a somewhat prominent post on a major subreddit directly linking to edits and users in the I/P area, and making disparaging statement (and also partially inaccurate ones) about pro-P users and their conduct.
It’s not possible to discern who, but it’s likely someone vaguely (but not truly, based on errors) familiar with our policies. I’m happy to link to it (or tag the affected editors), but I’m honestly unsure if that would be appropriate. What would you like me to do? FortunateSons (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is it the destiny one? There's really not anything we can do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that one. That’s unfortunate, but glad you’re aware FortunateSons (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Welcome-arbpia
Template:Welcome-arbpia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Awesome Aasim 16:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
What a relief
Thanks for blocking that IP, Scottish. I was already getting extremely fatigued trying to revert their vandalism edits, and you stepped into the rescue. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Glad to help. I dropped a short protection too, since another IP was at it yesterday. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, Spencer blocked that IP as well this morning. I was at a concert and I used whatever battery was remaining on my phone to revert it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Assistance with new editor's sourcing problems
There's a new editor, Wish l, who is persisting in "citing" something to a Quora post from a self-proclaimed "Owner of Gift Street Shop at Gift Street Shop" for information about human biology, even after they've been told that that's not a reliable source several times. They have continued doing so after a final warning, have insisted that the sources are adequate
and have asserted that they will do this as many times as necessary
. Could you assist? I'm hoping that if someone with access to a block button explains to them that what they have been told is correct, they might actually listen. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Sinwar userpage quote
Would you be so kind as to respond to this? No active admin action is required, but a quick decision if the content is a user page violation would be a really helpful, as the user agreed to comply with any admin request. FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- That isn't my call alone to make. Bring it to AN if you believe that it violates acceptable leeway given on userpages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. Would you say that success with this is implausible (meaning that it’s frivolous)? FortunateSons (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you read those quotes as advocating, encourage, or condoning acts of violence, as opposed to statements of support for groups that some may interpret as condoning violence? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would say that the reading of all 3 quotes together, particularly in the context of the person quoted, are justifying ‘violent resistance’, yes. Do you read it differently? FortunateSons (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think justifying violent resistance is different than condoning violence. Again, I'm not the arbiter of this. I have no idea how the wider community would see it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I made an AN thread, thank you for your help.
- In addition, I feel like I’m somewhat overburdening your talk page with admin issues, but am unaware of anyone else regularly engaged in admin activity in the topic area. Would you be willing to direct me to some of your colleagues? FortunateSons (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- There's no one else, as far as I know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, I am genuinely grateful for all your tireless work. I know it must be quite a lot, and I’m sorry insofar as I contribute to it. FortunateSons (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- There's no one else, as far as I know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think justifying violent resistance is different than condoning violence. Again, I'm not the arbiter of this. I have no idea how the wider community would see it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would say that the reading of all 3 quotes together, particularly in the context of the person quoted, are justifying ‘violent resistance’, yes. Do you read it differently? FortunateSons (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you read those quotes as advocating, encourage, or condoning acts of violence, as opposed to statements of support for groups that some may interpret as condoning violence? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. Would you say that success with this is implausible (meaning that it’s frivolous)? FortunateSons (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Appealling my ban and block
Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, I have decided to appeal my block and ban on the Tim Hunt article. I'm drafting a statement in the sandbox[6], and I thought I may as well ask for comments already now. If there are any statements of fact that you think I'm getting wrong, please let me know. I expect to post it at ARBREQ in early May. Thomas B (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thomas B, there is a zero percent chance that will be successful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. But I've got to give it a shot. The article is in bad shape, and no one is doing anything about it. For my own peace of mind, I need to be sure that this really is how things work around here now, in which case, like you say, there's no hope. That's not the end of the world, just of my involvement with Wikipedia. Thomas B (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your plan is to appeal to arbcom, which addresses things the community cannot after the community just handled it. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's dead in the water. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand WP:UNBAN this is my last resort. If you're right, you're right. We'll see. I've basically just stated the facts of the case; I take it you either haven't read my statement or don't have any criticisms of it? Since the first block, I've been mainly puzzled that it was possible to get blocked this way, i.e., by simple community vote without grounding in an admin's interpretation of relevant policy. You said it yourself: with 75% against me, your hands were tied. I just don't remember it working that way. So I need to find out if this is how things are now. Thomas B (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thomas B, if you have any interest in continuing to edit and having this topic ban removed after some time I strongly recommend that you don't take this tack. The most important thing you can communicate during an appeal down the line is that you understand how your behavior was disruptive. Going to arbcom with an appeal that will, with all likelihood, be declined as already handled by the community will only serve to make other editors believe that you don't recognize any issues with your behavior. That said, you're your own person, you can do what you like. It's just not going to turn out well and only harms your chances of an appeal in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I understood your closes, they were purely summaries of the discussion, not evaluations of my behavior. My appeal is stated the way it is because you at no point censured my behavior; you said that wasn't your role, that you were just noting the "consensus". I am asking the Arbitrators whether it is standard practice to let a group of editors block and ban users they disagree with simply by voting them out of the discussion. In the old days, as I remember it, an administrator like you would issue a policy-based warning (I wasn't the only one who deserved one) and most blocks would be very temporary (like a few days). Admins would try to find ways of keeping people like me (who know something about the subject) in the conversation, but cool the dispute down, using page locks and advice.
- The underlying issue, of course, is that I don't believe it was my behavior that was disruptive. I had been maintaining a stable version of the page for five years and it was disrupted by an aggressive group of editors who wanted to implement a change without persuading those who supported the longstanding consensus. By pushing us out of the work and forcing their version through using ANI, they have produced a substantially worse article. If this is how disputes are now normally resolved (getting blocked in under three weeks because I haven't yet changed my mind and, in generally, having to deal with this as "behavior" rather than content disputes) I don't want to contribute. I had already reduced my contribution mainly to BLP issues like this. So if I was out of line (if ARBCOM doesn't have my back), I'm pretty much done. Thomas B (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thomas B, if you have any interest in continuing to edit and having this topic ban removed after some time I strongly recommend that you don't take this tack. The most important thing you can communicate during an appeal down the line is that you understand how your behavior was disruptive. Going to arbcom with an appeal that will, with all likelihood, be declined as already handled by the community will only serve to make other editors believe that you don't recognize any issues with your behavior. That said, you're your own person, you can do what you like. It's just not going to turn out well and only harms your chances of an appeal in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand WP:UNBAN this is my last resort. If you're right, you're right. We'll see. I've basically just stated the facts of the case; I take it you either haven't read my statement or don't have any criticisms of it? Since the first block, I've been mainly puzzled that it was possible to get blocked this way, i.e., by simple community vote without grounding in an admin's interpretation of relevant policy. You said it yourself: with 75% against me, your hands were tied. I just don't remember it working that way. So I need to find out if this is how things are now. Thomas B (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your plan is to appeal to arbcom, which addresses things the community cannot after the community just handled it. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's dead in the water. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I understand. But I've got to give it a shot. The article is in bad shape, and no one is doing anything about it. For my own peace of mind, I need to be sure that this really is how things work around here now, in which case, like you say, there's no hope. That's not the end of the world, just of my involvement with Wikipedia. Thomas B (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Weird talk page of ip user
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2603:7000:B500:70D:B809:9940:FB02:30F8
So this has to be the weirdest page i have seen I’m not sure if I like it or not uh several different ips posting a Timeline not sure where to put this but •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- That is incredibly strange Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I dropped a range block and some other blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
My bad
Re: Talk:2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. Based on the contentious topics guidelines, I shouldn't have reverted you. [7] I reverted as I didn't see anything wrong with that particular comment, and thought it would be better to simply respond. Should that entire topic not be removed based on ECR? Should I otherwise be reverting my revert, if that's allowed within 24 hours? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- You can always self-revert. Editors that are not extended-confirmed are not allowed to make any edit related to the topic except for clear edit requests, which that edit was not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok good to know thanks. Yes I realise that now, the misunderstanding/confusion was to why that comment from an IP user was deleted but not the thread itself that was created by an IP. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)