User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

May music

story · music · places

I alert you to Talk:Peter Grimes. Is that neutral enough? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What did you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There are 3000 words on that talk page and I read about 30 of them. Was there something in particular you'd like me to look at? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone changed Zurich to Zürich. That could have been simply accepted. I'd like to find out why not. I suggested not to link to any modern city but to the performance venues then, - rather towards the end. - On the bicentenary of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, I remember our recent uplifting choral concert in pictures, on my user page and in my concerts (leading to the two at the church's article). The closest was in the paper. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If you had time to look at a few more words in the Grimes discussion, please look for "arrogant" and tell me which better reply I might have given (instead of providing detailed sources for three performance venues, and new facts). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I've dropped a reminder on some user talk pages, and a reminder on the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I received a reminder of MoS being contentious. What has that to do do with arrogance being mentioned? (in whatever discussion)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Because administrators cannot take any actions under the CTOP procedures unless the parties to be sanctioned are aware of them. I reminded everyone involved in that discussion, as well as give a warning on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't want actions. I'd like understanding, and to understand. Why would the change to Zürich (repeating: not by me but by an editor who wasn't even on my watchlist) not be accepted, that's still my question. The whole discussion seems so pointless because I can't see anything wrong with the name that is our current article name. Why 3000 words?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I'm not sure why you approached me. I don't have any opinions on Zurich vs. Zürich vs. Zürich Operahouse vs. anything else. As to an edit being accepted, that's an issue for the article talk page. I just reminded editors that personal attacks and incivility are not allowed, especially when editing a contentious topic.

My scale of important things on Wikipedia starts up with gross BLP violations and slurs, stopping harassment, maintaining NPOV, down through regular vandalism and COI stuff, and then at the bottom is if a word has an umlaut, which I don't think matters one way or another to most readers, or editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that we agree about the umlaut not worth a discussion. My unanswered question remains why three editors produced the mountain of words we see. When I was a little girl I was told that three against one is not fair, and that prompted me to step in. - Why I approached you? To find out if I managed to write a neutral alert, as I said. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Today is the Feast of the Ascension for which Bach composed his Ascension Oratorio, - perhaps watch a bit how the closing movement was performed in Bach's church. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Magdalena Hinterdobler is on the Main page today, together with an opera that reviewers deemed not interesting and too obscure for our general readers. The soprano thought differently, - listen and see. - Also on the Main page: a TFA by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

did you listen and see? - today's story has a pic of a woman holding her cat, a DYK of 5 years ago - the recent pics show 2 orange tip butterflies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I didn't give that a listen. Opera isn't my style of music, and I spend my limited dedicated music listening time enjoying my vinyl collection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

enjoy that (it wasn't music though, more seeing dedicated people, enthusiastic about an opera while our DYK crew thought it was too obscure, and one of them suggested the singer's article should be deleted) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Block?

Hi there,

Would it be necessary go block 142.188.86.16 again for disruptive editing/vandalism? They continuously block their talk page right after a warning is given so it's pretty hard to actually know what they've done. Thanks! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 18:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Izno took care of this. Thanks for picking up my slack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I know I'm probably hijacking an old thread, but they blanked their talk page with current block info; I undid it; please let me know if that was wrong. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Editors can remove block notices, so there was no rain to restore it. The only thing that can't be removed is declined unblock requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The gaming vs not-gaming conundrum

User Cachedio has an interesting editing history. They appear to have acquired EC privileges in large part by editing ARBPIA related material in their sandbox. They have now made their first revert in the topic area, so I wondered whether you could take a look at it from an EC gaming perspective when you get a chance. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Here I was thinking this would be a nice easy one, but the account is years old and has a good chunk of okay editing. I don't really have the time to handle this right now, so AN or AE is your best bet to get some more eyes on it, otherwise I'll try to look into it in a couple days. Up to 11 ducklings, hopefully a few more to go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Time spent with ducklings is better. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

One of them isn't looking too good and I'm giving it food and water with a pipette. Probably the cutest, saddest thing I've ever done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Good luck. Having a pipette was good preparation. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban question

Just to be in the clear, does my edit here violate topic ban? As in does tban cover discussions with other editors? Ecrusized (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Informing someone of your topic ban is okay, as long as there is no additional commentary. Also, the ban isn't for six months, that's the earliest you should appeal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

When you said earlier that six months is reasonable to demonstrate editing without issue in other topic areas I was under impression that there would be high chance of the topic ban being lifted, given the fact that I've refrained from said issues. Additionally, I would like ask one more thing. Would creating commons files in the future, and notifying other editors that I've made the said files which could be used on article I've been topic banned be in violation? Just asking these to be clear, sorry if its becoming tiresome for you. Ecrusized (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The chance of a successful appeal depends on your editing between now and then, but if there are no issues then it's pretty likely. Any notification of editors on en.wiki would be a violation. No worries about the questions. I would rather you be fully informed and avoid any pitfalls. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Conflict" of Block

Hi there,

FYI, the block on 2601:40:C600:A9F0:F444:F7FF:DC93:4925 only lasts 31 hours because you and another admin blocked at almost the same time, blocking over a block instead of 6 monthes. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

My block is a rangeblock that expires in November. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok. My bad. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries, easy thing to miss. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Where can I find rangeblocks? Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I see it on their contributions page, although I have a lot of scripts installed so that might be one of them doing that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I only see:

This IP address is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

15:28, 21 May 2024 Bibliomaniac15 talk contribs blocked 2601:40:c600:a9f0:f444:f7ff:dc93:4925 talk with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) (Vandalism) Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you see the "Current blocks" link in the box at the bottom? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I can only see Bibliomaniac15's block as well on the contributions page, but the block list shows two active blocks, the specific block and the range block. It looks like (without scripts or tools) the contributions page only shows one active block at a time. Adam Black ^{t • c} 18:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

About your block of 2600:1006:B15A:29D7:0:0:0:0/64

Seems we have new LTA budding; they've been doing that sort of thing for over a month.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've been blocking them for longer than that, too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about TPA

At what point can I request that an editor's TPA gets revoked for personal attacks? Between this and this, the editor involved has made it evident that they have no intention of reforming their behavior. What recourse do I have besides letting them occasionally ping me and write insults directed towards me on their talk page? ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Your mention at ANI is probably the best tack to take at this time. It is a bit of a WP:ROPE situation, as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

it is not random editors

It is only editors that have discussed about her name in this discussion page ArmorredKnight (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Then they'll have it watchlisted. Do not pluck out and ping editors one at a time from the talk page history. It is disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

not everyone take a look in the watchlisted and the watchlisted can be cluttered.

I think it is faired to ping all the people that have dicussed the subject.

In any case, it is not random editors. ArmorredKnight (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

BLP vandals at Raphael Borges Rodrigues

I already filed a RfPP but the vandals are so active, including one recently registered editor repeatedly reverting legitimate edits as vandalism, that a quicker response is warranted. You seem to be active at the moment so, would you mind...?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson

I don't mean to go all WP:WRONGVERSION on you, but the result of the timing of your RfPP intervention is that the page is locked now for 10 days with the dusputed content (re NPOV and source quality) locked in. I don't think this is ideal. Newimpartial (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I sent the request up when I noticed more edit warring, I didn't protect it, so I'm not sure what redress you're seeking. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you not have the ability to remove the disputed paragraph pending discussion? Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit through protection on an article I'm involved with to remove something that isn't a flagrant and severe BLP violation, and will continue the edit war the protection sought so solve. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Newimpartial, with all due respect, I would just let this one be. I obviously agree with you that the content does not belong in its current state, but all things considered, it's a venial Wikipedia sin. It will right itself with time. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

User referred to sources as Israeli and Jewish as a measure of reliability, does not back down

Hey, I asked them to stop, unfortunately they did not back down when confronted. Do you have the time to take a look? FortunateSons (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think their behavior merits any action given their responses here and here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish What has made you change your approach to such justifications? (For others reading it: SFR almost sanctioned me when I dared to raise the issue of an author's potential Jewishness as a matter of reliability re. Israel–Palestine conflict). — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, as you succinctly put it, you dared to raise the issue of an author's potential Jewishness as a matter of reliability re. Israel–Palestine conflict as opposed to mentioned the origin of a source when dealing with possible bias in how they label the nationality of someone representing a nation in a competition unrelated to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Bias is not reliability, and Eurovision isn't the Arab/Israel conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It was both about reliability and bias. Background was irrelevant - your issue wasn't with the background but with bringing up a source's ethnic affiliation as a potential bias factor. So, I'm at loss here as to what is and what isn't kosher on Wikipedia in your reading. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The entire discussion can be found here, where I said It really depends on the context and what was said. I followed up in my warning to you That wasn't raising a concern that there was the possibility of bias, that was just dumping the mere question if they were Jewish into the mix. The context was entirely different, as in the current case we're dealing with someone representing a nation in a multinational game competition and bias in how sources refer to their nationality. This isn't disparaging someone's reliability because of the possibility they were Jewish. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That was nothing resembling disparaging someone's reliability because of the possibility they were Jewish. That was an argument why I considered the author biased based on his writings/interviews, with an additional question mark about their likely ethnicity/nationality as another bias factor. Which is what is apparently discussed here as I'm reading it: bias factor linked to a source's ethnic/national affiliation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That editor didn't raise the Jewishness of authors, just that Jewish or Israeli sources (like Jewish Currents or the Jerusalem Post) are biased. You raised an author's ethnicity—not even nationality. Zanahary (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, for your copious free time....

I asked what I thought was a relatively innocuous question over at the Alexander the Great talk page, and in response got a telegram name that appears to possibly be a real name. Not sure if this should be removed as identifying information? Dumuzid (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

A name offered like that is no different than someone choosing a real name as their username. Unless there's some reason to think it's some attempt at harassing the person with that name I wouldn't remove it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, as always! Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

User

Note Mimbs528 If you haven't already. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Re:Removal of Talk Page comments on Al-Ahli Hospital Explosion

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish

I noticed that you recently removed mine and @Fatboyfriend's comments on the Al-Ahli Explosion talk page regarding the use of torture in the Israel-Hamas war to extract false confessions, citing WP:ECR. Given that this is a talk page and I believe I was being quite reasonable in requesting that the page at least provide context surrounding these "confessions" from Israeli interrogations, I fail to see how this falls under "disruption" as described in WP:ECR section A1.

I would appreciate it if you could provide a reason for the outright deletion of the thread on the talk page rather than simply providing a response and engaging with the concerns, as is generally the purpose of talk pages. Manyyassin (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not SFR, but ECR is a hard-line rule - if you're not XC, whether your edits are disruptive or not, you're only allowed to contribute to the topic area in the form of formal edit requests (the procedure for which I've linked), even on talk pages. It appears your request on the talk page wasn't that, and therefore it was removed. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Kip, I appreciate the additional context and the thoughtful reply. I misunderstood the ECR policy, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Thanks. Manyyassin (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Your post was not an edit request, and was instead commentary on bias and reliability of sources and the article with no proposed prose. This isn't an edit request, even if you squint really hard at it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding! I thought the ECR rule applied only to direct edits of the page, not edits of the talk page. I've reread the policy and I understand your decision.

Thank you. Manyyassin (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

NOTFORUM

If you have a moment, could you take a glance at this discussion?

It seems to be a clear WP:NOTFORUM violation that can’t benefit the article but could result in drama and wasted editor time, but they are insisting it remains on the page. BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Interesting how briefly discussing a source that was previously extensively debated on the same article is a waste of editor time, but these same editors starting a hissy fit on ANI over some quote on my user page is apparently a legitimate use of editor time. The litigiousness and censoriousness of some editors (also FortunateSons) is remarkable. JDiala (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

JDiala, personal attacks aren't a great response to this. Article talk pages aren't for discussing things unrelated to article content. If you want to contest its reliability RSN is the place, but you need to bring more than tweets. There are plenty of venues off-wiki you can discuss general issues with the magazine, in fact it looks like there's a Twitter discussion about it now.

I know it sucks to have someone you generally disagree with revert you, but WP:NOTAFORUM is policy, and it is clear that you must bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles... Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. Importing Twitter complaints to article talk pages is manifestly material unsuitable for talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election 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 00:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia: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 11:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts relaying to a block

Hi, ScottishFinnishRadish. I usually have a high respect for you as an administrator, but you have recently made a block that I really can't agree with. Of course you have as much right to make a judgement as I have, and I'm not reprimanding you, just mentioning a different view in the hope that you may at least consider it. You blocked Why should black and whites hate each other? for being NOTHERE. Obviously you are perfectly right that the editor was not here to build an encyclopaedia, but they were well-intentioned, and probably acting entirely in good faith, just not knowing that what they were doing is not allowed by Wikipedia policy. In that situation, I see no reason to throw an immediate block in their face, when it's perfectly easy to give them a friendly message explaining that they shouldn't continue doing what they have started. If they do continue after having been given a friendly warning, then blocking may be necessary, but I think an immediate block after one mistaken but good faith edit is very rarely a good choice. JBW (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree on the block, but I think the editor should be blocked for having an inappropriate username, because yeah, their edits are certainly good faith, but the username is a little uh... how do I put it? Offensive. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I came across them while patrolling UAA, and I was up in the air about if a block was warranted, and if so what type. I was leaning towards a username soft block, but having reviewed the deleted edit I decided on nothere. It wasn't until I had placed the block that I saw your comment, and had I seen it earlier I would probably have just let it ride and see if they engaged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

After some reconsideration I've unblocked. Thanks for reaching out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks for reconsidering.

@NoobThreePointOh: I'm not sure who the username might be offensive to, except racists, of course. JBW (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably. It seems a little baffling to me. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

1RR

Hello! I need to clarify, do all contentious topics qualify for 1RR or only the ones with active arbitration remedies? I twice reverted an unsubstantiated edit on 2024 Iranian presidential election on the grounds that the AAR was absent in the talk page and the fact that the offending editor inserted information not in the cited article and reverted me insisting that it was despite countless ctrl+Fs on my part. If it is then I will self-revert. Thank you. Borgenland (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Only some topic areas are under blanket 1RR. I know ARBPIA is but I'm not sure what others are. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Iranian politics doesn't seem to be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! In the meantime I will monitor the article and to keep myself accountable I am stating on the record that I currently have 2RR there. I hope that other editor (apparently a newbie) learns responsibility quickly. Borgenland (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Borgenland, looks like they provided a source this time. I've got it on my watchlist, but I also have another 5k+ pages on my watchlist so I can't guarantee I'll catch everything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It's ok. I'm just relieved they put a source that actually supports what they're saying. Still appreciate your concern. Borgenland (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Flag of the East India Company

Hi. You reverted the removal of the word "British" in the name of the Company; but it was called the East India Company and, until a different disruptive editor added it today (who also added it to the East India Company article itself, but RegentsPark reverted it) the word was not there. I haven't checked anything else the editor you blocked did, but i don't think their action at Flag of the East India Company was disruptive. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that was the only legit one that I reverted. Sorry about that, shouldn't have just spot checked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! I did just look at the rest of the contributions, and they do all look...less than productive. Pleasure to visit your page again so soon. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Notifying users about ARBCOM restrictions

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish,

I know you're busy, but I wanted to ask you whether my sending the following notifications to an IP user and a non-extended confirmed user about the ARBCOM restrictions relating to the Arab-Israeli war contentious topic were appropriate:

• to 184.19.40.175
• to RomeshKubajali

(Note: I have since marked these as unsigned, I know I forgot to sign the messages)

I noticed after I sent these notices that you had protected the page in question. It's just occurred to me, though, is this a notice that should only be left by administrators or is it okay as an editor to notify users they have been editing a page subject to ARBCOM restrictions?

Thanks for your time Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The notifications were appropriate. They can be given by any editor to anyone editing in a contentious topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. As it triggered an edit filter and it's a sensitive matter I wasn't entirely sure. I'm glad to know I was acting appropriately. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The edit filter is so editors can check if another has been notified already, and to keep a handy log. For new editors I created {{welcome-arbpia}} as well. If someone is new I normally leave the welcome and the CTOP alert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a really helpful template. It gives all the information in the main template but is even less likely to discourage new users. I got the template I used from Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli_conflict#Templates. I think your template would be a very useful inclusion there. Would it be possible to add it to that list? Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not an official Arbcom approved template, so I don't believe so. That's why I send the official alert with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. If you wouldn't object, I'd like to suggest to Arbcom that they adopt your template (or an approved variation) alongside the existing "first" one for new and IP editors. While the existing template is non-judgemental and advisory, I think yours is better for promoting new editor retention. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

By all means. They're aware of the template already, though, so I don't know if there's any appetite to make it official. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's worth bringing up at least. I'll try to write a coherent suggestion when I wake up as to why I think it'd be a useful addition. I've recently quit my job working nights and I'm still adapting to being a normal day person. I think whatever I have to say will be more coherent after some rest. Do you think WP:ARCA would be an appropriate forum to post my suggestion? Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, ARCA is the place. I used to be a night person too, but I got one of those fancy first shift jobs. Years later and I still don't really like it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I was a submariner for a short while (before getting a medical discharge). Shift patterns of six hours on, six hours off. After leaving I could adapt to any sleep pattern quite quickly but the older I get the harder it becomes. I turn 31 in a few weeks and already I'm feeling like an old man becoming more and more set in his ways.

Another question for you (just tell me if they're getting be to too much or annoying at all, I wouldn't like to be monopolising an admin's time), for Case or decision affected would "All Arbcom cases to date" or "All Arbcom cases to date with contentious topic restrictions" be sufficient, do you think? I want to suggest they introduce a new generic template the same as the current "first" template and one of those seems appropriate to me. This will be my first interaction with Arbcom, I want to try to get my suggestion right first time if I can. I'm well aware it's a very small subset of Wikipedians who have a lot to deal with. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you'd be best off picking one CTOP and working on that. A lot of CTOPs probably don't need a customized welcome. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, just in case you think I'd forgotten about this, after reading through some of the other requests at WP:ARCA, I decided to wait for a while. I thought it would be worth trying to collect some evidence that it would be a useful change, for example by trying to monitor whether users are more likely to continue editing unrelated topics when alerted using your welcome template rather than just the standard ARBCOM approved template. What I did forget to do was leave this message sooner when I decided to delay... Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I've wondered about the effectiveness myself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Offwiki canvassing and possible Meat/Sockpuppetry in Sri Lankan Pages

There is open off-wiki canvassing happening and possibly meat and sockpuppetry in the AfD for Tamil genocide which was also noted by @Kashmiri. I have opened a SPI for new accounts that appears to be created solely for the AfD and another account which only became active after three years solely to vote in the AfD and the links for locations of offwiki canvassing in Reddit and Quora. I hope you could check it quickly. -UtoD 11:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I had started to look into this, got caught up with something, and it slipped my mind. There's not much I can do with off-wiki evidence, so SPI is probably your best bet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi,

I got the topic ban for India Pakistan Afghanistan topic related articles.

does that mean that it’s automatically prevents me from editing these articles or how do I know which articles I’m not allowed to edit? Afv12e (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You cannot edit anything to do with topics you are banned from anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes talk pages, user talk pages, templates, anywhere. The sole exception is questions like this, to clarify the topic ban.

There is nothing that automatically prevents you from editing as there is no way to accurately determine what would be covered on every page. It is your responsibility to avoid those topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

how do I know that the article is 'India Pakistan Afghanistan topic related articles' ? Afv12e (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Does it relate in any way to India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

ok Afv12e (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

The article Kalaripayattu is not a topic under India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan right ?

It is nothing related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, as it is of origin from India , but not related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan like of Narendra Modi.

Can you please clarify ? Afv12e (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see this in the article talk page :

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Afv12e (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Kalaripayattu is an Indian martial art that originated in Kerala, a state on the southwestern coast of India definitely relates to India. The topic ban is broad, so I suggest you edit on an entirely different topic for a while, then appeal to loosen the topic ban to allow edits that do not relate politics at all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

ok got it! Afv12e (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Afv12e The introductory sentence of the article says "Kalaripayattu (IPA: [kɐɭɐɾip:ɐjɐt:ɨ̆]; also known simply as Kalari) is an Indian martial art that originated in Kerala, a state on the southwestern coast of India..."^{[emphasis added]} That is absolutely related to India, broadly construed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

ok understood ! Afv12e (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI: New account Narayanadas whose first and only edit is the same (except for the references being replicated at the end of each para) as the one that led you to block Afv12e for TBAN violation. Abecedare (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Abecedare, I blocked, and pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afv12e I may be indeffing Afv12e. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi! On 27 May you blocked 75.169.151.242 for persistent vandalism of the Air hockey article. I want to bring to your attention that it appears that this editor has reappeared on IP 75.169.152.185, making the same edit to the same article. CodeTalker (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for all your hard work administering Wikipedia and not being afraid to make hard decisions! Adam Black talk • contributions 19:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed some of the criticism being levelled against you on the Administrator's Noticeboard recently, and I thought it was worth giving you some kudos. In the few weeks I've been back editing Wikipedia, I have noticed quite a few of your edits and administrative actions in the recent changes feed and elsewhere as I've been wandering through the expanse that is Wikipedia. I've come to equate the name "ScottishFinnishRadish" with trustworthy, reliable and balanced work. Your contributions to the project are appreciated; keep it up and don't let the criticism get you down. Adam Black ^{talk • contributions} 19:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You know something needed to be done about you. That barnstar? Yup. That's the something. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

How you remain sane and rational throughout your interactions with a POV and BATTLEGROUND-ridden topic area is nothing short of absolutely remarkable, fully endorse the barnstar. The Kip 20:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

True this. A cold pint of NPOVBrewery's own is in order 👌 ——Serial Number 54129 22:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Who is criticizing SFR? He’s excellent! Zanahary (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 to this. I came here to leave the same barnstar for the same reason, but it looks like someone else beat me to it! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Eden Golan 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 15:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Mary Parrinello

Hello and thank you for blocking that obvious sock. What do you think of User:Wikiviewer2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:Lefka1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and User:Bob2234456883 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? They've all popped up at the related AfD or the article itself. Thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 21:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Drmies, I see you've gotten one of these, any chance you can peek at the rest? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm yeah, sorry--nothing. There's enough meat there for a keto chat group, though, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both. Again. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Good morning to you and to @Drmies also. New Conrad Hughes AfD IP contributor is just a sock logged out. See the IP's contribs. They don't understand this is the equivalent of editing naked, not in disguise... unsure about the brand new meat. Please have a look at the IP when you have time. JFHJr (㊟) 13:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this an issue for an uninvolved admin, or should I use AE/ANI?

Hello, this user is acting in a disruptive and impolite way (with some beans for good measure) in this topic area. He has been asked to stop (including by you) and has continued to do so.

I fully understand if you feel like you are either to involved or simply to busy. Thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Since it involves my closure of the AN thread I would say that AE or ANI is a better choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have filed it, thanks. Am I supposed to notify all involved? Or is him being notified enough? FortunateSons (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's generally a good idea to notify anyone mentioned in such a report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I will, thank you. Just using the standard template? FortunateSons (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That, or just say "I mentioned you at an AE report." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much.

It may surprise you, but I mentioned you :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In case this does come up: I am aware that the timing of the AN report looks odd, and am willing to be checked against the other editor. FortunateSons (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User violating ECR

Warned here & editing war here. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked for edit warring. If it continues after the block let me know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

A strange one for you...

This edit from an IPv6 address changed the date of an old edit request to seem like it was made today, that you had responded to it, and that it was an unsigned comment from an IPv4 address. The second edit from this address, here, was similar but attributed to EvergreenFir. I don't understand it at all. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Black it appears to be block evasion by Special:Contributions/173.49.91.139 EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, if I'd taken a closer look at the edit history for Talk:Mother Goose Club I might have picked up on that. It's a peculiar thing to do in the first place, I can't get my head around evading a block to do it again. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 05:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been happening for years. Some people are weird. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Kip ^(contribs) 06:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Close at AE

Hi SFR,

Could I ask you consider rewording your close at WP:AE?

I don't think it's accurate in this instance, considering that based on the VPP discussion it seems many editors think that:

A: While in most occasions it will be appropriate to notify a Wikiproject, there can be exception

B: In such cases, the correct response is to raise them, with evidence, at the appropriate forum - which, for CTOPS, includes AE

I also don't think it was supported by the two other admins who commented, neither of which made comment suggesting raising the concern was inappropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Many is a pretty strong word for what amounts to people saying that a neutral notification WPLGBT isn't canvassing, but WPROADS and ARS were problematic. Someone did mention that a claim that an Wikiproject is so partisan that it is inappropriate to notify them of something within their scope of interest is a user conduct issue, an accusation of which should only be made with evidence at an appropriate forum (AN/I, but also AE or ARCA for CTs) which isn't what you did. You said it was a notification to a partisan forum and did not establish that the forum was partisan in a way that would violate CANVAS. That discussion, as well as the one a year ago, have a pretty decent consensus that the notifications are fine absent any evidence of chicanery.

As for the note to you, I think The Wordsmith's I'd note that it would take a lot more evidence than what was presented here. and no reviewing admin found any evidence that the notification was canvassing supports a little note that someone who gets accused of weaponizing AE probably shouldn't use it as a venue to ask the other parent when there is clear consensus in the community on a point. Lastly, as it is a CTOP such a warning on my part doesn't require a consensus of administrators, and being at AE does not prevent an administrator from taking unilateral action.

You really should be aware that you're about one bad AE report from someone dragging you to ANI or AE for tendentious editing and battleground behavior which is why I let you know. This filing was not a good look for you, and you need to learn to drop things that are clearly against community consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask why you see a consensus in that discussion? By my very rough count, about half of editors think there are circumstances where notifying a WikiProject could be a canvassing problem.

I am aware I need to be cautious with any reports I make, which is why I tried to compile extensive statistical evidence for this one - perhaps the evidence was insufficient to prove an issue, but I hope you would agree it is at least sufficient to raise questions of an issue and whether the notifications violate the standards set out by ARBCOM in EEML.

I also note that one of the editors who recommended a trouting has now withdrawn that recommendation, on the basis that they misunderstood which discussion was being referred to, and the discussion I was referring to did have the mentioned problem. BilledMammal (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal - I mean this in the kindest way - but this last bit is an example of why you are so close to some sort of sanction about your AE reports. You need to learn to ... let things go. Instead of getting the hint that other people did not find your arguments/evidence compelling, you're here disputing things. From my viewpoint, you look like someone trying desperately to find ANYTHING that can possibly stick. At this point, it is obvious to me that the community does not share your view of canvassing - they do not consider a simple notification to most wikiprojects to be canvassing. While some editors in the conversation at AE said that very occasionally there may be wikiprojects that are problematical, it's clear that no one views the LGBT+ project in that light. My advice - drop it. Let it go. Stop trying to persuade others to your view - just accept that your view isn't shared by the rest of the community and .. .don't bring it up again. LET IT GO. This advice I'd extend to other subjects - in my view, you often can't seem to let things go and go too far in pursuing them. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

None of the circumstances applied in the situation you reported, and it's clear from the responses that almost no one thinks the notification you reported was in any way canvassing, and most specifically mention that the notification to LGBT was fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

AE discussion

I took a while to write and post my comment and in the mean time you closed it. Not sure what to do about this. I would very much like to have my post retained at least in part for the bit where I correct myself. Doing that, and apologising, is important, and I wouldn't want my comments to be left as they were before. -- Colin°^Talk 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You can leave it there, I'm not terribly fussed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)