ScottishFinnishRadish

cand q

Thank you for standing for arbitrator. I am far away from it all (travel, mourning), not in the mood, so just an informal question you can answer or ignore:

• Liviu Holender chose lieder by five composers whose music was banned by the Nazis—Schreker, Zemlinsky, Mahler, Korngold and Schönberg—for a recital at the Oper Frankfurt.

What does this 2024 DYK tell you about infoboxes for classical composers in 2024? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Those articles don't, in and of themselves, tell me a lot about infoboxes, other than that most of them have infoboxes. Quick power ranking on their hair, though.

1. Franz Schreker - Off center widows peak over male-pattern baldness. Wild wings on the sides. Combined with the expression he really communicates "intense Austrian composer"
2. Alexander von Zemlinsky - always maximum respect for a pompadour
3. Arnold Schoenberg - I'll always believe that Picard was the best captain, and this haircut communicates that. Middle of the road though, as the default bald guy cut
4. Gustav Mahler - trying to pull off the "genius that doesn't care about his hair" look, but Schreker did it much better
5. Erich Wolfgang Korngold - looks like he's going to a job interview at a bank

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Thank you for loooking! - November was rich in sadness and happiness for me, expressed in music. - You may be too young (on WP) to know that infoboxes are a declared contentious topic, - sorry that my question was unclear. Do you think they still deserve the label. I found one candidate so far who looked into the matter and didn't stay at the surface, Simonm223. There are two composers on the Main page today, Siegfried Thiele and Aaron Copland. I find the response of my friend Jerome Kohl to a question on Copland's article talk promising. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Having closed around a dozen infobox RFCs, I think they're still fairly contentious. The CTOP designation serves to let people know they have to be on their best behavior which is important when dealing with an issue that is the subject of strong disagreement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder when you closed those, because I don't see many discussions anymore. Most classical composers today get an infobox without a discussion. Mozart was closed in favour of an infobox, for example, almost two years ago, and I haven't seen new arguments since. We still have discussions for a few FAs, usually caused by editors who have no idea of a conflict but get immediately treated as infobox warriors, - that's what I see. - Today's story comes from a DYK about a concert that fascinated me, and you can listen! For my taste, the hook has too little music - I miss the unusual scoring and the specific dedication - but it comes instead with a name good for viewcount. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Today, listen to Sequenza XIV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page today Jean Sibelius on his birthday. Listening to Beethoven's Fifth from the opening of Notre-Dame de Paris. The discussion is still on the Sibelius, ending with that he was playing in a league with Beethoven then, in 2018 ;) - We sang in choirs today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Udham Singh

Hi, it is regarding sockpuppetry by Robinsinghkamboj, who was blocked for removal of sourced content and making legal threats. Apparently, they are back with another ID. Have a look [1] [2] [3] [4]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Might be meat, rather than a sock, but the effect is the same. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring at History of the compass

Could you take a look at History of the compass? An IP editor is edit warring against multiple editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind already taken care of. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I see they were just blocked. Just one IP address in the past month, so not going to protect now, but if you see it continue just let me know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

1259510796

can be deleted, too.

Also, I'm noticing a very unusual error, when I compare diffs between the LTA and a clean version, it won't show, obviously, because I'm not an admin, but then it also pops up the following in a red box:

User doesn't have access to the requested revision (The revision #1259514017 belongs to a deleted page. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Wikipedia:Help_desk×tamp=20241125161251&diff=prev view it]; details can be found in the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Wikipedia:Help_desk deletion log].).

(I've nowikied the above, because the error box literally shows that).

Screenshot of an error where the red box shows content that was supposed to include links, but links failed.

Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what's up with the error. Maybe because some adjacent revision is deleted? I took care of 796. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find the message in Special:AllMessages. Are there other places where they are located?

Also, 1259514953 is still live. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

All set. As for the message, you got me stumped. VPT is probably a better venue for that as I'm blissfully unaware of where many of those messages are located. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll post this at VPT

wait... there's more than 5000 messages, hang on Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like MediaWiki:Rest-permission-denied-revision would be the closest match.

Posting to VPT... Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Request additional revision deletion at Wikipedia:Help desk

Hi, I recently noticed you deleted a bunch of revisions at Wikipedia:Help desk, but there are some remaining vandalising edits (most notably, this one) whose offending content and edit summaries are still visible. Would it be okay if you redacted the content and edit summaries on the remaining offending edits? 208.114.63.4 (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) the user doing this is an attention-seeking troll. The less we do the better, and revdel doesn't actually stop them doing anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I normally just zap the ones I see when I revert. They're not really worth more than minimal effort. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request at Talk:Imane Khelif

This again. Does this signal the TP might need protection from unregistered users? Thanks as ever for your thoughts. JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That was fast. Thank you so much! JFHJr (㊟) 00:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem. There's not enough disruption at this point for talk page protection, since it looks like the last issue was two weeks ago. If it pops up again, let me know, and thanks for keeping a weather eye. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Block conflict

I've reverted my block of Trampled crop field (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to the settings you had posted. Looks like we had a conflict there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Bare Naked Multiple Account Abuse

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish! Return of that multiple account abuser making Subtle/Silly edits, this time as DooraDora. Same changes as last time to the amount in the song title "If I Had $1,000,000". Kind of sad that they have nothing better to do. Could you please block the account? At least this should help toward that mortgage, you guys do get a bounty right? :) Thanks for your time! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

All set, thanks for the heads-up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish! Goodness, you're fast! Thank-you kindly for your work! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Vegan416

Hi SFR, I wonder if you'd consider lifting your TBAN of Vegan416? Maybe you'll need to hear from him, but I thought I'd try to facilitate as someone more comfortable with such wiki processes. I reached out to him because he had done some extremely substantive work, such as this research, and I hoped to see more of that.

I think the reasons for the TBAN were valid, but it has been 4 months which seems like a significant sanction already. Can't be sure that the issues won't recur, but I would argue that a second chance makes sense given Vegan's unique substantive contributions. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I can say that I realize that speaking publicly about other editors' personal political (or other) opinions is against the rule, and I can promise to avoid doing that again in the future. Vegan416 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CTOP, Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Looking at their contributions since the topic ban, I see some sub-par BLP editing that makes me a bit wary about lifting any topic ban unilaterally. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "unilaterally" in this context? Vegan416 (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

On my own, as the administrator who sanctioned you. I would rather you get broader input through appealing at AE or AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Appeal on indefinite ban on topic

Hello SFR, One year and one month ago, you banned me "indefinitely from any edits related to the Arab/Israel conflict" for unknowingly committing "a 1RR" violation even though I had undone the violation by myself immediately after realizing it was a 1RR, before anyone had done any other edits to the page, and before your ban. I argued at the time that it was clear that I simply hadn't noticed that it was a 1RR violation, as I explicitly stated in the edit summary that I was again reverting someone else's undue removal of content, and only a few minutes later I undid my own edit as I realized it would constitute a 1RR in less than 24 hours violation on my part, but still you ruled to ban me "indefinitely" as, according to you, the Arab/Israel conflict was too serious for someone who was not 100% familiar with the 1RR violation rule. Now that over one year has passed since then, and as I truly believe that a permanent ban (for a violation that had already been corrected by myself in a matter of minutes) was a harsh decision, I intend to appeal the indefinite ban. Before taking the matter to appropriate mechanisms of ban reviews, though, I decided to present these arguments first to you, and to therefore ask if you would be willing to consider removing the indefinite ban yourself. Thank you very much for your time and attention, and for all the time dedicated to Wikipedia, and have a good day. Dan Palraz (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You made far more edits in the week leading to your topic ban than you've made in the past year so it's difficult to determine if there's been a significant improvement. If you do appeal I suggest you mention your earlier 6 month topic ban that came with an explicit warning, I would strongly caution you (Dan Palraz@) though that if there are any problematic edits in this topic area after the topic ban expires you will almost definitely end up with an indefinite topic ban and that given that the behaviour continued it would be difficult to successfully appeal. as it provides some context to your indefinite topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Block Evasion

You used these words "Block Evasion" to revert multiple edits today on airport pages. What does this phrase mean and why did you use it to revert edits ? Pmbma (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I was mass-reverting the edits of an editor that was evading blocks on a number of other IP addresses. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Some of the edits were good - I would have done the same edits. Pmbma (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to reinstate any edits that you believe were an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Question about what constitutes edit warring (@Israel)

Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish:, @Barkeep49:. I wanted to ask you for some guidance whether the following situation amounts to edit warring.

• Following a content dispute whether the "Gaza genocide" should be included on the Israel article, an RfC was started on 22 November.
• On 27 November, despite the ongoing RfC, User:Selfstudier added content related to the "Gaza genocide" to the article. [5]
• Another editor reverted the addition and requested that Selfstudier refrain from adding the disputed content while the RfC is still ongoing. [6]
• A few minutes later, Selfstudier restored it anyway [7]

Selfstudier says the RfC is about the lead, not the body, but the RfC is clearly about the body too (check the text here [8]). I contacted Selfstudier on their talk page asking them to self-revert [9] but they said this wasn't edit warring [10], asking me to re-read the RfC (which I read, and is clearly on the body too) and threatened to report me for making a 'false accusation'. Then they went on to remove our discussion from the page [11]. Overall this isn't the first time I'm seeing Selfstudier doing this for content that is being discussed in an RfC following a content dispute. What should one make out of this case? thanks. ABHammad (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I trust this isn't going to be treated at all seriously. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, appears related to this. What should one make out of that? Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems like the type of thing that, if you believe some action is necessary, should go to AE rather than to a single admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I did ABHammad (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Selfstudier 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 15:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Zero^talk 07:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

TB?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller#User_TheCuratingEditor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheCuratingEditor Doug Weller talk 14:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I would have blocked a few times by now for ECR violations if I had been aware. A topic ban is more than reasonable in my book. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

A little follow-up

Just need a repeat of the archive sorting you did last time; mainly asking you so I don't have to explain it again; might be worth watchlisting that page, thanks. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

All set. I have it on my watchlist, but there's 5800 other pages on my watchlist, so stuff slips by. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It's all good I understand. Thanks, 184.152.68.190 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for keeping an eye out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for watching the Zionism talk page

I originally came to ask about my comment's inclusion in the hatted section, but I understand now that you're currently "pruning" the talk page, so to speak.

As such, I'll instead thank you for your diligence. I understand that, with how contentious this topic is, "babysitting" it is exhausting work, but I wanted to let you know that I appreciate that work of yours nonetheless. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Using an LLM to waste everyone's time is bad enough, but with the new word limits it's egregiously bad. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for returning to this matter, but after some consideration, the usage of an LLM, & my previous issues verifying any of the quotes, I wanted to ask if this comment should be hatted as well?

If they are genuine quotes & I simply failed my attempt at sleuthing, I'll gladly eat crow, but I thought it'd be best to ask just in case.

Thank you for your time. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorted. I've already pulled their EC permission, as well, so ECR applies to them again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

VOA TPA

Might want to unplug talk page access for this account. Thanks, — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

All set, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

On LLM checking

Hi SFR, I noticed you have recently been clearing up some LLM text from talk pages, I was just wondering if there was any specific tool you were using to flag/check whether a text was likely generated by an LLM? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Many LLMs write with a particular style that stands out like a beacon when you're familiar with it. That's all I use. In my experience, the tools are essentially worthless. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You just deleted a message from my talk page and I'm puzzled by the deletion. [12]. Is it correct that you don't have any evidence it was generated by a LLM but deleted it anyways based on a gut feeling?

Boutboul posted a list of 4 references supporting a particular claim. He posted the same references in the Zionism rfc and also you shut down that part of the discussion. LLMs tend to make up facts, but I was able to check the 3rd reference on archive.org and it was sourced correctly.

So what makes you think it was generated by a LLM? --Bob drobbs (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The recent removals are because they are no longer extended-confirmed. I removed the permission for gaming. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Removing comment on private Talk Page

So if I understand correctly you also have the right to remove comment added on private talk page without giving any indication of the issue? Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing on Wikipedia is private. Acroterion (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the wording correction, I wanted to say on a "user talk" page. So an admin can do that without giving any explanation? Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The explanation is in the edit summary, you were violating ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for multiple different reasons. Same as any other editor. And for what it is worth he did leave an explanation in his edit summary; specifically enforcing the 500/30 rule in effect in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and explanation but still unclear. How is an edit on a user’s talk page comparable to an edit in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? The page itself does not concern the topic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The edit concerns the topic, and WP:ECR says The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion?

So, I have avoided DFW as promised, until they edited a page they know is on my watchlist. I made a single edit, fixing their punctuation and adding ref tags to what appeared to be a chunk of OR/personal opinion. After which, they removed the OR, tagging me in the edit summary, and have now edited (twice) another page that I had recently edited (that is completely outside of their normal wheelhouse, clearly following my contribs) and left two talk page comments, in an apparent attempt to get me to respond. Could you maybe leave a note about adding unsourced OR content, and them purposely trying to goad me into interacting with them? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Is that what they called first mover advantage?

• So, I have avoided DFW as promised
  • No. You followed me to Air pollution in Hong Kong. It’s the second time already since 11 Nov. That’s why I leave this edit summary hoping that you can stop.
  • I first edited that article as early as Aug 2023 [13], with over 124 edits [14]. You never edited that article until you started to have conflicts with me. You only made your first edit to that article on 11 Nov, after you were blocked for gravedancing (in Oct).
  • In the last month (November) I’ve only edited 5 articles. And you “happened to edit” one of them, *right after* my edit.
• they edited a page they know is on my watchlist
  • Untrue again. That page is on my watchlist since 2023 Aug. How can I know if it’s on your watchlist?
• left two talk page comments, in an apparent attempt to get me to respond
  • This is completely unfound false claim. I made an edit to an article and then leave a talk page comment to explain it, what’s wrong with that? You wrongly accused me of “assumed you are the OP” and I leave a comment to correct you, again, what’s wrong with that?
• Could you maybe leave a note about adding unsourced OR content, and them purposely trying to goad me into interacting with them?
  • this is apparently ABF (Also, you specifically tagged what I’ve just added, and is now accusing me of OR, which is definitely untrue [15]) and appeared to be bullying/canvassing our admin.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for admin: Could you maybe leave a note reminding them to keep the promise they made in their unblock request and “not to have any further interaction with the user in question, 'thanks' or otherwise, and in the future will let editors dig their own hole without my help.” and them repeatedly making untrue claims about me? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how you came upon Cleveland Institute of Art and this page, immediately after I had edited each, having never edited either yourself in the past if you are not tracking my contribs and hounding me? It's been a month, WP:DROPTHESTICK already... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how you came upon Air pollution in Hong Kong (11 Nov), Air pollution in the United Kingdom

(17 Oct), Joss paper (28 Oct), Asian News International (19 Oct), mostly immediately after I had edited each, having never edited either yourself in the past if you are not tracking my contribs and hounding me? It's been *many* weeks already, when will that stop? You are hounding me like that, even after a block, of course I need to watch your contribs, otherwise how can I know when will I suddenly got wrongfully sanctioned after you apparently canvassed/bullied whoever admins, etc.? To be frank, you should have been sanctioned for all that a long time ago. Now I’m the “ very hypocritical bad faith incompetent deceptive editor who sh*t on others who persistently making disruptive edits, casting aspersions, wikilawyering, showing classic WP:TE” with a block log showing that I’ve been blocked for a week, while you were only blocked for less than one day. Why are you still unsatisfied and refused to drop the stick and move on? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I checked your contributions back when we were arguing and during the AN/I report because you refused to stop using curly q's, and I knew those would need to be fixed. I have had zero interaction with you since the AN/I report closed. I made over 750 edits in November, all completely unrelated to you or the pages we mutually watch. You then made several edits to Air pollution in Hong Kong one day, and all I did was (again) fix your punctuation and tag your apparent OR for citations. One single good faith edit fixing your mistakes, no comments, no calling you out in long edit summaries, no tracking your contributions for the past month. I didn't even respond to your edit summary, hoping you would realize it was a good faith edit. Now, you are claiming you "need to watch my contribs" and that I "should have been sanctioned a long time ago" for bullying admins? I'm sorry I made a good faith edit fixing your punctuation on an article you knew I was watching, but that does not justify you hounding me a month later just because you didn't get your way at AN/I. Seriously, get over it, and leave me the hell alone! Walking away now, gonna go watch a movie cuz you have once again ruined WP for me, I will await SFR's reply. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

[Y]ou refused to stop using curly q's Untrue again. I didn’t refuse to stop using that, I told you in my talk page that it might be a problem of my device which I can’t control. When will all these stop??? Please!

I do see a lot of “a good faith edit” initiated by you on this talk page. And good to know that you’ve found a reason (fixing curly q's?) to break your promise in your unblock request. By “you should have been sanctioned a long time ago” I mean your hounding behaviour from article to article which lasted for many weeks (that’s a lot of ___ faith edits) up to now and all the untrue claims, etc. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a third opinion can be useful here, let’s see if Diannaa can offer us some help. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to help with this or even read the discsussion. You might have a look at WP:Dispute resolution it it's a content dispute. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It’s ok. Hmm.. I’m not sure that it’s a content dispute, as I have already reverted my edit before the drama on this page, but they just won’t stop their persistent problematic behaviour. Thanks anyway. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld, they have been avoiding you since the unblock, so bringing up six week old diffs isn't very constructive. It's also not a reason to follow them to another article. You two just need to stop interacting. Unfortunately, I don't see any CTOP I can leverage to place an Iban unilaterally, so I'll just ask you both to stop, and take it to ANI if you feel you need to. Then the community can impose an Iban or other sanctions. Really, though, knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you SFR, I have no issues, as mentioned. I have avoided them as promised, it was a very simple good faith fix on a mutually watched page (which DFW knew that I watched from our previous interaction), 48 hours after they had made their edit (when I happened to notice it on my watchlist), and after a month of purposely NOT interacting with them otherwise. I didn't think "zero interaction" would include "allow them to purposely introduce bad punctuation, grammatical errors, and OR to a page you both mutually watch a month later". I assumed (yeah, I know...) that DFW would see it as the good faith "olive branch" edit that it was, I never expected it to turn into "I can harass you, and your promise means you can't do anything about it". I will be happy to take this to AN/I though, if DFW wishes, now that they have openly admitted to tracking all my contribs for the last month just to harass me and seems to still have an axe to grind from the original AN/I report. I apologize, I never meant for all this to happen on your talk page. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Niccolò Machiavelli on a "Religion and philosophy" 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 21:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING, and enforcing policies and guidelines

Apologies for bothering you on your talk page, but I was wondering if you could spare some advice. I am leaving the name of the editor this is about off intentionally.

I had a dispute with a user around a year or so ago who said that they didn't need to follow WP:V, essentially. This wasn't a new user, but a user who has been here for close to 12+ years and who had been warned several times for their edits by other users (no admin warnings from what I remember)

So I went over several of their older edits at the time and realized that they would insert material with citations that didn't mention what was added to the article or said something entirely different, insert links to primary documents in BLP articles, insert links to piracy sites containing pirated software, just a whole mess of things.

I've tried not to hound them since I firmly believe everyone deserves peace when editing here (within reason), but it has drawn their past edits into question. I don't want to go through and edit 75+ edits of theirs for not following correct policies, since as a regular editor that would certainly annoy me. I have for the most part only edited five or less of their edits in that year time frame but am curious when this should be brought to ANI, or if it's better to just let them go about their editing. I occasionally check their edits to make sure there isn't anything super terrible that justifies immediate removal but feel like this is borderline harassment of them, and wanted to ask the proper steps.

Thank you for whatever advice you can give! Awshort (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If you've spoken with them without positive results and the behavior is continuing ANI is certainly an option, or AE if their editing is in a WP:CTOP and they're aware of the CTOP designation. Really, though, how you handle it is up to how you feel, and if you think it's worth whatever can of worms could be opened. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

awshort does harass and needs to stop stalking me and anyone else. They are not a victim and seldom change anything of value. I saw my “targeted killings” edit was reverted because the allegation was that my sources which said exact dollar amounts of $15,000 and $30,000 paid by Iranian proxies to kill people in the west was alleged to not be accurate. Twillisjr (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Twillisjr I removed that in mid November. Since you weren't tagged to this conversation, and no user was mentioned by name, what brought you here?

Awshort (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Awshort I am here in an act of self defense from you. Twillisjr (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Twillisjr That didn't answer the question - you weren't pinged, and I wasn't specific on who I was talking about. So unless you are following my edits, I'm unsure why you came here or why you specifically believe this is in regards to you.

Awshort (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

User_talk:Serial_Number_54129#TWL_access

Dear ScottishFinnishRadish, could you explain why you're closing the discussion with 'Sacrebleu' please? Did something go wrong? Or do you have any concerns about it? Kind regards, – Doc Taxon • Talk • 17:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

They didn't have access because they were blocked on French Wikipedia. I was just exclaiming in French. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Talk:Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Possible 1RR violation

I believe this is a 1RR violation, right? I'm checking to make sure before I request the person self-reverts. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Raskolnikov.Rev, I've requested a self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I did too at the same time so hadn't seen yours yet, but that's alright, I also added a response to the edit summary. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove my ban

Hi, Please remove my ban of editing Indian subcontinent contents. I am feeling sorry and will not edit contents with Talk. Please remove. Loveforwiki (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I will not be unilaterally removing the topic ban any time in the immediate future. I suggest you edit other topics for at least six months to demonstrate you can do so constructively. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

But it's ban for indian subcontinent. Remove ban of these area Loveforwiki (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If you know you're banned, why did you make this edit? An Indian actor in the Indian film and television industry is pretty clearly under a topic ban for India. Ravensfire (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

what should one do when in dispute with a Wikipedia:Unblockables?

thank for your assistance 109.67.4.18 (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You might want to start by disclosing previous IPs or accounts that you've used to edit from as this was your second-ever edit from this IP and there is nothing in your edit history to indicate you're in a dispute with the secret masters of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

would disclosing IPs or accounts change the advice given for user in my place? if so why is that exactly?

how dose the content matter when requesting advice regarding conduct? 109.67.4.18 (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks more like an WP:ECR issue than an unblockable issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but whoever wrote that unlockables essay is some kind of supper insightful genius. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh great mystic, tell me what I will have for dinner..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

dammit. I recently started using Grammarly because I make so many typos, but once in a while it backfires. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

They're also unlockable because you're not a steward. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish,

I had a question about a topic ban you placed on Southasianhistorian8. A similar sanction was placed by User:Seraphimblade on another editor. Is this 500 main space edits or 500 edits in any namespace of the project? It seems like a fair sanction I was just wondering what the intent was here. Thanks for clarifying this for me. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Can't speak for SFR, but my view on it is that it is 500 edits anywhere, not just to mainspace. Of course if an editor is clearly "gaming" that part, e.g., makes 500 one-letter edits to their sandbox, that can be seen as bad faith and the sanction can be extended or made indefinite. But I think if anything, it is even more valuable for a sanctioned editor to, for example, learn to participate constructively in discussions and the like, so I certainly have no problem counting non-mainspace edits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That's basically my view. The whole point is to get them involved in other places, which may involve discussions on article talk pages, BLPN, NPOVN, and similar venues. All of that is good experience and shows that they're expanding their involvement rather than sticking in a topic where there have been issues. The hope is that when the ban expires they have enough experience elsewhere to let them see where they might be making missteps. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to know, Seraphimblade and SFR, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

When does WP:GAMING for permissions go stale?

I've come across an editor who I believe gamed their extended-confirmed permission and since then has posted almost exclusively within the PIA space, with some attention paid to the war in Ukraine. Between Oct 6 and 7th, 2023, they made over 500 edits changing short descriptions. A majority of the edits were on Oct 6th; they stopped their edit chain a few minutes after getting EC on the 6th, then did a couple hundred more on the 7th. They had never made this kind of edit before, and they've only made a few edits of this type ever since, all on one P-I article this spring. But they do now have over 1,200 edits, and I'm wondering if this is still something that should be reported. I've searched ANI/AE and their name has appeared for other reasons (you've interacted with them), but gaming wasn't brought up at the time. I don't want to put their username on a report without some input first because there are implications from a gaming run for PIA on Oct 6th 2023, but those same implications leave me uncomfortable saying nothing.

I'm also wondering if you know whether gaming like this is (discreetly) monitored; I've been looking at Quarry and I think a query could go through the list of EC perming over the past year or two and find users who made many edits of a single type within the month prior to their perming, who then went on to be mostly active in specific contentious topics (maybe even show trends in volume), but I don't have the expertise to write this myself. Thanks for advice in advance! Safrolic (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that there's a stale time for permissions gaming, and it will also draw more attention to their ARBPIA edits. Gaming is a bit nebulous though, so unless it's solidly obvious I prefer to take them to AE or AN.

That query could certainly be helpful. I check the contributions of most editors in ARBPIA that I don't recognize, but I'm sure I've missed plenty. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take this to AE then. Safrolic (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Safrolic, for interest, I've been thinking about this kind of thing too. Signal shapes for the first 600 revisions can be illuminating. But even for the same person (with many hundreds of sock accounts) there can be a lot of diversity in those first edits, even though the objective is the same, to tunnel through the EC barrier. Also, many tools are provided to help editors get started now, so it is pretty trivial for someone to make perfectly legitimate edits to reach EC within a few days. Here's an especially impressive example of efficiency.

As for extendedconfirmed grants, far fewer accounts acquire it in a given year compared to the total number of new accounts than I expected so that might help. See here. And the speed of acquisition does appear to tell you something about the likelihood that the account will be blocked later (or even before they get EC) for ban evasion or some other reason. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You could imagine looking for a change of slope in the cumulative bytes around the 500th revision mark as the user changes from gaming to normal editing, but so much of 'gaming' relies on intent, which you can't see with SQL. You can see whether a user suddenly starts making edits in the PIA topic area though. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Those are some very pretty pictures (and illustrate the complexity of the question), thank you. My proposed query probably wouldn't catch anyone deliberately trying to conceal their game, I agree with that. I see that you're using Quarry to collect the initial data, but what tool are you using afterwards to compile the graphs? Safrolic (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I tend to only use Quarry if I need to share a query or the results with another editor. I have a toolforge account so I can do stuff from the comfort of VSCode on my laptop through an SSH tunnel to the databases. Those plots use the matplotlib Python library. But you can do this kind of thing without a toolforge account using the PAWS cloud service. There's also an Apache Superset sqllab service here which I think has charting functionality. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips, I'll try to learn the rest of these words! Safrolic (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

ECR

Hello! I've had to 2RR a WP:FORUM comment on Talk:Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (17 October 2024 – present) by non-EC accounts including an IP sock. Do I have to self-revert or is it justified per ARBPIA? Borgenland (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

ECR enforcement is an exception to edit warring, and the 1RR sanction doesn't apply to talk pages so you're fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope that my latest edit summary there could further explain why. Borgenland (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You can also leave {{welcome-arbpia}} on their talk page which explains the sanctions in plain language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

new user ignoring WP:ARBECR after warning

Hey, not sure where is should bring this up, but i noticed you and a few others have warned Special:Contributions/Fyukfy5 about editing in the Arab–Israeli topic area and Fyukfy5 seems to be ignoring these warnings—blindlynx 19:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you take a look please

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Joyner (business executive), apart from the many comments not assuming good faith, this [16] has been posted by a new user. It seems like a threat to out the nominator? Or maybe not. Thanks in advance, Knitsey (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that it's just bullshit. I would just remove it, but you've already replied. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Knitsey (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Revdel?

1 & 2 jellyfish ✉ 02:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Back again jellyfish ✉ 02:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please Re-open Requested move 6 December 2024

Discussion of changing "Gaza genocide" to "Gaza genocide accusations" was closed and archived before adequate discussion could take place. Please re-open the discussion and restore the archived comments, including my own:

• “Genocide” refers to the physical destruction of a group that has been targeted on the basis of its identity. Immense suffering and civilian toll in Gaza have resulted from the war started by Hamas, and from specific actions by Hamas that put Gazan civilians in harm’s way.
• Hamas does not separate fighters from civilians in its Gaza health ministry numbers. Hamas does not specify whether they died because of attacks carried out by the IDF or because of intentional or unintentional actions by Hamas or other Palestinian armed groups; for example, the explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City was caused by a failed rocket fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
• Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas, not the Palestinian people or the Palestinian population of Gaza. When Israeli officials have made statements reflecting callous disregard for Palestinian civilian lives, they have been disciplined.
• The goal of Hamas is to wipe Israel and Jews off the map, an example of genocidal intent. Israel directs its force at legitimate military targets, which Hamas has intentionally placed under and within civilians’ homes, hospitals, mosques, and schools.
• The Israeli military sends Arabic-language warnings to Gazans prior to its airstrikes on military targets, and indicates routes for Palestinian civilians to relocate. Hamas has repeatedly called on Palestinian civilians to ignore Israel’s warnings about impending strikes and reportedly forced civilians to remain in the vicinity of military objectives, using them, like its hostages from Israel, as human shields.
• Hamas has continued to launch missiles into Israel, not from military bases, as international law dictates, but from civilian areas in Gaza. International law allows legitimate military targets to be attacked when the anticipated military advantage from the attack exceeds the expected civilian harm. Hamas has inflated the number of civilian casualties. Harm to Gazan civilians is a horrible outcome of war, but it is not genocide.

Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Allthemilescombined1, for interest, why do you appear to believe that it is okay to use talk pages in the topic area for what appears to be advocacy and the expression of your personal views about the real world? I don't understand why this happens so often in the topic area or what can be done to ensure that editors don't need to filter it out when they read talk pages or participate in consensus forming discussions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

it seams to me like a classics example of what appears to be advocacy is Subjective.

as SFR Told Me and I am telling you, we're not a steward. 109.67.4.18 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm saving everyone the time of coming to the same conclusion and lowering the engagement at the next discussion even more. Wait until something significant has changed or a more appreciable amount of time has passed. There will be more outside input and a better representative consensus of things at that point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Condolences er I mean congrats.... you gon' be an arb

Looks like you got in, right in the meaty part of the pack. I will not be joining you. That's fine though, you got a hell of a great group coming in with you, I'm suddenly far less worried about the committee's ability to get shit done. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Congrats. As reward for dealing with the thankless tasks you get... even more onerous tasks! No, seriously, congratulations and I hope you take it as something of an antidote to all of the criticism that you now enjoy a mandate from the community to clean things up even more. Andre🚐 00:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Revdel inquiry re BLPN

Greetings! At WP:BLPN we have this from an upset subject whose mind works differently and saw fit to name names of other presumably living people. Is it worth a redaction? Along with a tall glass of calm the hell down for OP? This seems like someone who could maybe be a wider problem, per her post. I'm looking at WP:Articles for deletion/Judy Singer and missing User:DGG... thanks for your thoughts. JFHJr (㊟) 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to dig into this right now, but I'll check it tomorrow if no one else has handled it ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2025 Arbitration Committee

Congratulations on your success in the elections and welcome to the 2021 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

Please use the EmailUser function to indicate the email address you'd like to use for ArbCom and functionary business.

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L37) and the VRT users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45). Please confirm that your username is listed on the Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. If isn't, and you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly and let me know when you have signed them. Instructions for signing can be found here. Again, you must sign both agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)