Jump to content

User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Topic ban

Hi I wish for you to reconsider your decision.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

A major issue with the page Ezhava and a very recently formed page Tiyyar

hi @ScottishFinnishRadish,

I have seen that you have edited the page Ezhava and related issues with that . from the records it is clear that the ediotrs coniders ezhavas and thiyyas as synonymous and both are redirected to each other. however after violating this a new page has been created few days back , the page contradicts almost any thing the main page says and went to claim that thiyyas are a separate ethnicity . However the main page says that it is the same . Quoting from the main page Ezhava --> They are also known as Ilhava, Irava, Izhava and Erava in the south of the region; as Chovas, Chokons and Chogons in Central Travancore; and as Thiyyar, Tiyyas and Theeyas in the Malabar region. This is from the section variations from the main page ezhava. 

The problem is since these both are included together it would require to split like the entire pages , if it is separate . I have checked the past edits and archieves and the main admins had made it clear that both are same . It would require splitting up the page "Ezhava" too . Else it is like creating 10. 20 pages with the same name. Also thiyyas are being counted as a separate ethnicity in the page tiyyar in most of the cases including the govt records the name is thiyya , so like it is extra confusion. All the details are well discussed in the main page ezhava. the current page tiyyar even discusses , genetics like indo aryans etc, is a mere news article enough enough for this claims  ?? the article claims things like separate dialect for thiyya. I mean how can this be in an ecyclopedia even a news article wont say this?? Can u please check into this ? I think if it is separate the entire page need to be splitted up ? What do u think ? Lisa121996 (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Also this was redirected to ezhava earlier by other admins , now somebody opened the issue again it seeems . Can u please look into this Lisa121996 (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

New message from Red-tailed hawk

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration Enforcement.
Message added 03:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

IP editors

I'd like to ask you about how best to handle this situation. They have been targeting this RfC, and South China Sea articles which also involve registered accounts KingKeyBoy and Ed8694[1]. One IP group is from the Philippines: 103.152.9.17[2] [3] [4] [5] Second group from the Netherlands: [6] [7] Third group from Japan: [8] [9] [10] Fourth from Indonesia: [11] [12] [13] [14]. Most of them became active in June and are single purpose. Would SPI or page protection be helpful in any way? Vacosea (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

ANI section close

I think your action here was reasonable; however I don’t think it’s really appropriate for someone who arguably has a conflict of interest here to be closing something that could potentially affect them. You are an editor at Wikipediocracy, if I’m not mistaken. Dronebogus (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a forum, so there are no editors. There are also many users of other offsite forums and social media sites. In fact, I would reckon that almost every editor uses some form of off-wiki communication. I don't think that makes me involved in such a way that I can't close an obvious time-sink. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
In any case I think you’ve made yourself sufficiently involved that I’d strongly advise against any further closures in this thread. There are plenty of other admins who don’t have multiple conflicts of interest going on. Dronebogus (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Claiming that someone has COI merely by having a WPO account is a very odd accusation. Your claim basically presumes that WPO users are a homogenous group which is without a basis in fact. TarnishedPathtalk 02:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
We're used to it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 04:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I created an account recently so I could bring up other user's previous comments. I just find it completely bizarre that an editor would WP:ABF and make presumptions about a whole class of WP editors (those having WPO accounts) without any basis in reality. TarnishedPathtalk 05:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

From WP:INVOLVED: Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. With due respect for Dronebogus who I've always quite liked, there's nothing in this close that suggests SFR is "involved" in this dispute or unable to close a segment of the discussion.

Simply having an account on a third-party website does not automatically imply membership of a cabal of all other accountholders or an inability to fairly perform admin roles. There's clearly some community interest in another debate on the role of WPO, but perhaps let's not start it with assumptions like this. :)

Oh and disclaimer if required: I don't have a WPO account and don't care what its denizens say. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Euryalus: SFR has involved himself in the discussion proper and is clearly at least somewhat biased towards WPO in a matter that concerns the acceptability of conduct on that site but is staying out of further closures, which I approve of. Dronebogus (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Can you demonstrate clearly at least somewhat biased towards WPO, or why it would matter in this situation? As far as I can see when looking at this current rhubarb I'm the only admin who has recently blocked AtG. Too bad no one had just approached me with the most recent diffs. We could have saved dozens of editor hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
In fact, with one of the provided diffs falling under BLP CTOP, I went ahead with the block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Describing it in positive terms like you did in the discussion implies some bias. Dronebogus (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
You'd better keep your eyes open, there's a site called "wikipedia" that a bunch of editors belong to as well. They should probably stay away from anything tangentially related to it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Dronebogus, I am sympathetic to your skepticism of the Wikipediocracy 'thing' (full disclosure: I have an account but have never posted). But even given the most capacious interpretation, no one in that thread is complaining that AtG is on Wikipediocracy, the complaint is that he is uncivil both here and there. Whatever one thinks of that other site, I think you're stretching the notion of 'involved' a bit beyond the breaking point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
It's also gross when you thank me for placing a block notice on another editor's talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Why? It was a good call. Dronebogus (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

AtG block

Hi SFR. Just curious if this is for on-wiki comments, off-wiki comments, or both? 28bytes (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It's for the specific diff I cited in my block notification and the AE log. This falls under CTOP/BLP and I gave them a logged warning and have already blocked them once for NPA/incivility. If I had seen all of the diffs earlier I would have acted earlier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks for the explanation. 28bytes (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I just want you to know I do appreciate you blocking AtG, even if it feels like it was under a technicality to prevent it being anyone’s “fault” if a community sanction went through. Whether or not that was your actual intent, maybe it’s for the best that the ANI thread didn’t go to completion. A popular editor getting blocked always results in a solidified support base and cries of “witch hunt!” Dronebogus (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The only CT alert I see for Andy is under the gender-related disputes case. Where was Andy made aware of the BLP case? If he was not then you may not issue an arbitration enforcement block. You could of course block them as a normal admin action, but not an AE block. nableezy - 14:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Like I said, feels like a technicality. SFR should just have blocked him for incivility by admin fiat if they were going to block them without community consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
ATG is formally aware of CT/BLP, having alerted someone else to it a couple months ago. See WP:CTOP footnote M. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
User talk:AndyTheGrump#Civility in contentious topics, where I said You're aware that BLPs are a contentious topic, so I'm going to skip the template on that. They're clearly aware of all sorts of CTOPs, demonstrated through their editing at AE, and even if they weren't aware of the BLP CTOP my warning served to provide that alert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether to just keep it to myself or not, because I don't really have a big problem with a 1 week block. But (1) the only diff you actually cite is a response to a troll, and seems an odd choice to hang your hat on, and (2) I don't understand how this is related to CTOP/BLP. Did you mean another diff that is worse, and does relate to CTOP/BLP? I feel like kind of a jerk nitpicking, but I'm confident you'll take this in the spirit intended. Also, Andy would laugh at the idea that he wasn't aware of CTOP/BLP... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It was in response to actions on a BLP, so it falls under BLP arbitration enforcement. I agree it wasn't very bad, but after a logged warning and a block for the same behavior I went with another block. Doing it as an AE action has the added benefit of requiring a clear consensus to overturn and can only be challenged by the one sanctioned so hopefully that heads off any additions to an already 1.5 tomats clusterfuck. The other option is the thread on the one week block stays open for another week or so, gathers up another 0.6 tomats worth of text, and if it closes with a block Andy would have already have been unblocked.
Basically, after you've been recently warned and blocked for a behavior doing it again, even if it wasn't too bad, isn't ok. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I think I disagree with both points to some extent, but not enough to argue further. I was just telling someone else how exhausting it must be to make a decision, and then have to spend hours calmly and coolly defending it. And thanks at least for putting us out of our misery. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Civility violation? Definitely. BLP violation? I just can't make it stretch that way. Sorry, but even if the block was defensible, CTOP isn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not a violation of WP:BLP, it's a violation of WP:CTOP Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and...comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice; and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Decorum Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
To this peanut in the gallery it seems like you are basically making your block in to a "super-block" but on tenuous grounds. Pointlessly I might add. But ty FFF for pointing me to Andy alerting somebody else, as that does indeed establish awareness. nableezy - 15:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
If he had blanked that message on his talk page with "go away troll", would you have felt able to make that same block? Because the step from "troll" to "moron" is barely noticeable. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Andy needs to stop the personalized commentary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

A fox for you!

For Handling those closes that had a lot of charged feelings.

LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Just doing what I can. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment on my page

I really appreciate the effort you put to read through my TLDR. Beyond the call of duty, really. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Appeal topic ban

I hereby request that the topic ban that was imposed against me today at 10:49 UTC will be lifted, for the following reasons:

  1. I am a good faith editor - Most of my edits were not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. All edits not relating to the conflict were constructive and were done on good faith - look at my edits before yestrerday. I have contributed to the project (see this edit), even on articles related to Israel that don't have anything to do with the conflict (like this edit). I know that these edits don't have to do with the conflict, but that shows that I'm a good-faith editor, which makes it likely that I'm constructive about the conflict as well. About the conflict - some of my edits (such as this move) were uncontroversial and weren't met with opposition. Some other edits are correcting an actual bias (for example this one, an edit to the Israeli settlement Kalya, where I removed an entire section speaking about the settlement's status under international law - something that shouldn't exist and doesn't exist in any other settlement article). Other edits were actually biased and I am truly sorry about those.
  2. I believe that it is not fair, appropriate, nor "fits the crime" to punish me forever for something that I did once, especially considering all the above.
  3. My talk page edits - I am sorry for what I said to User:Selfstudier, including my aspersions. I promise to obey the ArbCom restriction that prohibits me from editing conflict articles until I'm extended confirmed. When I'll be extended confirmed, I will refrain from adding bias to such articles.

In conclusion, I would be very thankful if you will consider lifting my topic ban. Thank you for the time, Uricoh (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I will not be lifting the topic ban, but I will remind you that indefinite is not infinite and productive editing in other topics will make an appeal much easier. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2024

Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I surrender. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

What? Just when you could start charging a fiver per post? — kashmīrī TALK 21:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It's kind of SFR to allow his page to be used for general queries in advance of the drama boards. But this is his page, and it's up to him how much he wants it used for that purpose and for related debates. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Possibly contradictory policies on retaining disputed content

I apologize in advance if this is an obvious question. Per WP:ONUS, "responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" but per WP:NOCON, following a discussion where no consensus is reached "the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." This seems contradictory. If we have longstanding existing content on an article, then someone BOLD-ly removes said content, which in turn is disputed by other editors and there's a discussion, and there's no consensus in that discussion, what should happen? Is the disputed content retained or not? Thanks. JDiala (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a mystical, legendary event that has many an editor has heard of, but none can exactly put their finger on. Some say that it only happens on a blue moon, and others day the planets have to align in to the correct pattern, but I personally believe that when you see the first fireflies of early summer it happens. Article content becomes the status quo. Once that magical moment passes you generally need consensus to remove rather than keep, and an edit to it is BOLD, not a revert.
The real question is if it's really so important to have it in one specific state while you work through dispute resolution. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
JDiala, you've hit on one of the most frustrating policy conflicts we have. Many have tried and failed to fix it. The problem is that there are many people who have recently had an extremely frustrating experience with someone using ONUS to keep out obviously appropriate material, and there are many people who have recently experienced someone abusing NOCON to keep in obviously objectionable material. Conversations on resolving the discrepancy tend to bring out both parties, and the needle can't move in either direction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I like my answer better. ✨🌈 🌆 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
It's spiritually accurate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It's ARBPIA again...

It's awkward to find myself here, but don't 30/500 editing restrictions apply only to CT articles specifically designated as such by admins? It may be a bit of gray area, but that noticeboard doesn't seem to be designated as such. Or maybe it's just a breach of individual sanctions by that particular editor, in which case I guess the message for them could have been a tad more clear (esp. given their penchant for details)? — kashmīrī TALK 14:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It applies to the entire topic anywhere on en.wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
ok thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 14:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, WP:ECR says The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed. All edits covers everything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
👍 — kashmīrī TALK 18:25, 17 July 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Kip (contribs) 17:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fistagon Diddy attack account

Thanks for taking care of that account, as well as some of the edit summaries - would you be able to revdel the rest? Needless to say, I don’t take too kindly to some of the insults within them. The Kip (contribs) 01:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Ingenuity took care of this. Not sure how I missed them. As always, thanks for picking up my slack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
You seem like you deserve one of these. Thanks for all your help :) The Night Watch (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza_genocide

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page.

I'm guessing this talk page is not eligible for this exception...? Emdosis (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not an edit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Request Discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently an appeal involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a sanction you imposed. The thread is here. Thank you. — JoeJShmo💌 23:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack

Uh what? nableezy - 14:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

At most you could remove par for the course but even that is stretching the bounds of what a removable personal attack is so far that I don’t know how you think you have that authority. The rest of the comment should be restored. nableezy - 14:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
To pretend like an RFC on a different topic provides you with some sort of backing on this topic is I suppose par for the course here but nonetheless based on nothing. Is that a comment on content or contributor? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It is a comment about the claim that an unrelated RFC provides backing for a position in this one. It is a comment about an argument not an editor. nableezy - 14:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Your comment on the argument was left intact. Your jab at another editor was removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
No, the argument that pretending like an RFC on a different topic provides backing for this topic is based on nothing was removed. If you want to remove I suppose par for the course here but nonetheless fine, but even that is stretching your authority here, but the rest of it should be restored. nableezy - 14:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
"Pretending" can be interpreted as implying dishonesty. Fwiw nabs it used to piss me off when you'd accuse me of "pretending" something. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The comment, To pretend like an RFC on a different topic provides you with some sort of backing on this topic is ... based on nothing might be inelegant prose, but I can't see a personal attack there. Newimpartial (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
'Pretending' should not be there, Nableezy. I've quietly noted for over a decade that editors generally use 'disingenuous' to make the same point, and even admins, (not SFR to my knowledge), find nothing problematical in the latter, which implies 'pretending'. The reason we bridle at the former, and not the latter, is that generally people don't appear to know precisely what 'disingenuous' means. But a very experienced editor, esp. in the technicalities, like BilledMammal, certainly did 'try and make out' that one RfC supported another RfC when the two were self-evidently unrelated. I think we would save ourselves a lot of time if we didn't make major issues out of fine print generally. It only makes for the usual Sturm und Drang in a teacup, which can be put to better uses, like studying the physics of a meniscus.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Talk page stalker here. Lots of editors talk about trying to keep things calm in this topic area, but even if To pretend like an RFC on a different topic provides you with some sort of backing on this topic is I suppose par for the course here but nonetheless based on nothing. is not a personal attack (which I think it's borderline) it definitely raises the temperature greatly. Would not the following "I cannot see how a RFC on a different topic applies to this topic." get the point across equally without getting close to the line? Generally, we should avoid the use of "you" when discussing things in contentious topic areas - it's not always easy but it will certainly be better. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
'Raise the temperature' is another common phrase in our wiki discussions. In taking a thermometer measurement, minor variations from 36.1 to 37.2 are within the normal range of fluctuations that tell one nothing, and do not set off an alert. While best practice is as you suggest, such minutiae do not constitute evidence of some incipient climate change threat.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:... follow editorial and behavioural best practiceWP:CTOP. When editing a contentious topic editors must follow best practices. Saying that "sure it's not best practice, but it's not that bad" doesn't fly in CTOPs, especially if it's the most C of the CTOPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Even if close to the line, it is not over the line, and I did follow editorial and behavioural best practices. Oh hey, somebody else used the p word. nableezy - 15:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Want me to redact there, or is my finger wagging that ended that thread four days ago sufficient? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
No, Id rather you didnt play civility cop until somebody shoots somebody with a f you or something along those lines. The threshold for a "calm down" is considerably lower than for an {{rpa}}. nableezy - 15:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, I agree with both of Ealdgyth's points (on temperature, and on "you"). But I also feel that the comment in question is well below the threshold at which admin redaction is called for, and the extent of the redaction removed a substantive issue (the deployment of an unrelated RfC result in the discussion) which was on topic in the section. I would think that admin should not be removing substantive comments in discussion sections because they disapprove of a comment's tone. Newimpartial (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok, Ill rephrase along those lines, but I wont use the wishy washy "I cannot see how". Hopefully it meets the approval of all. nableezy - 15:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
If it doesn't, we'll all be here to let you know :-) My advice to all: in almost all instances, the word "pretend" can be replaced by the connotation-free word "conclude." Example: I can conclude that Nableezy gives a crap what I think, if I want to. Levivich (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
My advice would be to look at the discussion and see if any further replies along that line will be of any benefit to other editors or the closer. Both editors stated their positions and made their rebuttals. I don't think just a little more snark or a touch more repetition is going to be the homerun that wraps this up. The purpose is to form a consensus, not to get into extended repetitive arguments that aren't consequential. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I conclude that Levivich is an excellent writer of fiction. nableezy - 15:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
There must be a place here for 'an excellent righter of friction.'Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
WD-40? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the good oil on that. Some might be tempted to adopt WD-40 as a slang nickname for you. I look forward to AE reports if, disingenuously or not, louts like myself do so!:) Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

PA?

Doesn't it feel like this one going a tad too far? — kashmīrī TALK 11:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

hey could you explain how to not get deleted by you again tomorrow?

I Dont agree with calling Warsaw ghetto intifada, and I am not alone in this believe, there have been multiple user who complained about it.

Yad Vashem. The World Holocaust Remembrance Center dont call it intifada, say its call tamrood in arabic. thats worth mentioning.

Please let get past the Stonewalling and allow users to get to a middle ground to address the calling of Warsaw ghetto as intifada? 212.29.194.49 (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Attacked by users in other areas for TBAN

I am being repeatedly attacked by other another user (specifically @TylerBurden) for being TBAN-ed in an area. He brought this up twice: first in the context of a content dispute (see here) and second in the context of an AE statement (see here). In both of these cases, this was brought up unprovoked. My impression is that I was being eminently reasonable in these interactions but you can be the judge.

I don't think it is fair or right that established editors in an area can attack or push away newer editors in that area purely because they have been sanctioned previously in another context. My hope is to rehabilitate myself as an editor but if I am being attacked by others for my past constantly it is difficult to do this. JDiala (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a couple ways to see this. One is how you're reading it, a bad faith invocation of your tban as an ad hominem. The other is a good faith warning that you're stepping into a similar CTOP and situation. It's only come up twice so far, so there's not really a pattern of harassment. What I'll do is this:
TylerBurden, please don't bludgeon them over the head with their topic ban. Good faith warnings are acceptable, but there's no need to mention it when it doesn't directly apply to the situation at hand. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm asking that you unlock Operation Prosperity Guardian as it is reading as one of the most dated articles on all of Wikipedia now, and contains zero criticism related to this concerning and expensive seven month use of US military assets. 173.79.229.156 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Another question worth asking is, given that the 9-11 article's lead says ' Al-Qaeda's cited motivations included U.S. support of Israel', does this not fall into Jdiala's topic ban form article related to the israel;-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about Imagine one of the first sentences on the 9/11 article writing something like "the attacks killed dozens of soldiers in the Pentagon, as well as around three thousand civilians".? Yeah, that's technically a violation, broadly construed, but I don't see it as discussing the topic area, rather as looking for apt comparison in style.
JDiala, be careful, the topic ban applies everywhere on the English Wikipedia and in any context. Try and find your examples as far from ARBPIA as possible, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: I made a recent edit on the 9/11 page which was a definite violation as it was on a sentence directly pertaining to the topic ban country, as pointed out by Kentucky. This was a genuine mistake and I self-reverted by myself before anyone pointed it out. Please accept my apologies for that. The edit itself was just a copy-edit for grammatical style.
However, I did not think discussing 9/11, or editing parts of the 9/11 page not relevant to ARBPIA, are TBAN violations. 9/11 was a terrorist attack on American soil and most people do not identify it as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Do you have a different view on this? JDiala (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
US support for Israel was one of the cited reasons for the attack, so I'd say it's related. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Understood, I'll stay away from this. This was a misunderstanding of "broadly construed". JDiala (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

For context related to the temporary ban listed at the bottom of User_talk:165.189.75.1, please see User_talk:Czello#Shared_IP_address

165.189.75.1 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access

Jamesinthemud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is really crying out for revocation of talk page access. Thanks (both for this and in general for all the work you do (+: ) AntiDionysius (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Nvm, @Acroterion caught it. Pinging for thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this, thanks Acroterion for picking up my slack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Editing

You have no right to revert edits on talk pages. The Wikipedia rules on edits are for main body articles only. 145.40.150.167 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:ECR applies to all edits in all namespaces. Please review WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

As per the article "The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well."

My articles were ONLY in the talk pages, in request of an edit.

I will request a block for WP:WAR if you continue to go against clearly laid out rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.40.150.167 (talk • contribs)

Responding to an RFC is not making an edit request. If you continue to violate WP:ECR you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Again help needed

Hey, can you help me once again? I wanted to create Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's singles but it is redirected and there is Draft:Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's singles which was also a redirect so i can't move it. Can you move this for me or delete the redirect like you have done with moving? And it's the same with Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's doubles, Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's singles, Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's doubles and Tennis at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Mixed doubles. Any help would be appreciated. Kante4 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Draw is in two days and all drafts are ready to be moved. Is there a chance you can help or should i go the "official" route? Don't want to rush you, just asking. ;) Kante4 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
You should be able to just mark them all with {{db-g6}} and a csd patroller will get them for you. If you use twinkle it's easy to mark the pages. I'm on my phone right now, so copying and pasting all of the page names into the templates is a pain. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually, there's {{db-move}} which is exactly what you need. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Will try that, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help, was done very quickly. Next time i don't have to disturb you or another admin. ;) Kante4 (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Glad to help. Thanks for your work on the Olympics articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

More Ironland shenanigans

Since you seem more familiar with the Ironland stuff, I have a few more links and usernames to send your way to get dealt with:

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably ought to do the whole SPI thing at this point, and make sure it's not meat. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Was planning on it (just to rule it out; I suspect it's meat akin to what's been going on with Indian Army mechanised regiments). Purple~~salamander12 is the putative master, ja? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, they created the draft the first time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
More timewasting micronation stuff? Maybe its time for a specific micronation notability policy: to the effect that none of them are, until they have been discussed in depth by multiple major broadcasters, newspapers of record or sources of similar repute in at least three different countries. And then add a speedy deletion category for any article/draft on a micronation which attempts to claim notability without citing such sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I feel this is imaginary than the usual micronation crap, just done for YouTube. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

They're back at it again...

Since it has seem you have dealt with this user (@KlayCax) before with this. I would like to notify you that their behavior has not stopped and has in fact restarted here with these [15][16][17][18] discussions talking about their recent edits with discussion #4 talking about their edits where other editors have agreed that KlayCax's edits are disruptive.

You had already given then a final warning with them about their actions and so I believe (and to see if @David O. Johnson and @Doug Weller agree with this) that further enforcement is needed. Qutlooker (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please bring this to AE if you believe some action should be taken. I don't have the bandwidth to take this on myself at the moment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You'll know

Where does one log a community ban? Apparently it is not WP:EDR. Do I just add Category:Banned Wikipedia users? I don't want to put a big ugly BANNED banner on the user or talk pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like it should be there, but if not I have no idea. I don't think it has to be etched in stone more than closing the thread and notifying them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
That's what I thought too, but there's a note on that page that CBANS aren't listed there, and I don't see any other CBANs listed. I guess if they're actually blocked, logging it somewhere doesn't matter nearly as much as logging an editing restriction. I think I'll just leave it alone, and someone can yell at me if I did it wrong.
I feel like I should know this....
Thanks, --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:CBAN, Except for a site ban, the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue if necessary, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. If a block is administered to enforce a community sanction, please include a link to the discussion and note that the block is enforcing a community sanction in the block log. All granted user rights groups of an indefinitely site-banned editor should be removed. Looks like the block covers it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
You mean I'm expected to read the policy I'm invoking?? That's crazy talk. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
It still doesn't explicitly explain how or where to log or not log, just don't put it at editor restrictions. My interpretation is pure OR, and I'll likely be blocked for it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I would block you for it, except I don't know where I'd log it, so I'll just pretend I didn't see this last comment. Floquenbeam (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive_34&oldid=1245282574"