User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Repeat sock

Two weeks ago you blocked 2.96.227.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for block evasion. As soon as your two week block expired he was back editing. Any chance of you taking a look? (Also at WP:AIV) 10mmsocket (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Response to your question

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish! I just wanted to let you know I responded to your question regarding my topic ban appeal. I am not sure if I responded in the right place so I wanted to leave a message here just to let you know. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I saw it, and I'm waiting for other admins to weigh in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

An apology and a request

Dear ScottishFinnishRadish, I apologize for breaking the rules of Wikipedia, that wasn't my intention. I hope I am not breaking any rule by writing to you here. I deliberately didn't want to edit the article itself but rather make a contribution to the talk page. However, I probably shouldn't have edited the section headline as I did in my attempt to clarify the topic. I also apologize for that. As you can see from my detailed comment (now deleted), there is clear evidence that part of the article is incorrect. It is the same problem mentioned by user Ketil. I only noticed the article today, but I followed the events very closely as they happened in November and saved the links for the posts on X/Twitter with the relevant pictures and video. As you can see from the evidence, it is quite clear that the story of an ambulance struck by a missile in front of Al-Shifa hospital is based on a misunderstanding, or most likely a mix-up between two ambulances, one clearly hit by a missile, another clearly not. Since the aim of Wikipedia it to get as close to the truth as possible, don't you think my documentation is worth including in the article's talk page? If I am going about this in the wrong way, can you please point me in the right direction? HarderD (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Due to the extended-confirmed restriction placed on the topic you can only make WP:Edit requests. You'll need to provide reliable sources, rather than tweets, to support the change you'd like to make. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As Ketil mentioned in the talk page, all the international media (i.e. reliable sources) showed pictures of the not very damaged ambulance and incredibly concluded that it was hit by a missile. And, as you can see in the Wiki article, the only "evidence" is that IDF said that it had hit "an" ambulance, most likely the one on the coastal road. But OK, I accept that we're stuck with the official media version of the story, even though there is no evidence. In November I contacted both CNN and Times of Israel to see if they were interested in looking into the story, but never received an answer. And I understand that the work of the Twitter OSINTs can be seen as original research and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia. I suppose Ketil is right (again) on the talk page when he writes that getting to the truth is probably a lost cause at this point ;) All the best and thank you for your time! HarderD (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

We can't use WP:Original research, such as interpreting photos. If it hasn't been discussed in reliable secondary sources our hands are tied. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again. I understand. You might, however, consider leaving my comment (reply to Ketil) on the talk page. Then maybe someone will look into it one day if/when such secondary sources turn up. Just an idea. HarderD (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That is prohibited by WP:ECR. It's likely that the talk page watchers saw both your talk page message and this discussion, so if any extended-confirmed editors find that it has merit they can bring it up at the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts?

What do you think of me possibly throwing this appeal over to AN for review? It's been sitting for about 3 weeks without action, and I'm sure many admins have reviewed it but didn't feel confident acting on it either way. Oh, and hi.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remember placing the block, which surprised me, because it looked recent, them I noticed it was a year ago. Yeah, AN is probably the right call.

Hello to you, also. Long time no chat. I haven't had to bother you for a CU in a while. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

We live in different wiki worlds now, you're all wrapped up in the world of AE and closing contentious discussions, while I'm a sock-blocking one-trick-ponyo. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Wanna trade? Seems that your world might be slightly less stressful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No way, Jose. I guarantee it's less stressful, and also: I'm lazy. I generally only have socks and ne're-do-wells wielding pitchforks, which works fine for me. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well shucks. I'm other news, I raise ducks now. I think I have it backwards, as I'm raising mammals for white meat and poultry for red. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

To close the loop: I did the thing.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and working the unblock queue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

JohnR1Roberts

I see you blocked him for an ECR violation earlier. See his latest edit today.[1]. I am not sure what exactly to do. Maybe an indefinite topic ban? And a block or not? Doug Weller talk 07:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

They're already essentially topic banned, so I go with escalating blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Expired RfC

What is the correct way to proceed with this RfC? Was it correct to restore the expired RfC template as I did here [2]? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You can leave the RFC template removed. If discussion is pretty much wrapped up and consensus isn't obvious you can place a request at WP:CR for closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP:RGW on a user talk page

Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish I am reaching out in part to gather expertise on whether a user page I found violates WP:RGW, WP:POLEMIC, or any other guidlines. The user in question is BangladeshiEditorInSylhet. Their user page contains language such as "We can also remove Pro-Zionist statements on Wikipedia" and "The Pro-Zionist editing lowers the credibility of Wikipedia and makes it less reliable." This is concerning because, if followed by the user, would lead to biased and unproductive edits in an area that is highly divisive. This editor has been prolific since joining in November 2023, with over 4000 edits in that timeframe largely focused on Bangladesh. However, many edits related to the Middle East and conflict in Israel and Palestine have been reverted, such as as on the Battle of Bint Jbeil, the Second Intifada, the Palestine Liberation Organization, etc. The reason for these revisions was the addition of biased language.

I am fairly unfamiliar with the protocols here. Thus, I am reaching out to hear what you have to say. I also know that you previously edited this user's page to remove certain content that you viewed did violate some Wikipedia protocols. Thanks, Debartolo2917 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs of recent disruption or bias? I warned them back in late June, so preferably after that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

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.Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Catalonia

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, just fyi in case you didn't notice: A registered user Charles Albert Noble is also involved in deleting "from Catalonia" so that could also be block evasion from IP addresses you've blocked, maybe? In my knowledge I don't know if there is a sock master behind the continual removal after someone else continues to revert and gets blocked for socking etc.. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)