User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Query

Hello, there. I am thinking about appealing to AN to have my TBAN on GENSEX lifted, and I would like to use a User draft page to invite editors of various perspectives - yourself included - to view my draft filing before I make and offer feedback. Do you think this is something I could do under BANEX point two or, if not, is there some kind of "preliminary motion" I could make somewhere to allow me to post a draft?

Just FYI, my filing will include a section where I acknowledge why the TBAN was applied and a section where I document my current, less problematic approach to editing, as well as some discussion of the neurodivergent blind spots that got me into the mess the first place. I would just like some eyeballs on it first to identify blind spots in the filing itself, since this kind of thing has tripped me up repeatedly before. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish any thoughts? I can ask another admin this question if you like; I just picked you as the last one I remembered interacting with at my Talk Newimpartial (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Since it was a community sanction, I can't approve the draft filing feedback, so if you want to go that route you'd have to go to AN first to ask for a preliminary motion, as you called it. I think the draft feedback is enough of a grey area where it's better to seek permission first. Sorry about the delay, it's been a busy weekend. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I have now made the filing that you suggested. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Editor raised an author's ethnicity in discussion of source reliability

Hi SFR!
Coming to you because you seem to specialize in the disaster zone of the Israeli-Arab topic area.
There is an editor who recently raised an author's ethnicity (Jewish) in a Talk discussion about a source's propriety for inclusion. I brought it to their talk page, where they replied to the effect of "it's not unreasonable to say that an author's background would affect their POV". The discussion petered out from there.
I feel like this is a problem. Where do I raise it? And if this, as I've described it, doesn't sound like a problem that could be productively raised anywhere, let me know. If you'd like specificity and links, let me know too—I refrained because I don't know if that's appropriate to put on your Talk.
Thanks! Zanahary (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way. You have two groups, A and B. A is mostly populated by Aians who are mostly from a shared religious and ethnic background so intertwined both are called Aian. Bish also share an ethnic and religious background, but the two are separate parts of their identity. A and B have been at war with each other for a very long time. Someone who is Aian writes something, and you're assessing it's suitability as a source writing about the conflict. Is mentioning they Aian reasonable for assessing possible bias in a source? Not discussing the person personally, just any possible biases that might be carried into their work. Is that they share a common ethnic and religious heritage a possible source of bias, conscious or unconscious? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to say this about a Muslim writer in an article about Modi, for example? Or a Kurdish writer in an article about Syria? To me, the answer is obviously not. Zanahary (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to say this about a writer from Somalia writing about Somaliland? When I was editing on Somalia topics that was a big deal, and often writers from different backgrounds would present completely different sets of facts.

It really depends on the context and what was said. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

A writer from Somalia is different from a writer of Somalian descent. Zanahary (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Excuse my lurking, but I can't help but chime in. Of course it's a relevant inquiry. I think in 99% of cases it can be easily discounted, but it is certainly possible to imagine a writer with a strong POV/bias because of a religious/cultural/ethnic group to which they belong. I am very much with SFR here: context is king. As distasteful as some possibilities here would be, you can't categorically rule out the discussion. But as ever, reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's possible to imagine a bias arising from anything, from one's sex, to childhood trauma, to their ethnicity. But in a discussion of sources, announcing your reading of the author's ethnicity for bias is, to me, clearly racist, when you should be reading the author's writing for bias. Zanahary (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with anything you said there, except for maybe the adverb "clearly." I think our only real dispute is as to process, as it were. If I say "I think writer X is biased when it comes to Ruritania because they are of Ruritanian descent," then what is the remedy? Should I be blocked? Dumuzid (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, to bring it back to the issue at hand, I'd say anyone who raises an author's Jewishness as a reason to distrust their work should not be editing articles having to do with Jews. And indeed I would keep hypothetical-you away from the hypothetically-real Ruritania subject area. Zanahary (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I would have to see the specific example. As I've said, context matters, as does how it was raised, so hypotheticals aren't great. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

When a source is being considered for an ethnicity-independent reason, such as being an academic scholar, it is inappropriate to bring up their personal ethnic or religious background as a reliability argument. To that extent, I agree with Zanahary. Other background, such as political involvement, might be relevant. I wouldn't mind if this was explicit in some guideline provided Judaism is not singled out as a special case. Zero^talk 07:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Jewish and Chinese ethnicity are the ones that I think this issue most arises in; explicit clarification that alleging bias on such a basis are racist and/or antisemitic would be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea about the Chinese case, but I see it a lot more in relation to Arabs than to Jews. Including in article space. The idea that Jews are in special need of protection on Wikipedia is not based on fact. Zero^talk 07:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

You see article-space invocations of authors' Arabness to raise doubt about their reliability?? Where?! Is it left up? Zanahary (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The usual pattern is that an ethnicity is added to a source. For example (made up), the text says "According to Joe" and an editor from the anti-Palestinian camp changes it to "According to Palestinian writer Joe". Or an attribution with ethnicity is added to a citation without one. The transparent purpose is to cast doubt on the source. Over the years I've fixed a fair number of those, and so have other people. I would also fix similar additions of Jewish ethnicity, but I don't remember any (perhaps my memory is defective). It isn't as common as the practice of sneaking in an editorial comment by adding "right-wing" or similar to a source, but it happens. I'm not going to make a list for two reasons: (a) I have no interest in accusing particular editors for past sins, (b) I don't know how to search old versions of articles in an efficient manner and I don't have the necessary free hours. Zero^talk 09:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, you’re talking about when they add that to individuals whose only connection to Palestine is their ethnicity? That would fall into the same camp as the Chinese and Jewish examples.

However, if someone is a Palestinian or Israeli or Chinese national, I see raising that as less problematic and potentially relevant.

I don't know how to search old versions of articles in an efficient manner It’s not impossible, but it is almost so - I wouldn’t even waste time considering how to do it, but if you’re interested I can explain how. BilledMammal (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I am! But maybe let me know on my Talk page, I feel like this discussion on SFR’s Talk doesn’t need to bloat any further. Zanahary (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Unsure if that's relevant, but the author whose possible ethnicity was raised (with a question mark and in a Talk discussion btw) has been an apologist for Israeli Defence Forces.[1][2] That's nothing wrong per se – freedom of thought and freedom of speech that allow different perspectives need to be highly appreciated. However, we're talking an encyclopaedia here. Let's assume we quoted a Russian-origin author speaking publicly in support of Putin's invasion on Ukraine, and then an editor taking issue with mentioning that Russian author's ethnicity, then as an encyclopaedia we'll be facing a question of reliability and posibly NPOV. Statistically speaking, the variable of being Russian increases the likelihood of being a supporter of the Russian government, just like being of Jewish ethnicity is, statistically speaking, correlated with more positive views on Israel[3][4]. This is a known fact in sociology, and Zanahary's attempt to frame it as antisemitism is apalling.[5]

That said, I don't believe authors' religious or ethnic background should be mentioned in articles; however, I see no reason why it should not remain a valid subject of discussion on Talk pages. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It may be relevant to argue that an individual is an "apologist for Israeli Defence Force" and is biased because of it, but that doesn’t justify saying they are biased because they are Jewish.

Further, your allegation that this is weaponisation of antisemitism is false and unsupported by your source; it is uncontroversial to classify invocations of the "dual loyalty" trope as antisemitic.

Honestly, I’m concerned you are still arguing that this was appropriate. An uninvolved admin has already told you that it was inappropriate for you to do so; if you can’t accept that then there is going to be an issue. BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, is it Of all the legal experts in the world, of all the think tanks, they've only managed to quote a (Jewish?) associate professor at a second-league UK university? Yeah, that's not certainly not good. That is just a direct implication that being Jewish makes the source unreliable in this case. Kashmiri, I see Doug already said something, but I'll be more explicit. I'll topic ban you if you raise someone's ethnicity like that again. 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

ok. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I also see that I hatted some of that at the time, unfortunately I seem to have glanced over what kicked that off at the time. That's my failure. I should have issued the warning immediately. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

BM: I did not say they are Jewish, stop putting words in my mouth. Also your presenting of a discussion on source reliability as an allegation of "dual loyalty" is bonkers. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ll back out of this discussion now, but I just want to leave this article here; it may help you understand why such questions are problematic. (I was going to add it to my previous comment, but I see the discussion has moved on) BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Paywalled. And no, my support to, say, Armenia against Azerbaijan due to my remote Armenian heritage is not "dual loyalty". It's disingenuous, and often quite malicious, to present views that people may have on various countries as loyalties. I'll end here, as there's no end to manipulation aimed at presenting me as an antisemite. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, clearly we disagree, but I’m sure you can imagine someone taking issue with your invocation of a writer’s Jewishness (as SFR apparently does) who’s not just sneakily engaging in an “appalling” “weaponization of antisemitism”. It is an earnest disagreement; I’m not lying about having a problem with it, and such a conspiratory accusation is, most generously, unhelpful. Zanahary (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary Earnest disagreement is ok, but framing me as an antisemite is really not ok. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Is SFR’s intolerance for your raising the question of the author’s Jewishness ok, or is that too a really-not-ok framing of you as an antisemite? Zanahary (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

FailedMusician sock?

Coreyman317 suddenly went active after a long dormancy to pick up FailedMusician's torch in Havana Syndrome. Seems awfully suspicious. Simonm223 (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Simonm223, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FailedMusician. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

April music

story · music · places

plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

See? I was right all along when I misread your username as ScottishFinnishRadio. I still think of you as that. Meters (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

but radishes are sharper --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

My story today is about a piece composed for the Second Sunday after Easter 300 years ago, and I just returned from a (long) opera about the same age, with soprano Pretty Yende --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

back to Copland, a little bit of background:

The list of Copland's compositions was removed within "ce", 3 Dec 2023. I discovered it by chance when the TFA appearance of Appalachian Spring on 6 April was near, and I restored the works, 2 April, based on my understanding of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#MOS:FORCELINK (which came from Vivaldi - same players - so you may want to study there). It was reverted, 3 Apr. I began a discussion on the article talk and alerted the author of Appalachian Spring to watch. What could I have said without you thinking "canvassing"? - How about you telling the reverter that any change to an infobox should say "infobox" (or at least "ibox") in the edit summary, at least as long as infoboxes are regarded as contentious (which I hope will end some day)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

(patiently waiting for answers to two questions) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, I must have missed this among all my other notifications.

I'm not going to tell anyone reverting an infobox change that they must say "infobox" in their edit summary. This is far beyond the scope of CTOP, and isn't really an issue that needs solving. As for the canvassing, you did not make a neutral notification, and based on your past infobox discussions with MyCatIsAChonk you shouldn't have been reaching out to them as a neutral party. Even with a neutral notification that would have been canvassing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Greetings ScottishFinnishRadish. My recent article that I wrote on John Ramirez (ex-satanist to Christian minister) was deleted. Can I please have the contents of the article that I wrote sent back to myself? I put a lot of work into typing the article and Ramirez was quite a notable figure (millions of views on YT if you search up "John Ramirez Christian" or "John Ramirez Thunder and Light", and other similar terms). I will not put up the Wikipedia page on him again. I just want the contents of my writing back. Please. Thank you for your free contributions to Wikipedia. M432216 (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, it must be my lack of language. An alert = a note to please watch: no discussion was intended. The removal of the list of a composer's works was not an "infobox discussion". What in my notification was not neutral, - "rubbing eyes" perhaps? I have no words, really, for how absurd I find it to disconnect a composer from their works, which has nothing to do with infoboxes, - I would find it absurd in prose as well. MyCatIsAChonk and agree with what Voceditenore said in the discussion for Mozart (and the community seems also to agree): "Infoboxes are an integral part of editing and more importantly of the reader experience. They allow us to cater both to the reader who is looking only for the basic facts concerning the person quickly and easily presented and to those who want a lengthy and more detailed artcle. ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Your argument that a discussion about what to include in an infobox is not an infobox discussion is not convincing. Any discussion about a part of an infobox, how to implement an infobox, or anything else about an infobox is an infobox discussion. That you support your argument by linking to another discussion about an infobox further demonstrates that this comes down to a discussion about an infobox. Additionally, asking someone to watch a discussion is still notifying them of the discussion, which is what WP:CANVAS covers. That you expressed displeasure with the discussion, e.g. rubbing eyes is certainly not a neutral notification. Your notification to Barkeep was also not neutral, as you expressed your opinion on it and followed up with The question is: does the list of compositions belong in the composer's infobox, and I rub my eyes how that can even be a question. What else could be more worthwhile to show?.

If you believe my logged warning was incorrect and wish to appeal you can do so at WP:AE or WP:AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I linked to the Mozart RfC of 2023, because for me, that changed the scene for infoboxes: once regarded as an invasion by a few who where called infobox-warriors, they came to be respected as what readers expect. I had hoped that the RfC ended discussions, and while that is true for the majority of articles I read and write (even of classical composers), in a few cases obviously not.

As I wrote in my reply on my talk, I encountered AE: I won't report a colleague, and I won't appeal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

relief: the last of six RD articles in one week is now on the Main page - yesterday I went to a great recital with many anti-war songs by Jewish composers whose music was banned by the Nazis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

... followed by two birthdays in a row, and I prefer those (see my talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

now images of a flock of sheep that I met by chance on the 300th birthday of cantata Du Hirte Israel, höre, BWV 104 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

today a sad task - memory of Andrew Davis - turned into entertainment (yt at the bottom of his article, actually both) -- the latest pictures capture extreme weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

today you can look at the last three stories or "music" on my talk: the same topics, Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, Samuel Kummer and (pictured) one row of 8 double basses and another of 5 bassists ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish Is A Racist

SFR locked the page of an Israeli singer and added in a “origin” section of Eden Golan’s wiki page.

Its beyond antisemitic to claim someone’s origin is “Moscow” when she was born is Israel, is an Israeli citizen, is representing Israel in Eurovision, and only spent some of her childhood in Russia because of her parents job.

She is not a member of a musical group that could have its own “origin”.

ScottishFinnishRadish Is a blatant antisemite. Quagmire5389 (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I took a look through all of ScottishFinnishRadish's edits to Eden Golan since February of this year. Not once did they add this claim to the article. I'm making no statement as to whether or not such a claim would be correct, just that ScottishFinnishRadish didn't add this claim, at least not in any edit recently. Please provide the specific diff where they did this. Additionally, you'd be well advised to immediately retract your very serious personal attack; see WP:NPA. --Yamla (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, you might want to warn this user for personal attacks or block them. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, welcome to the club, lol. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Have to add this to the Weaponization of antisemitism article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Par for the course for Wikipedia admins. If you don't get accused of being an antisemite at least once a month, you probably aren't doing your job properly. Not that its restricted to admins - I used to keep a list of the various conspiracies etc I had been accused of being a part of. 'Antisemite' was there, obviously, along with Mossad agent, communist terrorist, CIA agent, paid contributor for Big Pharma, NASA moon-landing-faker, electronic-mind-control evidence-suppressor, etc, etc. These days, most of my paid work consists in keeping the continuing existence of the Illuminati hidden by deleting membership applications from their article talk page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve seen new editors and/or IPs accuse SFR over the last several months of being both complicit in antisemitism and/or a Hamas sympathizer and complicit in genocide and/or a Zionist sympathizer, which I suppose means he’s doing his job right.

Ugh, too many POV-warriors. The Kip 05:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I will agree that SFR's pro-radish propaganda must be stopped. Dumuzid (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m sure you know not to pay heed to unfounded allegations, but for context, there’s been an ongoing problem with the Eden Golan article where some editors are doing their best to remove sourced information and making bogus allegations against those taking issue with this. This editor has thankfully been blocked for a week but still, not great at all. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

An apology

Having seen Clovermoss say "Your RfA was brutal" to you i went back and looked at it as i didn't remember it; i see that i opposed giving you the mop, and i would just like to tell you that i was wrong in doing so ~ having seen you as an active admin for a year and a half, there is no doubt in my mind you are a good one. I recognise that we haven't interacted, and there's no reason you would know my name other than maybe as a random opposer so this may mean nothing, but having reread it, i apologise for any part i played in making it brutal. Thank you for your adminning. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you reaching out, and don't worry, there's no hard feelings. You had a legitimate concern, and RFA is really about trust so I understand why you would have opposed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely topic banned from Sri Lanka

I don't agree with your decision your decision I see as short sighted as you seem to be keen on addressing the symptom and not the root cause, however I will accept it. Could I ask you to reconsider it considering my long contribution and if not; might you reconsider the topic banned for the Sri Lankan Civil War related topics and not the broader topics of Sri Lanka.

On the topic of the Sri Lankan Civil War, your decision I see as short sighted as you seem to be keen on addressing the symptom and not the root cause. Cossde (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The result was a consensus at WP:AE, so I cannot unilaterally adjust it. It can be appealed at WP:AE or WP:AN, though I would suggest you edit in another topic for a while before appealing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

A Marginally Involved Comment

I would like to offer two opinions concerning this matter, the topic-ban of User:Cossde from Sri Lanka. First, User:ScottishFinnishRadish says that there was a consensus of administrators at Arbitration Enforcement. It didn't look to me like a consensus, but rather the opinion of one administrator, and two admimnistrators not disagreeing. So that is how consensus works at Arbitration Enforcement. It is intended to provide lightweight justice for dealing with heavyweight topics. It is designed so that almost anything is a consensus, in order to handle disputes quickly with minimum appeals.

Second, why was User:Cossde topic-banned? Something had to be done. There have been too many content disputes about the Sri Lankan Civil War, and too many requests for administrative action. Something had to be done. Most of the requests for administrative action were from User:Cossde, including four Requests for Arbitration and two filings at Arbitration Enforcement. None of the requests made it clear exactly how the editing by the other editors was disruptive. They said that the other editors had removed sourced content, which is a common complaint. There are various valid and invalid reasons to remove sourced content, such as balance, so that removing sourced content is not necessarily disruptive. User:Cossde has repeatedly sought to use administrative action to solve disputes about the Sri Lankan Civil War, but it was not obvious that the other editors were being disruptive. An editor who throws a large number of boomerangs at kangaroos that are not there should be wary that one or two of them may come back.

So topic-banning User:Cossde will at least reduce the amount of work to be done by the administrators and the ArbCom, and is unlikely to have a negative effect on article quality.

Those are my marginally involved thoughts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

On the point of consensus, here is where you can find the consensus for a topic ban between the only two admins to comment on the requests. Fff was acting as a clerk and gave no administrator input. I went with a topic ban because it was clear, from the diffs they provided, that they were weaponizing the AE process or were insufficiently competent to understand the issues with their own editing. I can't speak for Seraphimblade, but from what I could suss out they were of a similar mind for the reasoning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

At AE, one admin can even act entirely on their own. I generally don't do that unless there's some type of ongoing disruption that needs an immediate stop put to it or it's such an absolutely egregious case that there's no question what the outcome will be, but it certainly can happen. The entire purpose of CT designation is to streamline the process of addressing disruptive behavior in areas where it's commonplace. (And I agreed on the topic ban and still do; it was actually my suggestion at the beginning.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Don’t seem to be able to use thank button for a block

So thanks. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I probably should have pulled the trigger a bit earlier, but I try to AGF from time to time, so at least I can say I tried. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

question

Greetings ScottishFinnishRadish. My recent article that I wrote on John Ramirez (ex-satanist to Christian minister) was deleted. Can I please have the contents of the article that I wrote sent back to myself? I put a lot of work into typing the article and Ramirez was quite a notable figure (millions of views on YT if you search up "John Ramirez Christian" or "John Ramirez Thunder and Light", and other similar terms). I will not put up the Wikipedia page on him again. I just want the contents of my writing back. Please. Thank you for your free contributions to Wikipedia. M432216 (talk)

There are far too many WP:BLP problems with that article for it to be restored. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:M432216 - If you are using a real computer, either laptop or desktop, it is a good idea to keep copies of your work in storage (that old-timers call disk). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Box32

Small concern at the "your account is being used only for advertising or promotion" indef block you've given this user. Their first hundred edits or so seem to be general boxing edits that don't mention the Orpington club, so it's not an all-out spam account. They've also never been warned against promotional edits, only about adding unsourced content.

There probably is a COI here, but it looks like someone just trying to write about their local boxing club and being confounded by conflicting advice. (I suggested they use offline newspaper sources for the Orpington article, they were then told by the reviewer of Draft:Orpington & District Amateur Boxing Club that offline newspaper sources weren't "reliable". Perhaps they concluded that offline newspapers were okay for sections but not full articles.) Belbury (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll engage with them on their talk page. That message is just the boilerplate for the indef for promotion, although it sure looked like their recent edits were all about promoting that club. If you have any spare bandwidth for helping them on their talk page I'd appreciate that as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep them watchlisted and do what I can. Belbury (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that. If we can get access to even a couple of the sources they're using in that draft it shouldn't be too hard to get it ready for mainspace. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely topic banned from Arab/Israeli conflict editing

Hi, I notice you have issued an indefinite ban on my account's freedom to edit topics which fall under the bracket of the Arab/Israeli conflict.

I consider this measure to be unduly harsh and unjustified, and I particularly note the fact that it came straight after you undid my edit to Gary Lineker's Wikipedia page. If my contribution to his page, in which I sourced a Telegraph article on the fact he referred to Oct 7 as 'The Hamas thing', did indeed violate Wiki rules, it is but an honest and (I would argue) perfectly understandable mistake. You undid my edit on the basis that it was 'Not connected that way in source' - yet one of the first lines in the article is "Gary Lineker has been accused of tone-deaf comments after he appeared to refer to the Oct 7 attacks as "the Hamas thing", and my line for which this source was linked was "critics alleged that this language was overly dismissive of the biggest massacre of Jews in a single day since the Holocaust." In what way is 'tone-deaf' not the allegation of being overly dismissive?

You also took issue with my referring to the event as a massacre, because the Telegraph article didn't explicitly use the term. I would contend that, again, if this violates Wikipedia police, it is surely not expected to be immediately obvious that referring to an event in which hundreds of civilians were slaughtered close-up as a 'massacre' is to violate any Wikipedia policy.

It is my view that you should have just raised this with me on my page and we could have discussed it thereafter, but you have instead opted to issue an indefinite complete ban on all my editing in the area. Considering other edits I have made on the topic are adequately sourced and have never been taken down, this seems way over the top. Happy to discuss this more with you, and if such a discussion doesn't lead to any change I will be formally appealing. Anonymous Observer1945 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you read WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. Regardless of the poor edits in the topic area I would have issued a topic ban for the clear gaming of the extended-confirmed permission. I will not be repealing the topic ban, and instructions for appealing are included in the topic ban template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Using a concentration camp image for chuckles

I get that you're trying to be funny with the soup-tasting photo and all, but do you know what that photo is? It's a American propaganda photo used to paint a picture of life in an American concentration camp as being just fine after all (home-cooked meals!). The "Manzanar Free Press" was entirely controlled by the War Relocation Authority. As you can see in our own article on the topic, the reality of daily life was very different. I can't make you care about putting American citizens into concentration camps because of their ethnicity, but I think you should know the background, and maybe think about it a little more next time you need to joke about the length of a discussion thread. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I didn't know what the image was from, it was just the first soup tasting image I saw. Sorry about that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Block missing

You intended to block User talk:2001:8003:47B0:C701:9115:7169:8FA0:F8FD for triggering filter but neglected to put the block in place. Fixed. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Weird, must have been a twinkle hiccup. Thanks for taking care of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration

I've filed the arbitration request.[6] Thomas B (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Bad news. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:AT&T Corporation on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Herschel Weingrod

Why did you remove my edits for Herschel Weingrod? There is no BLP violations there, please explain. Antny08 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A "source for the juiciest celebrity gossip" is not an appropriate source for such allegations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You removed all of my edits, you could have just removed the source. Please bring my edits back, and just remove that source. There are many other sources there. Antny08 (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Such allegations cannot be in an article without the highest quality sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There was other things you removed too, like the early life section. Reverting all of my edits while removing edit history for one source is not acceptable. Instead of deleting my edits, you should have suggested for me to find better sources. There are many other sources currently on the Internet which I will be happy to use. Please bring back my edits so I can fix the sources. Thank you. Antny08 (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I've restored two revisions. Neither source provided is acceptable. One is a blog, and the other is so riddled with malware advertising that it shouldn't even be linked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Greetings! Quick ask of you, if your time permits. Since you semi-protected the article, it's pretty quickly needed oversight 3 times. Would you consider raising the protection level to extended confirmed in this case? JFHJr (㊟) 01:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If it keeps up, yes, but not yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elizabeth Salmón 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 04:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain something to me?

For context, this relates to Jordan Peterson.

I have edited 1RR articles before, but usually in the role of a copy-editor or adder of references. Given my edit count, I do not think it is likely that anyone will believe I am still unclear on this, when, as seems likely, it escalates further. (I wrote something up for NPOVN and so far have one response saying that they will not edit the article because they do not want to be topic banned. (?) But I haven't advertised the post yet really either.) I am probably not going to edit the page today, since I have spent most of it on hold reconsidering whether there is hope for humanity, and that is the wrong frame of mind for what is happening over there.

My question is about the limits of 1RR and the exceptions thereto. If something definitely no question fails verification, is removing it a revert? Is removing unsourced material that is flattering to the subject? Removing derogatory unsourced information would not be, if I understand correctly. I seem to recall that a series of edits counts as one revert? Do they all have to be of the same type? Specifically, nobody seems interested in addressing the rs tags. I am thinking of removing all of the problematic sources and the material they are sourcing, and cutting out some of the elaborate explanations of the man's completely unfounded statements about transgender issues and the Canadian Charter of Rights. In other words, summarize what he said and what lawyers said about what he said, in approximately equal word counts. I actually think this would still be pretty undue, akin to giving air to vaccine misinformation, but it would be an improvement over the current situation.

Obviously in a vast edit like that I would stick to the really egregious stuff. There are a number of other sideshows going on, like whether we should randomly mention a female former premier of Alberta, who is an innocent party in all this, but the misstatements about the law in particular really trouble me and I don't think we should amplify them.

Asking you in particular about this since you have been acting in the topic area and are probably familiar with some of the players, plus you have struck me in the past as pretty fair. So any guidance you can provide about how to address some of this within the boundaries of policy would be appreciated. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as what removals count as a revert, generally once something is the status-quo if you change it is a bold edit rather than a revert. As to when something becomes the status-quo, who knows, so best to always treat any removal as a revert.

Only what is outlined in WP:3RRNO is exempt from 1RR. Saying that it fails V or is flattering isn't enough.

Any uninterrupted sequence of edits, regardless of type, will count as a single revert. Even if you revert three separate edits, as long as your sequence of edits is uninterrupted it is a single revert.

Lastly, there is no hope for humanity. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree about humanity. I just' got through and got through all the security questions and... got disconnected. And now I have other unrelated RL whatever. I will reread the list at 3RRNO before I venture back over there, but a couple of followup questions, if you don't mind.

Answer at leisure if you are busy as I will not be back to read for at least six or eight hours. This would be from the edit window, not the history. Apparently some of this stuff has been in there for a while. But multiple sections would be involved, so more than one edit for me to do it. The sourcing to the Telegraph alone is in about eight places. What constitutes an interruption? edits to another page? A pause of an hour to eat breakfast? Thanks for the clear answer above. Elinruby (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

An uninterrupted sequence of edits on an article. If you're editing Jordan Peterson for 3 days with hours between edits and no one else makes an edit, you're still only making one revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the interruption, and far be it from me to disagree with our host, but I have always understood any removal of content to be a revert no matter how long standing. I would suggest that a plain reading of WP:3RR supports that, but it is 100% possible I am incorrect. I bring it up only to sound a slight note of caution that there may be others who have the same interpretation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I wish I wasn't on my phone so I could find some of the discussions, but that's why I said so best to always treat any removal as a revert. There's been a lot of discussion about when exactly becomes the status-quo, even recently with the ARBPIA activity. I just can't recall the exact locations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's one, but I know there are several more that all say essentially the same thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Aha uninterrupted by other people. That's illuminating, thank you. Makes sense: edit wars, duh. And thank you both for pointing out the hole in the road about the age of the content. Carefully noting that. Much appreciated. Elinruby (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

SFR, rather than take this to ANI, I thought I would ask if you would mind intervening. While it's clear Elinruby has a long edit history, I'm concerned they are less aware of issues related to editing in contentious areas. At the Jordan Peterson talk page they accused me of [7] "whitewashing the murder of children. That appears to go deep into uncivil. When I tried to reach out regarding the use of citation tags they have added to the page [8] I was against accused of whitewashing murder and the editor asked me to not continue the discussion on their talk page (they can do that) included a edit tag again making the whitewash murder claim [9]. Is it possible to have the accusation removed from the edit tag. Springee (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. I just wanted to spend the weekend taking care of my new ducklings, getting my garden planted, building a duck enclosure next to my chickens, and getting my new rabbit hutches finished off. Maybe roast some hotdogs and marshmallows over a fire. Luckily, I'm WP:INVOLVED, having made some edits to the talk page so I won't be the one enforcing anything about the article itself.

That said, Elinruby, don't accuse people of whitewashing mass murder. Also, with edits like this, it is completely acceptable to source non-contentious biographical details to the article subject, per WP:ABOUTSELF. I'm also not sure why you think this is a WP:SPS, Harvard Magazine is an actual magazine with editorial control and staff. You need to make sure you're complying with all applicable policies and guidelines and following editorial and behavioural best practice. This is a highly contentious article at the meeting point of a few CTOPs, and at a glance you've mistagged some sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC) he is talking about

hmm? My computer locked up so I had to reboot. I am just now noticing this window. I realize Springee doesn't know, but he also isn't looking. I stand by "mass murder". Just look, look at that article. It's possible I thought that magazine was the Crimson. Sorry. I am over cleaning up this vile mess that Springee linked me to to prove me wrong. It literally whitewashes genocide and the admin that showed up from the RSN thread to check it out just deleted three sources so... go take care of the ducklings. I have a lot of other stuff to do and Springee needs to refresh himself on 1RR not covering tagging. I am not planning to do anything with Jordan Peterson until I clean up this blatant blatant misrepresentation of sources over at the residential school article. Mind you, another editor at Jordan Peterson just agreed that Scribd is a bad source and deleted it, so... I have no control over him. I will subscribe to this thread as I leave this time though. Thank you for the vocabulary help earlier. Elinruby (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're finding yourself this heated you're going to want to cool off a bit before doing much more contentious topic editing. It's very easy to slip up and end up sanctioned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, don't make accusations of misbehavior in a talk page of an unrelated article, especially not ones this strong. Otherwise, if your dispute gets brought to a noticeboard, you will appear like a problem even if you are right.

I've hatted that part of the thread, as graves of indigenous children at a residential school are offtopic at the Jordan Peterson article. But I strongly suggest that you remove or strike the comments you made there -- they could easily be used against you at ANI. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to make this your problem, but this has surpassed any line between light and heat

Talk:Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse#AfD? seems to have failed any standards of good faith and civil discussion, with a bit of Wikipedia:NOTFORUM sprinkled in for good measure, unfortunately partially coming from very experienced editors who should know better. Would you be willing to take a look as an uninvolved admin? FortunateSons (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Without prejudice to SFS's always independent judgment, that conversation ended three days ago, after a mere day, with the result that a flawed piece of paraphrase was removed, as requested. As a general principle, I'd like to seize this occasion to suggest that, in particular with diligent and therefore overworked admins all editors should appeal for intervention on some page or another only when there is a serious, ongoing problem that has been overlooked to the detriment of our encyclopedic work. The I/P area is exhausting enough, for editors and admins, without cluttering it with queries for intervention over trivial and resolved discussions of differences over an edit or two. Restraint is both a courtesy and a recognition that resources for oversight are scarce, and administrative minds should be left to exercise their own judgment, without excessive prompting.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion regarding content, just conduct. I also attempt to limit admin requests to the amount required (though opinion on outcome may vary), and will try to limit myself furter, and thank you for the suggestion.

It is for now resolve, so far I agree. However, this sort of treatment towards other editors is inappropriate and unproductive, and has and will likely continued until remedied. In addition, making uninvolved admins aware of issue is simply required based on the overwhelming amount of existing discussions in this area.

But three days ago with continuing activity on the talk page and experienced editors (at least one of whom was warned about this sort of thing before) is pretty close to ongoing if you ask me. FortunateSons (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Falsifying (or perhaps inadvertently distorting two) sources is a content and conduct issue. I raised this issue, and it was resolved without any need to badger admins or seek punitive recourse at ANI/AE. The one editor, external, who remonstrated with me over conduct, it emerged, had not even examined the content whose (obligatory) removal he objected to, though it was shown that the sources had been grossly distorted. To take this trivial issue up and ignaw the bone of content contention to focus on a 'conduct imputation' is a piddling waste of worktime. We're here to write reliable text, not engage in petty bickering.Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Bring it to AE if it needs attention, I don't have time to handle this alone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)