Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:55, 29 June 2023

This user is bunny 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.

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Great work! Andre🚐 18:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, although I wouldn't say tireless. I get tired of a lot of what goes on, if you catch my drift. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 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. Andre🚐 22:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Jordan Neely

With the RFC you recently closed, do you consider your no consensus for name inclusion for the entire article, or just in regards to the lead as the RFC was written. I know there were early concerns on BLPN about how the RFC was originally written, and the fact it started before his name was widely available and then continued after charges were filed, made it a fluid situation. There also was the problem of a second discussion starting about overall inclusion prior to this one being closed, although most participants in their found their way to the first RFC. Anyways, just asking before I start removing name from article. Thanks. WikiVirusC 18:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In general, those opposed made no mention of the lead, and the arguments that they put forth apply to the article as a whole, rather than the lead, and most of the support also did not mention the lead. I read the opposition as relating to the use of the name in general (per WP:BLPCRIME), rather than in the lead, so it should apply to the entire article. This is an example of why WP:RFCBEFORE should be done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

IP: 99.245.174.5

Hi, I see that you blocked this IP user and I also see that you blocked another IP which was the same user. However IMO, I think that IP should also be blocked for about 3 months rather than just a week. Because it's likely as soon as that block expires he'll be back to adding poor sources for actor's DOBs. Kcj5062 (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It's possible, but it's the first editing from that IP, so I'm hesitant to lay a heavy block. They might have been using someone else's WiFi or something similar. If it starts up again I'll block for longer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Jordan Neely.... again...

Hello! As you are the closing editor (and if I may flatter you, an admin I've seen just about everywhere I go whose work I respect greatly) I thought it would be pertinent to ask you before opening another BLPCRIME can of worms on that talk page - do you feel the new development of Penny's indictment warrants a new discussion, or possibly even reversal of the closure? Like I've said repeatedly, I think his name ought to be included (and I think the indictment changes a lot of the arguments made), but I also recognize this is a huge set of discussions that has continued to grow and metastasize onto user talks and noticeboards.... Even if the discussion really SHOULD be revived, it might be best to let the page chill out for a bit before poking the dragon again. PriusGod (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

PriusGod, with 45 or so percent invoking BLPCRIME I don't believe another discussion immediately would change anything, or be particularly constructive. BLPCRIME applies to those without a conviction, so the recent developments don't change it's applicability. If you take into account some of the support argued that since he wasn't charged BLPCRIME didn't apply, now those arguments are undercut and we're left with a stronger lean towards opposition.

I also want to thank you for editing in support of a consensus that goes against how you believe the article should be written. That's good editing, and a great thing to see in a contentious situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, The first sentence of wp:blp is, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages." Emphasis in original. The name of the accused is all over the talk page, in the RfC and at least one ANI, and in edit summaries. As of this writing there are 43 citations in the main article which have his name in the title, clearly visible to anyone who reads the article. If we're really serious about strict enforcement of your interpretation of policy, I argue that simply removing his name from the text of the article isn't sufficient -- it should be purged wherever it is found, including from history. As that would be a monumental task, an argument could be made for wholesale article deletion and starting over from scratch, or deletion without regeneration until such time as the suspect is convicted, consistent with WP:BLPDELETE. Then there is the issue of other articles which name accused but not convicted persons (I and another editor have begun making a list).

TL;DR: I do think this issue needs to be revisited, but globally, either with the aim of changing policy to match actual long-standing practice, or removing articles which don't adhere to your interpretation of it. And yes I know this has been discussed numerous times, but reinventing the wheel is what brand-new editors are for, amirite? Regards, Xan747 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The name in headline has come up for other articles at WP:BLPN before, and generally if other sources can be found, great, but there isn't a prohibition on citing a source that names the subject in the headline. There are also different allowances in article space and talk space. Discussing contentious BLP material will require discussing that material on-wiki. If it is determined that the material doesn't belong in the article, we don't remove the discussion and revdel the edits from the talk page. If you're concerned that the name should not be mentioned at all on-wiki, I think you should bring that up at WP:BLPN. Generally, there is a higher bar for that, e.g. concerns of identifying an anonymous minor victim of a crime through their link to a suspect.

As far as WP:OTHERCONTENT, well, that's how the cookie crumbles. In that discussion, on that talk page, about that article there was no consensus to include the name. There's a whole ocean of articles with all manner of different consensus based on what editors took part in what discussions. I don't think that you'd have much luck with a global discussion on hard line enforcement of WP:BLPCRIME. There is some nuance to it, which is why individual invocations of the policy are discussed on talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

My takeaways here are that there are long-standing conventions not codified in policy, different editors have different conventions, and that policy or convention can be and is trumped by local consensus. And that I should tailor my goals and participation accordingly instead of tilting at windmills.

My actual position is that I'm not at all concerned with the accused's name being mentioned on-wiki, including in the article itself. Any reliable news agency will have policy in place protecting themselves from defamation lawsuits, and so long as we follow their lead on what they say and how they say it, we should be covered. In my mind, this moots the public figures test. That doesn't mean I think that's the only hurdle inclusion should have to clear.

Happy to talk more if you want, otherwise I've said my piece. Thank you for your time and consideration. Xan747 (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP isn't about lawsuits, as much as it's about human dignity and privacy. That's what BLPCRIME is dealing with, and why it stipulates people who are not high profile. We don't want to be part of the next Richard Jewell situation, which is why we don't generally follow the media as closely. Misplaced Pages is in the top returns for almost any search, so the privacy of people who aren't public figures is a real concern.

You'll find a lot of different local consensus situations dealing with a lot of policies. In BLPCRIME editors must seriously consider not including material is doing a lot of heavy lifting. An RFC was, in this case, that serious consideration. In other cases, after serious consideration there was a different consensus. That's just how Misplaced Pages works. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand there are other considerations than defamation suits, but it was an argument against inclusion in the RfC and it is a concern raised in policy (in one place very strongly, but now I can't find it). I'm willing to consider that I've put too much emphasis on the argument.

Richard Jewell was never charged, but was variously described in media as a person of interest, or suspect. I recall the ensuing media circus all too well, and agree Misplaced Pages should tread lightly in such situations. As @PriusGod already pointed out, by the time the RfC closed, our ex-marine had been indicted by a grand jury, so the situations aren't comparable. Yet your stated standard above is that he must be convicted before he can be named per BLPCRIME. It sounds like the only thing that might sway you is overwhelming local consensus. Is that about accurate? Xan747 (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue with applying BLPCRIME here, really, is that even if Penny was found not guilty, he should still be named in the article. He is not disputing that he was the person involved here. If a "not guilty" verdict means he should be included, and a "guilty" verdict does as well, then why leave out his name now? Elli (talk | contribs) 18:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Forgive the intrusion, but as an interested party I thought I would stop in. And Elli -- my answer to your question is that right now, we are telling an incomplete story and perhaps giving an impression that is not there (that of guilt). He was accused and later exonerated (or convicted) is a simple recitation of facts that can't really be misconstrued. "He has been charged by a grand jury" might tend to make people think that there is culpability before it is established. That said, this is certainly a thorny one (this article and elsewhere) and as I like to say, reasonable minds can differ on the best policy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not my standard, it was the standard argued in the RFC. As I said, there was no consensus to include, and being a WP:BLP issue it doesn't fall back to the status quo, it defaults to not including. Contentious material in a BLP needs a positive consensus to include. I explained my views on how I weighed some of the arguments, but even if I had not adjusted any weights and read it as a straight vote it would have been no consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not my standard, it was the standard argued in the RFC.

Ahhh, light goes on. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Thank you for your patience, and the crash course in how things really work. Regards, Xan747 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem. RFC closures are a formal summary of the discussion with an uninvolved party assessing the consensus. A closer can weigh arguments differently depending on they're policy basis and overall strength, but it's still summarizing the discussion, rather than casting a WP:SUPERVOTE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That big MOS:GENDERID RFC Close

Hiya! Recently you closed a big three part RFC about MOS:GENDERID as "somewhere between options 2 and 3". However, in this followup RFC almost all of the oppose votes are trying to relitigate the previous RFC, and often through claiming the close of the previous RFC was "no consensus".

It seems pretty clear to me that this is not consistent with the actual close. Would it be possible for you to reword the close of the previous RFC to clarify your intent? Or at least chime in on the new RFC? Loki (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can make it much clearer than it is clear that the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3. It was plain after reading the discussion that the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name should not be used. Where the lack of consensus emerges is when dealing with where exactly the line for inclusion should be drawn. There was no consensus on the specific wording, which was the RFC question, but as I noted, that wasn't the consensus of the discussion. Just from a raw numbers point of view it was about 49% supporting option 3, and 22% supporting option 2. The result weighed much closer to 3, which I had hoped to communicate with the community believes that, for the most part, the prior name should not be used. I don't really have the authority to do anything in the new RFC, but if there is something specifically I should clarify, let me know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion in that case would be to bold the actual consensus lies somewhere between option 2 and option 3 like you bolded there is no consensus to change the current wording of MOS:GENDERID at the top. Right now it's buried in the middle of a long closing statement that I'm not confident everyone is reading fully. Loki (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the steel is too cold now to bother with bolding that line. Changing the bolding now, a week later, isn't going to change how people want to read the close. To be honest, it likely wouldn't have changed how people read it if it were bolded from the start. The bolding doesn't actually matter, the few hundred words I spent explaining the actual consensus do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair, because I suppose I have a deeper concern.

I think that your close is very reasonable a priori, but I think in practice it leads to some serious issues. In a situation where ~50% of people like Option 3, ~25% of people like Option 2, and ~25% of people like one of various options weaker than Option 2, asking for wording to be settled on in a future RFC necessarily makes it very hard to actually get a consensus on that wording, assuming that the people who voted for weaker options maintain their objection. Wordings exactly where the consensus lies (around 2.5) are likely to fail as 50/50s. Even something closer to Option 2 might have serious issues achieving consensus: there were several Option 3 voters who opposed Option 2 as worse than nothing.

I'm tempted to open a close review for this reason except that, again, the original close was clearly a reasonable reading of the consensus. The issues with it are that it's asking people to do something impossible in the future, not that it was a bad reading of where the consensus was in practice.

TL;DR the wording of your close has put us in a frustrating situation that I feel could have been avoided. I'm not entirely sure what kvetching to you is supposed to accomplish but I also feel like I oughta at least say something so situations like this can be avoided in the future. Loki (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking back at my notes, I have 38 of 83 primarily supporting option 3, and 18 primarily supporting option 2. Of the option 3 supporters, six explicitly supported option 2, and many others had comments about exceptions. Of the option 2 supporters there was about an even split between also supporting option 3 or specifically calling out a high bar and supporting no change or opposing three. Option 2 also had other support from a number of option 4 supporters as secondary. I just didn't see a way to call that as consensus for option three with 53% raw support. Perhaps Barkeep49's close would have been better, and I wouldn't have supported a challenge against it as it is in the realm of reasonable, but that's not how I read consensus. I also think that close would have been a lot more likely to get challenged.

I try not to consider exactly how an RFC will be implemented because that can definitely color a reading of consensus. No consensus is always a possible outcome, and sometimes that's just where the die falls. I did my best to clarify where the actual consensus was, but I don't think it was within normal closing discretion to work out exactly how to handle the new wording, and I don't think there was enough there to change the wording of the MOS to option 3.

I don't mind the kvetching, and I'm always interested to see how people view my closes. I'm also always interested in avoiding shitty situations in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No consensus is always a possible outcome, and sometimes that's just where the die falls. is true. I have sometimes taken a lot of flack for closing something as no consensus. But my criticism of your close has been the fact that there is a consensus in this discussion. We both agree on that. However in the end your close has the same impact as if there had been no consensus and thus subverts and ignores what the participants of the discussion told us. Further, I don't think you actually live by I try not to consider exactly how an RFC will be implemented. Otherwise your close would not have had an entire paragraph with suggestions about what to do. Clearly you did (as you should) consider how the RfC would be implemented. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me clarify that a bit. I try not to consider how it will be implemented when reading consensus. After I've made that step, from time to time I'll offer a bit of advice on where I think it should go next. What I wouldn't do is look at an RFC that I was closing and say "it will be a difficult next step to establish consensus wording if this is closed as no consensus, so I'll close it as consensus for some wording to avoid that."

It's shitty that there had to be another RFC, and it's even shittier that some of those responding are relitigating the consensus of a discussion with over 80 editors involved because they didn't like the outcome. I still didn't see a consensus to implement language into a guideline when it had ~53% support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, my weighted consensus had just over majority support for Option 3 (not enough to change consensus on its own) and about the same level of support as you for Option 2, which combined meant there was enough consensus to change the MOS. Also there didn't have to be another RfC. Sometimes there does have to be another RfC, sometimes not. In this case it was a matter of discretion. Your close was with-in discretion certainly. But that discretion doesn't make it the only reasonable close. Instead you used your discretion to close it in a way that required another RfC. The way I would had drafted the close (which I will note may have have changed because of what my close would have meant for the subquestion) may have required an rfc, or it may not have depending on whether consensus could be reached without it. What has happened at the RfC was entirely foreseeable - and I wrote why it was likely - and this is why I have been so critical about what I see is a not great use of discrestion on a topic that is clearly of large importance to the community. Given all this, I would suggest you have an obligation to help the current RfC not ignore or subvert the consensus that had been previously reached which goes beyond hatting a section. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned above that I thought your interpretation was reasonable as well. The venn diagram of our readings seems to be pretty close to a circle, with a sliver on the outsides for closing phrasing and whether consensus can be called in favor of the wording of option 3 or not. I'm not saying it would be wrong if it were closed another way, I'm saying that I couldn't find that consensus in my reading. If everyone read consensus exactly the same we wouldn't need closers or close review.

As far as helping with the RFC, I don't think the person who closed the last RFC stepping in and waving some sort of authority around would be helpful. There's still plenty of time for me to make a statement and engage with the RFC, and seeing where it's going will be very helpful to providing input and arguments to help the closer of this RFC better weigh the responses. I would also hope that whoever ends up closing it looks at the background and weighs the force of consensus from the earlier RFC against the response that the new RFC gets. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: both your and SFR's closes are reasonable reads of the consensus to me. However, would your close, which would have likely seen a more immediate change to GENDERID, not have been open to a much higher risk of a successful close challenge and likely have us in the same situation we currently find ourselves in anyway? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree there would have been an increased chance of an actual challenge, though I think the most likely outcome would have been people getting to work on the footnote or other clarifying language (just as they did here). I am very confident my close would not have been able to be successfully challenged precisely because it would have fallen with in discretion and SFR and I clearly see the same consensus which leads me to believe others would as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess I see it as a risk analysis. Your close would have put more risk on yourself, and the close being successfully challenged (in whole or in part). SFR's close has a lower risk of challenge, but a higher risk of any subsequent discussion/RfC being derailed or reaching a no-consensus outcome. I dunno which is better, and I don't think I'd fault either of you for coming to the conclusions that you did. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Not to distract or take attention away from Loki, but I just read through that RfC, and I have to say, that is the longest f'ing thread I've seen in a while, and extremely complex. Kudos just for the attempt hfs. DN (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was about 1.4 tomats. Not the longest I've closed, but it was up there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Aniyan Midhun

There's PR activity going on with Aniyan Midhun, particularly following his participation in Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5). The article, that was AFD'ed and deleted two times earlier, was created by User:Dhananjaydhanu246 as draft on 10 April 2021, which was approved on the next day by User:Kashmorwiki (sock). Dhananjaydhanu246 has openly acknowledged on their userpage that they have a COI with two other lesser-known celebrities: Nithya Mammen and Drishya Raghunath. Nithya was created by User:Jehowahyereh (sock). Also, see Abdul.Aboobacker's edit. All these accounts are single-purpose, solely for promoting their clients. Possible meatpuppetry from the same agency. The Doom Patrol (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a sock/meat farm for promotion. That said, it's a pretty tangled web. Let me see what I can do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The Doom Patrol, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

More evidence: , came after I gave COI notice to the former. Abdul.Aboobacker has also blown up his cover by saying the rivals PR team is been attacking this wiki page. They believe they are being attacked by their rival PR team working for other contestants in Bigg Boss. Anyway, I have started AFD. I'm not sure a CU could be beneficial since they are a PR team, could be meatpuppets (any insights Roy Smith?).--The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I have that AfD watched, so I'll try and stay on top of any shenanigans. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, I set that RfC tag at what may seem a premature juncture under the "Disgraced his country" heading because I though I'd more than established with overwhelming reliable sources that references to Justice Besanko using that phrase should be used not only in the lead, but at a bare minimum under the judgement heading but others have ripped it out of the article all together and I'm in a situation where I've had aspersions cast at me about WP:POINTy, WP:BLUDGEONed and WP:NOTGETTINGIT because of my good faith discussion on in talk. So if I discuss anything any further anywhere I'll just have others again come at me with aspersion of POINTy and BLUDGEONed and that I'm commenting about another area, and this is a direct quote, "in retaliation for demands to properly source the 1,000% more controversial war criminal label". This is why I felt it necessary to invite other editors who aren't already involved. AlanS 12:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

AlanS, you should make sure that you have a clear and neutral RFC statement before adding the tag. For example, Should the article subject be labeled as having "disgraced his country" in the lead?a) Yes, unattributedb) Yes, attributed to the Justicec) No

Putting an RFC tag after a discussion like you did is going to lead to a meandering discussion that is incredibly difficult to find consensus in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

ok, that wasn't clear on the page I read. it just gave the impression to add the tag. Thanks for your help. With your edit summary, I thought you meant more discussion needed to occur and with the last discussion I had in regards to "Former television executive" I'm a bit over it unless there are other eyes around. AlanS 12:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I was far more concerned with keeping any RFC focused and on point. When dealing with a contentious BLP like this, expect that there will be a couple RFCs, at least, because BLP material that has been objected to should have affirmative consensus before restoring. Often times that leads to RFCs if discussions don't have a clear consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been any RfC's already. AlanS 13:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Ps, can you please check that I've done it correctly. Don't mean to be a bother. AlanS 13:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I tidied up the RFC formatting and added a couple categories to it so it gets sorted correctly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. AlanS 13:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and no worries about being a bother. I'm more than willing to help. In contentious situations it's often helpful to have some uninvolved assistance to keep things running smoothly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide advice on how to deal with this? The very act of raising a RfC is now considered to be "continuing to litigate his previous contentious BLP edits" AlanS 14:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you shrug and let the RFC continue. People disagree with each other all the time. Non escalation is generally a wise path. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Pointless Guardian RfC

Drat, I was too busy thinking of witty edit summaries to look at the wider context and just get the pointless RfC shut down. Ritchie333 13:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

As soon as I saw it pop up I was pretty sure a few moments of looking would reveal disruptive editing, and lo-and-behold, that's what I found. Then they were nice enough to create a few user pages for me on some other language wikipedias featuring Trump's picture before they were globally blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Trump fanboys turn up in the strangest places, you know..... Ritchie333 13:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Havyaka Brahmins

Hi, the user you banned is back with two different accounts. Please take an appropriate action. It is clear cut vandalism. -- Pulimaiyi (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, apologies for messing up the 2 edits. I just go to the last revision before the vandalism took place and copy all the wikitext from there and past it in the edit window, but it seems like the content gets pasted twice if I do it on mobile mode. Anyway, it is fixed and as for the vandalism I hope you will take a strict action. -- Pulimaiyi (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked and tagged the socks. Take a look at WP:TWINKLE, it makes reverting vandalism a bit easier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith 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 14:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Close challenge, Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#Name Inclusion

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. for discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Close challenge, Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#Name Inclusion LoomCreek (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hey SFR, this whole "closing contentious RfCs" thing sounds like a hoot! How can I get in on the action?-- Ponyo 22:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. Read literal novels worth of text
  2. Take detailed notes
  3. Digest the entirety of the discussion
  4. Summarize the discussion
  5. Go to AN

  It's a real good time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh, that simple eh? Unfortunately I just opened a bottle of wine, so I'll have to wait until hell freezes over next week to get in on the fun.-- Ponyo 22:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm just trying to play some Diablo 4 with the wife after a long week of work, now I have to defend a 12 support 10 oppose no consensus RFC closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

149.62.192.0/19

Might need to revoke TPA to prevent threats and personal attacks. LDM2003 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

LDM2003, looks like Ferret picked up my slack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

such a slacker! -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You bet DALL-E can confirm that..

See? It's true! Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

That was one of the first things I ran in DALL-E. It almost made a comic strip out of the 9 results. The last result was Godzilla throwing an entire courthouse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics 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 20:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick blocks

Is there any good reporting procedure for reporting those ranges? In the last month, the 172.56.160.* and the 172.56.161.* ranges were pretty much exclusively used by the same guy for vandalism, including multiple times/addresses today. Wes sideman (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You can report the range at AIV. The last address you posted was pretty stale, but I did drop a /24 range block. I'm looking to see if there's anything a bit broader I can do. It's T-Mobile, though, so it's pretty active and there is the possibility of a lot of collateral damage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Devolocity

This user is continuing to add promotional content to their talkpage after you blocked them. Could you revoke their talkpage access? Thanks. ConnerU (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for deleting that message. Knitsey (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I revdelled some of their edits as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I went to go get a drink with the intention of asking for a revdel but you were so quick lol. Knitsey (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Extend block time

Extend block time from 31 hours to 6 months to avoid spam. User ip : 2402:8100:390C:43B1:B438:D785:BEC3:5671 Rolex2022 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason to block a mobile IP range that has only edited today for longer than 31 hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 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? Rolex2022 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

And Thanks!

For that quick revdel on Talk:Emmanuel Weyi! Someone's got a real vendetta going... Geoff | 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to help! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

return of the sock

User:Illyduss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Andre🚐 20:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. I'm busy right now, so if you haven't, could you file the paperwork at SPI, please? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks! Andre🚐 20:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

YOUR TALK PAGES

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish, 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. Tumbuka Arch_★ 13:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Mind taking a look?

Hi,

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 userpage is full of bizarre insults aimed at the site (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 ("Besides the Daily Mail which doesn't count for Misplaced Pages's politburo"), 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, such as adding what feels like their personal commentary with data that didn't exist at the time of the event the article refers to 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.

If you could take a look at their behaviour and judge the best course of action that would be much appreciated. Apache287 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Apache287, they've been blocked as a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Well that certainly escalated quickly. Thanks for the help. Apache287 (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent reliable source error

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 ‎ 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2023 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

On WP:NOR

Concerning this diff, 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. Newimpartial (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2023 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Maps close

Hi,

I was hoping to ask for some clarification of the maps close in regards to proposal 2a and 2b. Considering that close, would it be against consensus to interpret proposal 1 (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?

To be clear, I'm not asking if the consensus forbids such a use, only whether it permits them.

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? BilledMammal (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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 WP:NOR, 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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. BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Good morning (it's morning here at least). Enjoy a cuppa, and have an excellent day! VQuakr (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, much appreciated. I hope you have a great day as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Defeedme and WP:DENY

The 108.58.9.194 IP traces to Hicksville, NY. It previously reverted 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, removed talk page messages 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 also tracks to Hicksville, NY. 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 WP:DENY. Wes sideman (talk) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 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 WP:DENY when I deleted their comment. Wes sideman (talk) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 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. Wes sideman (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

IP geolocation isn't exact, and for cable internet providers normally locates to the headend and CMTS where the IP addresses are allocated. Optimum has a headend in Hicksville which covers Babylon, NY, which serves hundreds of thousands of customers on Long Island. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 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:

1. edit by Jerome Frank Disciple.
2. reverted by Space4Time3Continuum2x
3. reinserted within minutes, and without talk page engagement 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. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)