User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:01, 11 July 2023 editScottishFinnishRadish (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators60,956 edits →Question concerning the GizzyCatBella/Jacurek requested topic ban: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:16, 5 January 2025 edit undoScottishFinnishRadish (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators60,956 edits →"grooming gangs"-related disruption: ReplyTag: Reply Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{busy\|descriptor=~~bunny~~}}		{{busy\|descriptor=a farmer}}
	{{archivebox\|title=bunny}}		{{archivebox\|title=bunny}}
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis		{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
Line 16:		Line 16:
	}}<!-- 11:43 October 1, 2021 (UTC), ScottishFinnishRadish added ] -->		}}<!-- 11:43 October 1, 2021 (UTC), ScottishFinnishRadish added ] -->

	== ~~YOUR~~ ~~TALK PAGES~~ ==		== Seasonal greetings:) ==

			{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
	Hi @], I have been deleting your user talk and user pages several times in few wikis as they are being vandalised/spammed. Recently, I just thought of permanently protecting them (talk and user pages) on affected wikis that I am able to. Of course you can request these settings turned off at any time. Thanks. ]] 13:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
			\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" \| ]
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!'''
			\|-
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \|
			----
			'''Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
			— Benison <small>(] · ])</small> 18:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

			''{{resize\|96%\|Spread the love by adding {{tls\|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
	:{{u\|Tumbuka Arch}}, you're more than welcome to protect them, and I'll request improving if I ever begin editing on those wikis. I appreciate the work you're doing cleaning up after the angry vandal. ] (]) 00:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
			\|}<span id="Benison:1734891521410:User_talkFTTCLNScottishFinnishRadish" class="FTTCmt">— Benison <small>(] · ])</small> 18:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span>

			:Thank you very much. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. ] (]) 23:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Mind taking a look? ==

			== Season's Greetings ==
	Hi,
			<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">]]]{{Center\|]}}
			'''Hello ScottishFinnishRadish:''' Enjoy the ''']''' and ''']''' if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, ] (]) 02:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Thank you kindly and I hope you and yours also have a wonderful holiday season. Hopefully the weather shifts a bit and I'm not stuck with less than no degrees. ] (]) 13:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Apologies for this but thought to go via admin as I'm more looking for a second opinion here rather than definitive "incident" route at this stage. I've bumped into this user via a page and there's something about them that seems off. They've created articles that seem in-depth (though use Portuguese sources so outside my wheelhouse on reliability) but their (check under extended content at the bottom of the page as well), odd comments they've made on the current Wagner events seem highly partisan (), and seem to be making "political" edits (if supported with RS) that push what appears to be their I think fair to say right-wing/libertarian political/economic viewpoint, and inserting into multiple articles edits that promote the Robinhood stock trading platform. I hope it's understandable why the mix of behaviour makes it hard to determine if they're malicious or not in intent.

			]{{paragraph break}}
	If you could take a look at their behaviour and judge the best course of action that would be much appreciated. ] (]) 02:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
			</div>
			<div style="padding-left: 2em; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 88%; font-style: italic">Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls\|Season's Greetings}} to send this message</div>{{-}}

			== Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment ==
	:{{u\|Apache287}}, they've been blocked as a sock. ] (]) 18:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
	::Well that certainly escalated quickly. Thanks for the help. ] (]) 09:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

			]Your feedback is requested at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) \| Is this wrong? Contact ]. \| Sent at 16:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Recent reliable source error ==

			== Revdel request ==
	Hi ScottishFinnishRadish,
	Sorry about the mistake I made earlier regarding the reliable source and communicating information to IP 2601:240:E200:3B60:9592:2091:C98F:C348 ‎ ] (]) 17:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

			Hello, got another quick revdel request for you. has already been reverted, but is a copy/paste of . - ] (]) 02:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:No worries. I have a lot of exposure to those types of sources through edit request patrolling, and pretty much none of the celebrity biography websites are reliable. Most of their terms of service make that clear as well. I always check the terms of service and about page when unsure about a source, and that normally gives me a decent idea of it's reasonable to use in a biography. ] (]) 18:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

			:Thanks for the heads up, all set. ] (]) 02:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	== On ] ==

			== IP block ==
	Concerning , if you believe - and if it seems to you to be a plausible reading of community sentiment - that "reading" is more accurate and less ambiguous than "interpretation" in that text, then of course you should make the change. My reservation about the insertion of "reading" in that context is that the phrase proposed, while it doesn't run into problems with wiki-jargon, is actually ''more'' ambiguous in relation to everyday English than the previous one, because the resultant sentence seems to me to invoke the wrong sense of "reading", which would defeat the purpose of reducing confusion. ] (]) 09:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

			FYI, 83.203.20.206 appears to be a sock for 76.67.115.228 that you blocked, based on the edit to ]. So far just the one edit. ] (]) 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:What I was saying with that diff is that either would be fine, and wouldn't require an entire RFC to be rerun if there was reasonable consensus that the wording change would be appropriate. I haven't followed the discussion since then enough to know if such a consensus emerged. ] (]) 10:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

			:I was wondering if this was the same person. {{User\|83.203.20.206}} ] (]) 03:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	==Maps close==
			::Given the preoccupation with Israel/Hebrew, I would assume so. Though of course conceivably a friend, or just someone who saw the vandalism and decided to do the same. ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Hi,
			:::I reported them anyway, and they're blocked. ] (]) 03:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::213.49.236.39 the same. same maybe-Neapolitan edit summaries. so they appear to be IP-hopping. ] (]) 05:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Another IP ==
	I was hoping to ask for some clarification of the ] in regards to proposal 2a and 2b. Considering that close, would it be against consensus to interpret proposal 1 ({{tq\|Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources.}}) as permitting the use of dynamic maps or referring to the satellite layer?

			You interacted on the user talk of {{vandal\|190.219.101.225}}. The IP was a sockpuppet of Alon9393 and is now blocked. ] (]) 08:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	To be clear, I'm not asking if the consensus forbids such a use, only whether it permits them.

			== Happy Holidays ==
	In line with this, if it should not be interpreted as permitting their use, would it be in line with consensus to clarify the proposal with a note saying so? ] (]) 09:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

			{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
	:It would permit them, based on the consensus of the reliability of whatever dynamic map content and what is being summarized from the map. The consensus was against the inclusion of the wording in ], and the reasons for the opposition were pretty varied. I see that as a consensus that there's a number of reasons that the specific wording shouldn't be added, but not necessarily that what the wording proposes should never be done. ] (]) 10:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
			\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" \| ]
	::{{tq\|not necessarily that what the wording proposes should never be done}} To be clear, that wasn't what I was suggesting it should say; just that given there was a consensus against permitting it in that discussion no aspect of that discussion should be taken as permitting it as that would subvert the consensus, even though other policies and guidelines may permit doing so and the consensus against permitting it in that discussion does not change that. ] (]) 09:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!'''
			\|-
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \|
			----
			'''Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
			] (]) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			''{{resize\|96%\|Spread the love by adding {{tls\|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
	== A cup of coffee for you! ==
			\|} ] (]) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Merry Christmas to you and yours as well! ] (]) 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Good morning (it's morning here at least). Enjoy a cuppa, and have an excellent day! ] (]) 17:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
	\|}

			== Editor you blocked for ARBPIA violations ==
	:Thanks for that, much appreciated. I hope you have a great day as well. ] (]) 17:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

			Aren't their latest edits violations? ] ] 16:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Defeedme and ] ==

			:Looks that way to me. I'm trying to disengage from arbitration enforcement, though, since I'm now on the committee. ] (]) 16:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	The IP traces to It an edit of mine, that I made in routine patrol of "awaiting review" articles, as part of their harassment of me. Another IP, 47.21.94.238, after Defeedme canvassed Springee and Kcmastrpc ‎for the Klete Keller campaign they're on, once those two had weighed in (I assume in a lame attempt to cover their tracks). That IP That would be a pretty big coincidence, if 108.58.9.194 isn't another Defeedme IP. That's why I removed the talk page message per ]. ] (]) 13:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

	:I agree it's suspicious, but they also have an 18 month editing history that looks unrelated, so I'm hesitant to pull the trigger on that IP. ] (]) 13:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
	:: Certainly I can understand not wanting to block the IP; there's a chance it's just someone in the same house in Hicksville (it's a cable company IP, so probably a semi-static home IP address) that's into weather doing those edits. But the comments on the Klete Keller page are written by Defeedme, which was why I invoked ] when I deleted their comment. ] (]) 14:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::Or it's an unrelated editor. The IP is fairly static, as they have been making the same type of edits since January 2022. They've even reverted some harassment on pages outside of their normal activity so it's not unreasonable to think that it's just a regular IP editor. ] (]) 14:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::: One that also just happens to be in Hicksville, NY, the same location as someone who made edits of talk page comments about Klete Keller, and that also happened to followed me to an unrelated article to revert me? That would take some serious suspension of disbelief. ] (]) 14:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::IP geolocation isn't exact, and for cable internet providers normally locates to the ] and ] where the IP addresses are allocated. Optimum has a headend in Hicksville which covers ], which serves hundreds of thousands of customers on Long Island. ] (]) 14:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

	== DS violation at Trump ==

	Hello SFR.

	There's been a violation of the BRD page sanction on the Donald Trump page here:
	# by Jerome Frank Disciple.
	# Space4Time3Continuum2x
	# by Jerome Frank Disciple.

	I'd appreciate it if you would volunteer to address this matter. JFD does not appear able to temper their enthusiasms to ensure that they observe the 24-BRD. That's too bad, because for quite some time until recently, editors on this page handled many difficult issues in a smooth and reasonably compact process with few AE issues.

	I have restored SpaceX's version.

	Thanks.]] 17:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

	:Addressed. ] (]) 18:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
	::Query: when posting that block notice, you cite "(Arbitration enforcement (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2) - second violation of enforced BRD at Donald Trump)". {{pb}}I see at ] the boldfaced instructions: "Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at ], not here."{{pb}}However, at that linked log, I don't see this block mentioned. Have all the i's been dotted and t's crossed? <small>'''' :)</small> – ] <small>]</small> 06:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	::: and . ] (]) 09:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

	Hi. I am sorry to be critical but I am troubled by this block. It seems disproportionate for a trivial revert of an edit that was clearly based on a misunderstanding, and the blocked editor has retired as a result. Within reason I can understand a "rules are rules" approach on this kind of page, but there is still some call for discretion, which I would have applied differently here. Note that there also was an ongoing talkpage discussion that both editors were participating in, in a civil and reasonable way, before this was brought here. I also disapprove of SPECIFICO, an editor with a lengthy DS history whose judgment in AE reporting has been criticized by me and others in the past, coming to the page of a specific admin in this way. On an external site this is being referred to as SPECIFICO seeking revenge for a sanction imposed against herself, and it is hard to avoid that conclusion. I value your administrator work and value your judgment, but I'd ask you to reevaluate this one. ({{ping\|\|SPECIFICO\|Jerome Frank Disciple}}) ] (]) 11:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

	:{{u\|Newyorkbrad}}, I shuffled between a few different block settings before hitting the buttons on this, in part because of their history with SPECIFICO, and in part due to the somewhat benign nature of the edit. However, I had a discussion with them about their technical violations of CTOP sanctions on May 5th , where I explicitly stated {{tq\|I'm just trying to warn you that you're editing near quicksand so you need to be aware of the restrictions. You've been editing in WP:CTOP areas, so you need to be very careful.}} Then, on May 17th, I blocked them from article space for three days for an enforced BRD violation on ]. They were unblocked after . Now here we are with yet another violation of CTOP article sanctions.
	:I feel that after a personalized warning and a block that a one week block was a reasonable response, despite the fairly obvious ] mentality displayed by SPECIFICO in this instance. Should we ignore repeated violations of CTOP article sanctions because the reporter has their own history? I'm interested in when you think that repeated behavior, despite being warned and blocked, would merit a single week block? Is it just because SPECIFICO reported it that the sanction is an issue, or would you think it was heavy handed regardless? I have significant respect for your judgement, so I hope that doesn't come across as antagonistic, as text lacking tone often can.
	:It is unfortunate that CTOP often serves to set a minefield for newer editors who don't know how to play the ]. That is why I reached out to JFD in early May, because I recognized that their editing style and the topics they were getting involved in were ''exactly'' the type that would lead to them making violations like this. I was really hoping that after the first block they would get the idea that they should pay significantly more attention to the CTOP sanctions placed on the articles they were editing, but that seems not to have happened. I'm disappointed that they have retired over the one week block, and I hope they decide to return to editing after, and I also hope that if they do return they learn the goose step that everyone else does. ] (]) 12:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	::I understand your points, but I still consider SPECIFICO's conduct loathsome and the block ridiculous. ''De minimis non curat lex,'' and teaching our editors to "goose step" (a horrendously off-putting metaphor) and "play the game" should not be an aspiration. In answer to your questions, on this report I would have taken no action at all, regardless of who made the report; the ill-motivation for it, and the ongoing talkpage discussion that was underway, further reinforce that conclusion. ] (]) 12:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::I certainly hope that I didn't come across as supporting or aspiring "playing the game" and marching in rigid formation. That's just how editing in CTOPs plays out with the sanctions regime in place, and the long-term editors in those topics know how to toe the line, and often how to get others to flinch over it. That is not good, bad, and certainly not the way things should work. However, it ''is'' the way things work. The entire purpose of those sanctions is to prevent edit wars, and I've certainly ] than "twice" vs "more than once".
	:::Should I wait until it's a full edit war before invoking the sanction in place to prevent edit wars? The entire idea of that sanction is that there has been disruptive edit warring on the page, and to prevent that disruption a draconian measure was put in place. That disruptive editing began, and I blocked someone who was warned about and blocked for the same behavior in the past. Just because the content objected was a trifle does not mean that the edit warring wouldn't be disruptive.
	:::All of that said, as I mentioned above I significantly respect your views. I'm going to reduce the block to partial, and I'm amenable to (and was before this discussion) lifting the block if I can get assurance from {{u\|Jerome Frank Disciple}} that they will carefully read and adhere to the sanctions placed on the articles they're editing. ] (]) 12:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::Thank you for your reconsideration and courtesy, but I still think your approach reflects a (presumably inadvertent) willingness to punish harmless mistakes and reward sanction-gaming. The rules exist to serve the encyclopedia and not as ends in themselves, and if this discussion is typical of how the new contentious topics regime is to be enforced, I would propose to abolish it. Ironically, according to Marvin Schick's book, it was ] who insisted that {{tq\|no set of rules should be permitted to dominate ... to the point that form would be more important than substance or that some procedural requirement would justify an injustice}}. ] (]) 13:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping\|NYBrad}} {{tq\|reward sanction-gaming}} - that is a personal attack. It is surprising and very unfortunate. It reflects very poorly on you.]] 13:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::{{ping\|SPECIFICO}} Let's see what some other people think. FYI, pings don't work without the full username. ] (]) 13:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::::Perhaps rather harsher than saying "I worry that your approach unfortunately (and presumably inadvertently) would tend to have the '''effect''' of punishing... and rewarding...." — which, more than 'willingness', is the problem, yes? – ] <small>]</small> 18:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::I think we disagree on the harmless mistake point. I saw it as a harmless mistake the when I warned them, and either a willingness to disregard article sanctions if they believed they were correct or an unwillingness to make themselves aware of or follow article sanctions when I partially blocked them for three days after a subsequent violation. A third violation, the second on an article they were already blocked for, doesn't strike me as a harmless mistake. Either they do not believe they should have to follow the sanctions because their edit was {{tq\|actually more informative}}, or they still are not paying attention to the sanctions placed on the articles they're editing. Both of those behaviors are disruptive in their own way. While the violation itself was small and over very similar text, that they yet again violated article sanctions is what is disruptive.
	:::::We're in agreement on the sanction-gaming issue, but it's a very tough nut to crack. Should we then just give a pass to anyone that makes a report against another editor if they've had history? I'm not overly concerned with SPECIFICO's reaching out to me as an uninvolved admin, as I get the impression that they're ]. This comes up every time there is an ANI thread related to an editor's behavior in a contentious topic. Where is the line drawn to down-weight or disregard a response? We've seen that there's clearly no "fruit of the poisonous tree" that applies to those reporting at ANI with {{noping\|TheTranarchist}}'s topic ban and subsequent discussions. Reporting a CTOP sanction violation to an uninvolved administrator remains a legitimate way to handle these violations. I also know that it's shitty to report someone that you've clashed with in the past, which is why I've always reached out either directly to an editor or emailed an admin to speak to someone in private instead of making a formal report in those situations. That is not necessary though, or even standard practice.
	:::::If this was not such a clear cut violation of a sanction that JFD had already violated on that article, then I would have been looking at the behavior of the one reporting. Again, it's not the kind of report I'd make or how I would have handled it in SPECIFICO's place, but it is a completely legitimate report. There's no grey area to the violation and, though it was minor, it was also the second such violation on that article, and the third violation of a CTOP sanction on an article. Would it have been better if someone else had reported it? Obviously, but we generally don't disregard legitimate reports because there is an issue with the one making the report. ] (]) 14:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::We're going to remain in disagreement about this. I don't think there was ''any'' disruption caused by the two edits in question, which in any event were being discussed on the talkpage and the minor content issue worked out by the time you blocked. Even the person who posted here (I won't mention their name again) apparently didn't realize there had been an inadvertent minor violation until over an hour after joining that discussion. I don't think this was a "completely legitimate report"; I think it was petty, retaliatory, "gotcha"-type garbage. But it wouldn't have been better if someone else had reported the minor violation; it would have been better if no one had mentioned it, because it was trivial, inadvertent, and harmless.
	::::::As you point out, the rules are susceptible to being invoked against inadvertent, technical violations, but the appropriate response is to reject reports based on those sorts of violations. An admin is not duty-bound to impose any sanctions, much less harsh ones, predicated upon fully harmless edits by the "violator" followed by what you yourself describe as "shitty" behavior by the reporter. Significantly, ]. When as an arbitrator I voted over the years to authorize discretionary sanctions in a variety of topic-areas, this is absolutely not the sort of thing I had in mind. ] (]) 16:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

	(edit conflict - same point as NYB, actually) I don’t really approve of the way this played out. It is true that JFD . But, after doing that, and before this report was made, JFD ], pinging SPECIFICO from the start, and SPECIFICO even replied in that discussion without telling JFD to self-revert. I feel that there is some leeway for leniency there. Would it have been possible to have page blocked for a week instead of site blocked? ''']] (])''' 12:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

	{{Ping\|NYBrad}} The previous time that user Jerome violated the same sanction, I did the usual courtesy notification on their talk page and they declined to self revert and later indicated their displeasure at my having come to their talk page to let them know. That is why I chose to defer to a trusted Admin to handle it. NYBrad, I also don't think you should join the editors who cite my history without reference to the circumstances and natures of the varius items in my record. That fans the flames of what has repeatedly used as an ad hominem without reference to the detail or diffs to demonstrate any connections between various current-day aspersions and settled, adjudicated past incidents. I was not aware that Jerome said they were retiring, and that has nothing to do with either me or SFR. I don't see many editors hang up their mouse after a straightforward violation and enforcement. Now, looking at Jerome's talk page, I see they took the occasion to make a personal attack against me, also an unusual reaction in this circumstance.]] 13:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	:SPECIFICO, in an AE thread awhile ago in which I defended you from a sanction, I observed that you don't have the best judgment about when to report other editors and should probably stop doing so. I repeat that advice; your behavior here in reporting a minor technical violation to a self-selected administrator, after having been engaged in a talkpage discussion with the editor for over an hour, is despicable. ] (]) 13:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	::+1 to this. SPECIFICO, "sanction-gaming" is not so much a personal attack here as it is a reasonable inference based upon the facts. ] (]) 15:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::I've said my piece about SPECIFICO, but also, my specific usage of the term "sanction-gaming" was aimed at discussing the general approach to enforcement that SFR describes above, rather than this one specific instance. ] (]) 16:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|NewYorkbrad}} You can't sterilize your wording that is unambiguously viewed on this site as a personal attack with such deflection. Ironically, if you would have taken the time to really review history before using it as a weapon, you would see that the reason there are so many warnings, brief page blocks is that most were far more insignificant than the one I reported. You would also have seen a much larger number of complaints against me originating on contentious pages that were dismissed. You would have been able to make a statement here that might have been useful to SFR, me, page watchers, or the project in general. Moreover, your apparent failure to secure your knowlege of the incident, your intervening on another Admin's legitimate discretion (wheel war adjacent), and your obstinate refusal to take responsibility for your actions is far below the standard we expect of Admins on this site. If you think edit-warring by violating the 24-BRD sanction is a minor technical violation, why don't you simply remove that sanction -- recently elevated by Arbcom to be one of our few authorized CT page restrictions -- then perhaps consider removing it from the scores of AP pages where it keeps things running smoothly. I expected you to abide by "let's' see what others think" but I guess you just changed your mind and doubled down with gratuitous, vicious language to disparage, discourage, and intimidate me. Your behavior is shameful and a disgrace to your once prominent role on this site, now descended to what everyone will always be able to see in this thread. It's a sad devolution. I am sorry for you.]] 18:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping\|SPECIFICO}} Regarding "changing my mind" about commenting further about you, you may have—completely understandably—misunderstood the order of some of my posts based on their position in different parts of this thread. As for everything else, such as whether I have used {{tq\|gratuitous, vicious language to disparage, discourage, and intimidate}} you, or engaged in behavior that was {{tq\|shameful and a disgrace}}, or acted in a {{tq\|wheel war adjacent}} way by posting my opinions here without taking any actions at all—I'll leave all that for others to judge. ] (]) 18:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

	==Editor you blocked is still editing==
	] is continuing to edit under the IP ] in defiance of your block. Cheers, ] (]) 15:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

	:{{u\|Daniel Case}} picked up my slack and took care of this. ] (]) 22:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

	== Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment ==

	]Your feedback is requested at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) \| Is this wrong? Contact ]. \| Sent at 08:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

	== Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment ==		== Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment ==

	]Your feedback is requested at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) \| Is this wrong? Contact ]. \| Sent at 23:30, 3 ~~July~~ ~~2023~~ (UTC)		]Your feedback is requested at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) \| Is this wrong? Contact ]. \| Sent at 20:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Now that you're officially a Arbitrator ==
	==Block evasion?==
	Nearly a month ago you blocked an IP address for block evasion; see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A42.200.141.17

			Would you like to add the following userbox to your userpage?
	The same IP adress has now started editing again, in the same page, ]. Since I have no idea what block was being evaded when you blocked, I can't tell whether a new block is needed. Maybe you would like to look at it. ] (]) 10:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
			{{User wikipedia/Arbitrator}}<br/><br/><br/> <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

	:{{ping\|JBW}} Since been blocked by Materialscientist for three months as a proxy IP. Good seeing you again! ] (]) 02:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

	== Talkback ==

	{{Talkback\|Bbb23\|Undeletion request for Draft: Deji Olatunji}}

	I understand you have been very busy lately, so take all the time you need. I failed at pinging you since I tried that a few days after I had signed the message, so this is a substitute. Have a good day. ] (]) 15:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

	== User talk:Shim119 ==

	I don't understand the rev/deletion. Something to do with the jumbled numbers and letters I removed? If you can't explain publicly, please e-mail me. Thanks.--] (]) 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

	:{{u\|Bbb23}}, ygm. ] (]) 17:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
	::Got it, thanks.--] (]) 17:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	{{User\|Zb04091990}} has repeatedly removed a reference to a doping ban. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Khrystyna_Antoniichuk&diff=prev&oldid=1164049718
	I've reverted 3 times and didn't want to fall foul of 3rr restrictions.
	I placed warnings on their talk page about unexplained removal of content. I wasn't sure what action to take?
	The link they keep removing is a press release from the International Tennis Federation giving details of the ban.
	Advice if you have any?
	Thanks, ] (]) 18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

	:{{u\|Knitsey}}, this looks to have died down? If it starts up again, let me know. Sorry for the delay. ] (]) 11:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

	== Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment ==

			:I guess I probably should, eh? ] (]) 04:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	]Your feedback is requested at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) \| Is this wrong? Contact ]. \| Sent at 06:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
			:I went with a topicon and a plain text note. Not much of a userbox person. ] (]) 04:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Yes you should because some of us (like me) weren't aware you have become an arbitrator or even that there was an election. Congratulations! ] (]) 19:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Thanks! ] (]) 21:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'm looking forward to the Real Spouses of ArbCom's next season! You kids keep your heads down. Good luck. ] (]) 23:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{User wikipedia/former arbcom}}
			:::::This one used to actually be funny, as there were bananas on the scale. It turns out the bananas were a derivitaive work not properly licensed, and now it's not funny. I wonder if any one with good image manipulation skills could rectify this banana-less non-joke? ] ] 23:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I had dall-e make some bananas-on-scales, but it seems a failing of ai is an inability to not have bananas on both sides of the scales. ] (]) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::The bananas were on the heavy side of the scale, because reasons. ] ] 23:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::The only option is bananas on both sides, as far as I can get dall-e to generate. ] (]) 23:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{Reply\|Beeblebrox}} The original image but with some added text is still available at ] (though same reasoning for deleting the original image applies to that one too). I took a stab at making an svg version: ]. ] ] 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Nice, thanks. ] ] 19:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Real Spouses of Arbcom isn't the worst option. Beats Sister Arbs and 90 Day Arbitor. ] (]) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Congrats Raddish guy, enjoy the ARBing. ] (]) 23:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

			== "grooming gangs"-related disruption ==
	== Question concerning the GizzyCatBella/Jacurek requested topic ban ==

			Thanks for protecting the ] article, Elon Musk has caused a right ruckus about this . The {{articlelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}} article is getting a lot of related disruptive edits like . Would it be possible to semi-protect it for like a week until the contoversy has died down? ] (]) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	I have recently been finding the Eastern European topic ban you imposed very inconvenient, not because I want to write about Eastern European matters, but because I want to be able to write about French matters. Could you tell me if you would consider the edit (which updates a completely outdated entry about a French media outlet) boundary-testing? I ask because after I saw "Czech" on the screen, I realized that somebody could try to use it against me. I have which could be used against me due to the topic ban the sockpuppet requested.
	Similarly, in recent days, I've done some work on the riots in France, and at one point I opened a discussion at RS/N and typed the word "Ukraine" (concerning militantwire.com) because that is the subject their EiC has most-often been cited on. I , because my intention is not to test boundaries, but to make positive contributions concerning the reliability of sources writing about the French riots. Then when someone asked me for further information, I had to in order to answer their question... Do you think it was necessary for me to self-revert either of these two contributions? Frankly this second-class citizenship is frustrating, as it requires me to be constantly self-censoring for no good reason and because it, parenthetically, allows folks to for good-faith edits. Has your thinking evolved concerning the topic ban that only three people thought was a good idea, one of whom is now indefinitely banned? Given the subsequent history, insofar as this was not a community-based decision, I imagine you are free to lift it yourself at any time and it would be to your credit were you to do so. -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 00:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

			:I gave it a week, let me know if it needs more when that expires.
	:Self-reverting those parts of the edit was a good idea, as they are violations of broadly construed topic bans. If you'd like to seek a removal of your editing restrictions I suggest you appeal at ]. ] (]) 11:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
			:Odd to see the confluence of Indian anti-Pakistani sentiment and homegrown xenophobia. ] (]) 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:16, 5 January 2025

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.

Seasonal greetings:)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly and I hope you and yours also have a wonderful holiday season. Hopefully the weather shifts a bit and I'm not stuck with less than no degrees. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Draft talk:Next Nintendo Console on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" 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, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello, got another quick revdel request for you. This revision has already been reverted, but is a copy/paste of here. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, all set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

IP block

FYI, 83.203.20.206 appears to be a sock for 76.67.115.228 that you blocked, based on the edit to Maté. So far just the one edit. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if this was the same person. 83.203.20.206 (talk · contribs) Knitsey (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the preoccupation with Israel/Hebrew, I would assume so. Though of course conceivably a friend, or just someone who saw the vandalism and decided to do the same. — kwami (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I reported them anyway, and they're blocked. Knitsey (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

213.49.236.39 the same. same maybe-Neapolitan edit summaries. so they appear to be IP-hopping. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Another IP

You interacted on the user talk of 190.219.101.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IP was a sockpuppet of Alon9393 and is now blocked. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Editor you blocked for ARBPIA violations

Aren't their latest edits violations? Doug Weller talk 16:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks that way to me. I'm trying to disengage from arbitration enforcement, though, since I'm now on the committee. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Grand Canyon University on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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 20:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that you're officially a Arbitrator

Would you like to add the following userbox to your userpage?

This user is an arbitrator on the English Misplaced Pages.

2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess I probably should, eh? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I went with a topicon and a plain text note. Not much of a userbox person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes you should because some of us (like me) weren't aware you have become an arbitrator or even that there was an election. Congratulations! Coretheapple (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the Real Spouses of ArbCom's next season! You kids keep your heads down. Good luck. BusterD (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This user was on the English Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee.

This one used to actually be funny, as there were bananas on the scale. It turns out the bananas were a derivitaive work not properly licensed, and now it's not funny. I wonder if any one with good image manipulation skills could rectify this banana-less non-joke? Beeblebrox 23:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I had dall-e make some bananas-on-scales, but it seems a failing of ai is an inability to not have bananas on both sides of the scales. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The bananas were on the heavy side of the scale, because reasons. Beeblebrox 23:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The only option is bananas on both sides, as far as I can get dall-e to generate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: The original image but with some added text is still available at File:Benevolent Order of Old Fruits (emblem).png (though same reasoning for deleting the original image applies to that one too). I took a stab at making an svg version: File:Scale of justice 2 - Misplaced Pages bananas.svg. SilverLocust 💬 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. Beeblebrox 19:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Real Spouses of Arbcom isn't the worst option. Beats Sister Arbs and 90 Day Arbitor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Congrats Raddish guy, enjoy the ARBing. Knitsey (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"grooming gangs"-related disruption

Thanks for protecting the Huddersfield sex abuse ring article, Elon Musk has caused a right ruckus about this . The Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is getting a lot of related disruptive edits like . Would it be possible to semi-protect it for like a week until the contoversy has died down? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I gave it a week, let me know if it needs more when that expires.

Odd to see the confluence of Indian anti-Pakistani sentiment and homegrown xenophobia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)