Misplaced Pages

User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:23, 7 July 2023 editBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,640 edits →User talk:Shim119: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:58, 23 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,142,213 edits →Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
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 ] -->


== A barnstar for you! == == A great username ==


Why hello there!
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Great work! ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
|}


I just spotted your username for the first time ever (in the Administrators' newsletter), and have to say you have a great username.
:Thank you kindly, although I wouldn't say tireless. I get tired of a lot of what goes on, if you catch my drift. ] (]) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
::I don't blame you. It's a tedious job, but at least it won't be a thankless one. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
:::I appreciate it, thanks. ] (]) 22:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


Have a great day! :)
== Thanks! ==


...for deleting that message. ] (]) 14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:No problem. I revdelled some of their edits as well. ] (]) 14:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC) :Thanks! My old roommate drew a picture of me as an old timey bare knuckle boxer and coined that as my boxer name. ] (]) 20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I went to go get a drink with the intention of asking for a revdel but you were so quick lol. ] (]) 14:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


== Extend block time == == Appeal ==


A while ago, I was topic banned by you as per this report-. I haven't edited since late November, but I was wondering if you could reconsider your decision.
Extend block time from 31 hours to 6 months to avoid spam. User ip : 2402:8100:390C:43B1:B438:D785:BEC3:5671 ] (]) 15:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


I acknowledge that my behavior and edits were subpar at the A/E report, but I strongly believe that overall on the main-space, I am a productive editor who always uses high quality sources and abides by Misplaced Pages's norms on content creation. I believe my interactions with GoDG were an aberration in which things got overly heated and led to frivolous back and forths on Misplaced Pages A/E when they should have been resolved through good faith, substantive discussions on the t/p and related dispute resolution noticeboards. I strongly maintain that I did make a genuine, good faith attempt to resolve the related content on DN- in which I laid out a case to summarize and include content based on high quality sources while the A/E was going on.
:There's no reason to block a mobile IP range that has only edited today for longer than 31 hours. ] (]) 15:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
::Ok, when he will try to spam again. I will reach you. At that time can you block him permanently? ] (]) 15:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


I'd also like to point out that this topic area on Misplaced Pages has quite a few bad actors including perennial sockpuppets and some unserious editors who use this platform to inflate, and in many cases, fabricate historical events in order to aggrandize their communities. For many years, I've been a guardrail against a lot of these bad actors and have done a lot to prevent them from disrupting and vandalizing Misplaced Pages.
== And Thanks! ==


If unbanned, I would learn from my recent experiences in order to leaven my interactions with editors I have had intense content disputes with, such as trying not to let my personal feelings or disdain cloud my judgment on Misplaced Pages, I'd confront any disagreement between myself and another editor through only discussing the issue on the article's talk page, and I'd make a resolute commitment to immediately de-escalating conflicts and avoiding and language that would affront the other party.
For that quick revdel on Talk:Emmanuel Weyi! Someone's got a real vendetta going... ] &#124; <sup> ]</sup> 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


:Thanks, glad to help! ] (]) 17:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks. ] (]) 21:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:As this was placed based on the consensus of administrators at AE I will not unilaterally lift it. You can appeal at AE, but it is very unlikely that it will be successful without demonstrating constructive editing in other topics. ] (]) 21:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== return of the sock ==
::Ok, when I do hit 6 months/500 edits, do I have to appeal at a certain noticeboard or will it automatically be lifted? ] (]) 21:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It will automatically be lifted. Please give ] a quick review, too. It is expected that your edits will be, for the most part, substantial. A bunch of small copy edits that appear like you're making edits just to reach 500 could result in further sanctions. ] (]) 21:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Ok, thank you. ] (]) 21:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== January music ==
{{vandal|User:Illyduss}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox
| image = Ehrenbach icicles.jpg
| image_upright = 1.2
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
], my ] 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. ] will be my story tomorrow. - Happy new year! --] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:Blocked. I'm busy right now, so if you haven't, could you file the paperwork at SPI, please? ] (]) 20:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC) :Happy new year, Gerda! ] (]) 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Thank you! - My ] is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Did you watch Masilo talk and dance? --] (]) 11:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Will do! Thanks! ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
:::I gave a quick look at one of her dance videos, and unfortunately it's not much my style. ] (]) 12:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Thank you for being curious! - Today a violinist from Turkey, ], whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --] (]) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: ... and today, ], ], in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author ]. --] (]) 19:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


== YOUR TALK PAGES == == You have competition! ==


{{u|WelshSwedishTurnip}} ] (]) 16:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
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)


:{{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) :This is certain to be a productive editor. We'll see how it plays out. ] (]) 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Admin in a week. ] (]) 16:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Mind taking a look? ==


== Resolution Path for ECR Topics ==
Hi,
Hello. You and I met during a low-grade spat I had while learning that sectional EC restrictions were enforced manually. I have a question related to the resolution paths available when an EC edit request is not replied to. Is RfC for example, applicable to contentious topics? Many thanks!] (]) 20:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


:You cannot start an RFC in a topic covered by ] until you are extended-confirmed, so if your edit request is not enacted then you have no recourse until you are extended-confirmed. ] (]) 21:46, 7 January 2025 (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.
::Thank you for the reply. ] (]) 03:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Taha Danesh ==
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)
Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, I want to bring you a complaint about Taha Danesh. On and elsewhere this editor is being very disruptive. They reverted my addition and falsely accused me of everything in a frankly bizarre edit summary:. This was ironic because I did explain my edit and use sources while BLP clearly doesn't apply. Even worse is that they deleted the content about executions and child soldiers last month without explanation: and . Their are other blatantly POV issues with these edits including about the fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie. They have made numerous edits like this across other pages and have gotten into many edit wars recently.


I saw on their talk page you notified them about some of their templates that are up for deletion. I think Taha Danesh is using an IP address disruptively . The latest edits on the IP were reverted by you because they deleted the deletion templates you added. I figured I would make you aware that they are the same person. This IP has exclusively edited the same pages as Taha Danesh, including edit warring mainly on pages created by Taha Danesh. Examples include: , and .
:{{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)


Thanks for your time. ] (]) 20:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== Recent reliable source error ==


:I have given them a CTOP alert for post-1978 Iranian politics. If the disruption continues I suggest you make a report at ]. ] (]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
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)


::Thanks for taking a look. ] (]) 21:57, 7 January 2025 (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)


Hi {{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, sorry to bother you again but could you please give another warning to Taha Danesh as they have continued to edit war and there are obvious competence issues. Only an hour after you gave them the CTOP alert they continued to edit war at with another odd edit summary that didn't really reflect their edit. Fortunately ] reverted them and pointed out that the sources were clearly reliable and to make their case on the talk page.
== On ] ==


After a few days of calm they started edit warring over the same issue this time on ]. Yesterday they of a figure without using an edit summary and reinserted a completely unsourced estimate of "several". In the last hour they have again reverted me three further times with bizarre edit summaries where they claim that Amnesty International and NBC news are "clearly biased and politically motivated". They also didn't seem to understand what "several" meant. They also repeatedly claimed that my usage of "thousands" was unsourced even though I quoted Amnesty in my edit summary; , & .
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)


Thanks. ] (]) 20:51, 11 January 2025 (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 suggest you bring this to ]. ] (]) 21:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
==Maps close==
Hi,


::Ok, I will look to do that shortly. I will add that they just reverted for a in only two hours. ] (]) 21:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
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?


== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==
To be clear, I'm not asking if the consensus forbids such a use, only whether it permits them.


]Your feedback is requested &#32;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 ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
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)


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


]Your feedback is requested &#32;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 ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== A cup of coffee for you! ==


== Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment ==
{| 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)
|}


]Your feedback is requested &#32;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 ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks for that, much appreciated. I hope you have a great day as well. ] (]) 17:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


== Permission to respond freely to a false sock-puppetry accusation ==
== Defeedme and ] ==


I have been falsely accused by @] of sock puppetry. As his "evidence" is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic I have been banned from by you, I need your approval to be able to respond to his false accusation freely. ] (]) 22:32, 14 January 2025 (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) :That's close enough to ] where I think it's fine. I urge you to focus specifically on the evidence and be as brief as possible. ] (]) 22:55, 14 January 2025 (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)


== Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment ==
== DS violation at Trump ==


]Your feedback is requested &#32;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 ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 00:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello SFR.


== your suggestion ==
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.


Hey, SFR! You wrote ] {{xt|maybe a rule against making comments. Non-parties can only provide evidence pertaining to the report, and any commentary can be removed by an admin as a clerking action}}, and I didn't want to ask there because I'm probably just stupid. Are you meaning 'relevant diff, or don't open a section'? ] (]) 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
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.


:More or less, yeah. I wouldn't specifically say someone would need a diff or link, since someone might be providing context to an action related to the report or something similar. The general idea being we don't need people showing up sniping at each other or just giving an opinion on the situation. ] (]) 01:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I have restored SpaceX's version.


== Split request for vagina page ==
Thanks.]] 17:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


Hi, you reverted a removal of the "split request" notice on ] by ] with the reasoning "Rv sock" but the same user closed the request on ]. Either the split request has to be reopened, or the notice has to be removed from the article. I removed the notice from the article, but if you're going to restore it, then please reopen the request on the talk page. ] (]) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (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>''''&nbsp;:)</small> &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 06:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
::: and . ] (]) 09:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


:Looks like {{u|M.Bitton}} took care of this. Thanks. ] (]) 21:56, 15 January 2025 (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)

== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==

]Your feedback is requested &#32;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 ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 03:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== A cookie for you! ==

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Well done for taking care of that talk page vandal at the range ]! I did my own rangeblock calculations and ended up at the same /41 destination. I also found out that the vandalism had actually been going on since more than a week ago, and was about to message you about it beforehand, until I noticed you already blocked it! —&nbsp;] ] 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
|}


:Glad to help out. I checked the /32 as well, but didn't seem like they were on that whole range, although the extra edits still weren't great. ] (]) 12:55, 16 January 2025 (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.
::{{ec}} (I was going to do the range searching before I made the AIV report, but the disruption was rapid enough that I went a little 'hasty' and reported the latest address instead.) —&nbsp;] ] 13:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: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.
:::That's the right way to handle it. I blocked the /64 initially, then started looking into the range. ] (]) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: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? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<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)


If you have time and are inclined to redact, . Thanks as always for action or feedback. ] (]) 05:22, 18 January 2025 (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&mdash;completely understandably&mdash;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&mdash;I'll leave all that for others to judge. ] (]) 18:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


:Just wanted to take a moment to thank you again, in words, for your help. In the unlikely event I'm ever handed a janny mop, I'll remember "bloop" is an RD2 option {{smiley}}. Thanks again for being available. Cheers! ] (]) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
==Editor you blocked is still editing==
::Thanks, and my phone will always choose the autocorrect option to make me look the worst. ] (]) 20:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
] is continuing to edit under the IP ] in defiance of your block. Cheers, ] (]) 15:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
:::This is a basic universal rule. Nobody escapes it. I even get auto'd TALKING to my phone. Sigh. ] (]) 20:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== I had a question ==
:{{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 ==


hey im new to wikipedia, well not really but i have an account now and i was wondering how can I get an edit done on a page if the page is like totally dead has been for years and tons of the information is outdated? (tom clancys rainbow six siege) im just asking you because i think i saw you on the edit history of that page or another one and dont know who else to ask. ] (]) 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
]Your feedback is requested &#32;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 ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 08:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


:] is extended-protected, which means only those with more than 500 edits and at least 30 days may edit it. Since this is not the place to request one... What's outdated? <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment ==
::Oh alright I never knew the requirements to edit one of those. I mean, basically everything is outdated I was reading some of the stuff and didn't even know what half of it meant. Looks like it was made at the beginning of the game and hasn't been updated since. ] (]) 00:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You can always make ]s on the talk page to address specific issues. Until you're extended-confirmed that's your best bet. ] (]) 17:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm just gonna put in a request to admin who put in protection to reduce page protection. Its not particularly controversial, and talk page is mostly edit requests, no gigantic debates? ] (]) 02:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::nvm they did it i think. @] go ahead and try now. ] (]) 02:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Nice just fixed a few things. ] (]) 07:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Case request 😜 ==
]Your feedback is requested &#32;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 ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


Shucks, mister(?). We was just havin' some fun. We did'n mean nuthin' ] (]) 15:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
==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


:I shouldn't be so cross, I'm pretty sure I've hopped onto a case request like that before. ] (]) 16:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
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)


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


]Your feedback is requested &#32;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 ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
== Talkback ==


== ] closed ==
{{Talkback|Bbb23|Undeletion request for Draft: Deji Olatunji}}


The arbitration case ] has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
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)


* All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
== User talk:Shim119 ==
* AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
* Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
* Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at ] about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion.
* ] and ] are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: {{tq|Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Misplaced Pages articles, Misplaced Pages discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.}}
* Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
* The community is encouraged to run a ] aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
* The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
* Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The ] page contains information that may help.
* Within this topic area, the '''balanced editing restriction''' is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE. {{cot|Details of the balanced editing restriction}}
:* In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
:**This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly ], and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
:**Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
:* They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
:* This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
:* Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.
{{cob}}
* If a ] or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their ] to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators ] contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.


For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed}}'''
<!-- Message sent by User:SilverLocust@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Update_list&oldid=1271418026 -->

Latest revision as of 23:58, 23 January 2025

This user is a farmer in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Archiving icon
bunny
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
Archive 43

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


A great username

Why hello there!

I just spotted your username for the first time ever (in the Administrators' newsletter), and have to say you have a great username.

Have a great day! :)

·addshore· 20:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! My old roommate drew a picture of me as an old timey bare knuckle boxer and coined that as my boxer name. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Appeal

A while ago, I was topic banned by you as per this report-. I haven't edited since late November, but I was wondering if you could reconsider your decision.

I acknowledge that my behavior and edits were subpar at the A/E report, but I strongly believe that overall on the main-space, I am a productive editor who always uses high quality sources and abides by Misplaced Pages's norms on content creation. I believe my interactions with GoDG were an aberration in which things got overly heated and led to frivolous back and forths on Misplaced Pages A/E when they should have been resolved through good faith, substantive discussions on the t/p and related dispute resolution noticeboards. I strongly maintain that I did make a genuine, good faith attempt to resolve the related content on DN- in which I laid out a case to summarize and include content based on high quality sources while the A/E was going on.

I'd also like to point out that this topic area on Misplaced Pages has quite a few bad actors including perennial sockpuppets and some unserious editors who use this platform to inflate, and in many cases, fabricate historical events in order to aggrandize their communities. For example, one perennial sockmaster in this topic area was pretending to be me in order to get me "blocked everywhere" as per Inzo. For many years, I've been a guardrail against a lot of these bad actors and have done a lot to prevent them from disrupting and vandalizing Misplaced Pages.

If unbanned, I would learn from my recent experiences in order to leaven my interactions with editors I have had intense content disputes with, such as trying not to let my personal feelings or disdain cloud my judgment on Misplaced Pages, I'd confront any disagreement between myself and another editor through only discussing the issue on the article's talk page, and I'd make a resolute commitment to immediately de-escalating conflicts and avoiding and language that would affront the other party.

Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

As this was placed based on the consensus of administrators at AE I will not unilaterally lift it. You can appeal at AE, but it is very unlikely that it will be successful without demonstrating constructive editing in other topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, when I do hit 6 months/500 edits, do I have to appeal at a certain noticeboard or will it automatically be lifted? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It will automatically be lifted. Please give WP:GAMING a quick review, too. It is expected that your edits will be, for the most part, substantial. A bunch of small copy edits that appear like you're making edits just to reach 500 could result in further sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

January music

story · music · places

Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. - Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy new year, Gerda! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! - My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. Did you watch Masilo talk and dance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I gave a quick look at one of her dance videos, and unfortunately it's not much my style. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for being curious! - Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You have competition!

WelshSwedishTurnip Knitsey (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This is certain to be a productive editor. We'll see how it plays out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Admin in a week. Knitsey (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


Resolution Path for ECR Topics

Hello. You and I met during a low-grade spat I had while learning that sectional EC restrictions were enforced manually. I have a question related to the resolution paths available when an EC edit request is not replied to. Is RfC for example, applicable to contentious topics? Many thanks!Johnadams11 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You cannot start an RFC in a topic covered by WP:ECR until you are extended-confirmed, so if your edit request is not enacted then you have no recourse until you are extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Johnadams11 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Taha Danesh

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, I want to bring you a complaint about Taha Danesh. On Ruhollah Khomeini and elsewhere this editor is being very disruptive. They reverted my addition and falsely accused me of everything in a frankly bizarre edit summary:Rv unexplained changes with ideological or political or personal previews or poor or unsourced statements and BLP issue or vandalism. This was ironic because I did explain my edit and use sources while BLP clearly doesn't apply. Even worse is that they deleted the content about executions and child soldiers last month without explanation: and . Their are other blatantly POV issues with these edits including about the fatwa calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie. They have made numerous edits like this across other pages and have gotten into many edit wars recently.

I saw on their talk page you notified them about some of their templates that are up for deletion. I think Taha Danesh is using an IP address disruptively 93.71.57.57. The latest edits on the IP were reverted by you because they deleted the deletion templates you added. I figured I would make you aware that they are the same person. This IP has exclusively edited the same pages as Taha Danesh, including edit warring mainly on pages created by Taha Danesh. Examples include: Eitaa Messenger, Bale Messenger and Rubika.

Thanks for your time. Tele-1985 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I have given them a CTOP alert for post-1978 Iranian politics. If the disruption continues I suggest you make a report at WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Tele-1985 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish:, sorry to bother you again but could you please give another warning to Taha Danesh as they have continued to edit war and there are obvious competence issues. Only an hour after you gave them the CTOP alert they continued to edit war at Ruhollah Khomeini with another odd edit summary that didn't really reflect their edit. Fortunately User:HistoryofIran reverted them and pointed out that the sources were clearly reliable and to make their case on the talk page.

After a few days of calm they started edit warring over the same issue this time on Ebrahim Raisi. Yesterday they reverted my correction of a figure without using an edit summary and reinserted a completely unsourced estimate of "several". In the last hour they have again reverted me three further times with bizarre edit summaries where they claim that Amnesty International and NBC news are "clearly biased and politically motivated". They also didn't seem to understand what "several" meant. They also repeatedly claimed that my usage of "thousands" was unsourced even though I quoted Amnesty in my edit summary; 1, 2 & 3.

Thanks. Tele-1985 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you bring this to WP:AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, I will look to do that shortly. I will add that they just reverted for a fourth time in only two hours. Tele-1985 (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Republican Party (United States) 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 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of health insurance chief executive officers in the United States on a "Economy, trade, and companies" 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 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Permission to respond freely to a false sock-puppetry accusation

I have been falsely accused by @Levivich of sock puppetry. As his "evidence" is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic I have been banned from by you, I need your approval to be able to respond to his false accusation freely. Vegan416 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That's close enough to WP:BANEXEMPT where I think it's fine. I urge you to focus specifically on the evidence and be as brief as possible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of Love Island (2015 TV series) contestants 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 00:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

your suggestion

Hey, SFR! You wrote here maybe a rule against making comments. Non-parties can only provide evidence pertaining to the report, and any commentary can be removed by an admin as a clerking action, and I didn't want to ask there because I'm probably just stupid. Are you meaning 'relevant diff, or don't open a section'? Valereee (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

More or less, yeah. I wouldn't specifically say someone would need a diff or link, since someone might be providing context to an action related to the report or something similar. The general idea being we don't need people showing up sniping at each other or just giving an opinion on the situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Split request for vagina page

Hi, you reverted a removal of the "split request" notice on Vagina by User:Afranklady with the reasoning "Rv sock" but the same user closed the request on Talk:Vagina. Either the split request has to be reopened, or the notice has to be removed from the article. I removed the notice from the article, but if you're going to restore it, then please reopen the request on the talk page. Tuscan Ant (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like M.Bitton took care of this. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums 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 03:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Well done for taking care of that talk page vandal at the range 2003:D9:6700:0:0:0:0:0/41! I did my own rangeblock calculations and ended up at the same /41 destination. I also found out that the vandalism had actually been going on since more than a week ago, and was about to message you about it beforehand, until I noticed you already blocked it! — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Glad to help out. I checked the /32 as well, but didn't seem like they were on that whole range, although the extra edits still weren't great. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (I was going to do the range searching before I made the AIV report, but the disruption was rapid enough that I went a little 'hasty' and reported the latest address instead.) — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
That's the right way to handle it. I blocked the /64 initially, then started looking into the range. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Scott Ritter

If you have time and are inclined to redact, this is going off the rails. Thanks as always for action or feedback. JFHJr (㊟) 05:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to take a moment to thank you again, in words, for your help. In the unlikely event I'm ever handed a janny mop, I'll remember "bloop" is an RD2 option . Thanks again for being available. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, and my phone will always choose the autocorrect option to make me look the worst. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a basic universal rule. Nobody escapes it. I even get auto'd TALKING to my phone. Sigh. JFHJr (㊟) 20:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I had a question

hey im new to wikipedia, well not really but i have an account now and i was wondering how can I get an edit done on a page if the page is like totally dead has been for years and tons of the information is outdated? (tom clancys rainbow six siege) im just asking you because i think i saw you on the edit history of that page or another one and dont know who else to ask. 88TylerDurden (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That article is extended-protected, which means only those with more than 500 edits and at least 30 days may edit it. Since this is not the place to request one... What's outdated? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh alright I never knew the requirements to edit one of those. I mean, basically everything is outdated I was reading some of the stuff and didn't even know what half of it meant. Looks like it was made at the beginning of the game and hasn't been updated since. 88TylerDurden (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
You can always make WP:Edit requests on the talk page to address specific issues. Until you're extended-confirmed that's your best bet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm just gonna put in a request to admin who put in protection to reduce page protection. Its not particularly controversial, and talk page is mostly edit requests, no gigantic debates? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
nvm they did it i think. @88TylerDurden go ahead and try now. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Nice just fixed a few things. 88TylerDurden (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Case request 😜

Shucks, mister(?). We was just havin' some fun. We did'n mean nuthin' -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I shouldn't be so cross, I'm pretty sure I've hopped onto a case request like that before. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Louise Glover 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 23:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

The arbitration case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
  • AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
  • Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion.
  • WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Misplaced Pages articles, Misplaced Pages discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
  • Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
  • The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
  • The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
  • Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
  • Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
Details of the balanced editing restriction
  • In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
    • This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
    • Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
  • They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
  • This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
  • Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.
  • If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed
User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish: Difference between revisions Add topic