User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions with User:ScottishFinnishRadish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent work on Frelinghuysen University. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 05:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Really impressive work on Frelinghuysen University! A valuable and well-put together article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I just wish it could have run on the main page a bit more in the middle of Black History Month. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Black history is American history and vice versa. I want every day to be Black History Month" Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I also came to praise the article, and agree that women should not only come in March! - Continuing last month's talk: could you perhaps add something dispassionate on the article talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I agree that the month doesn't matter, I just used it as motivation to finally get the rewrite done.

I assume you're taking about Robert le diable? There's not much I can add to that discussion on the talk page. At this point, if an infobox is reverted an RFC with notices at interested wiki projects is probably the way to go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

How many RfCs do we need? That's a question I asked when we discussed Sibelius (2021, no RfC). All major operas have an infobox, 1,500+. Should we have another RfC stealing the time of many editors, because one person reverted, without giving any other reason than my behaviour. Had he silently reverted with a decent explanation for an edit summary, I'd probably just have swallowed it. 3,000k readers had seen the article with the infobox while linked from the Main page, - who cares what the few see on the normal days? But the noise on my talk and project opera, announcing a noticeboard if I don't behave, was a bit too much. Funny: I am no longer sanctioned in the infoboxes matter (as of 2015), but to my knowledge his admonishment in the arb case was never rescinded, - any noticeboard would probably result in a boomerang, which I want to spare him. Sad: he is a friend of mine (at least so I thought). And all this about the difference of a few lines, - this acrimony needs to be ended. Do you have any ideas? I asked the arb cands, but no idea came up, they didn't even believe there still was a problem, but I saw it coming back - after several quiet years - when Laurence Olivier was discussed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As long as the status quo is that local consensus determines if there is an infobox or not, this will be the situation. You'll either have to open an RFC on the talk page, or go to the Village Pump and see if there is a sitewide consensus for articles to default to having an infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I was not clear. I don't care if that opera has an infobox. I never opened an RfC because I think that it's usually a wast of time, and common sense might tell that one editor's preference should not keep one article different from other operas by the same composer, and all FAs about operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

... of which Carmen is on the Main page today, with an infobox dating back to 2014 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

... or in other words: there's a local consensus in project opera for the infobox opera, with only a few editors still not supporting it. What can we do? Make a hidden note in those few articles, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a hidden note based on a wikiprojects consensus could cause more harm than good, since the subject is as touchy as it is. Although it's more work, I think handling it on a per article basis is probably the least bad option, unless you want to seek a much broader consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't clear. We have tons of these hidden notices saying that for classical composers, you need to first establish consensus before adding an infobox. I think it's not good, and normal WP:BRD-driven editing would be better, but I'm still licking the wounds from having tried that in 2016, see Talk:Pierre Boulez/Archive 1#Infobox. No, I think of a hidden notice saying (in other words): "The principal editor of this GA-class article despises infoboxes and thinks that it's disgraceful behaviour to add one." - today a woman, a 2016 DYK remembered (our conductor was courageous and called her to step in for a concert on short notice, and she was interested! - only had no time that day in 2013. We got Gabriela Eibenová who was also great. Girls and women sang how Bach arranged Pergolesi's Stabat Mater to a new text paraphrasing Psalm 51, last Sunday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sheikh Hasina RfC

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish,

I noticed you closed the Request for Comment regarding the proposed lede for Sheikh Hasina. You found that the discussion yielded no consensus. This usually means none of the lede's should be adopted. However, the current lede of the article is identical to lede B, so by default we have expressed approval for lede B despite the fact the discussion yielded no consensus. Lede B should not be used in the article when it has no consensus. Kind regards, AMomen88 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

If there is no consensus then we stick with the status quo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I recognise that but if you read both Lede B and the current lede you will notice they are identical. The original status quo which exited prior to the insertion of any contentious conet was that of 28 October, since there is no consensus a reversion should be made to this lede which does not contain any contentious material from editors.—AMomen88 (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If that is the status quo before the dispute began, revert the lead to that, note in the summary that this was the status quo before the dispute, and make a note of that on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I can see that AMomen88 has tried to revert to his preferred version and falsely claiming it to be the status quo. I have reverted to the actual status quo version. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A.Musketeer, this looks to be the status quo version, before the conflict started. The status quo wasn't established at the moment the RFC began, it was the version before the conflict began. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really, the conflict began when AMomen88 began to revert all the edits. The article was stable before those reverts. Plus, nobody calls Hasina a stateswoman. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead was stable until that point in October, which is when the conflict over the lead began. With no consensus on the RFC we should be returning to that version, whether you agree with the label stateswoman or not. I recommend you self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia after a multi-month absence. Since A.Musketeer has failed to self-revert and has instead indulged in bad faith and deceit, I shall revert to the status quo ante bellum prior to the dispute, which is as ScottishFinnishRadish states that of 27 October. This version does not include any contentious material from both me and LucrativeOffer, the author of Lede B. The term "stateswoman" is defined as "a politician who has had a long and respected political career at the national or international level", Hasina has served as prime minister for over 19 years, if that cannot be characterised as a long political career I do not know what does. I apologise if that offends you. I do not want to relitigate but since A.Musketeer has attempted to defame me, I will say for the record the dispute began when another user reverted my edits on 21 November calling them "promotional" without evidence and ignoring calls for attaining consensus first. Happy editing—AMomen88 (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Need Help Here

Hello there, it's me the guy that keeps being attacked for no reason by someone with many sockpuppets accounts, can you help me talk with one of the admins in Turkiye Wikipedia? My account is blocked in there, seems like they mistaken me for being a sockpuppet account or that sockpuppets mastermind manage to make my account blocked in there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oozora Subaru (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know any of the admins there, so I can't be much of a help. I can try and reach out on discord and see if anyone knows someone I can contact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, please let me know if someone could unblock me on Turkiye Wikipedia Oozora Subaru (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic bans apply to discussions about the ban?

I was struck by this edit you made. Am I really banned from responding, in even the most anodyne way, to someone talking about my topic ban? And if so, doesn't that pose a Catch-22 where someone is unable to contest their topic ban even years later? I'm actually not planning to ever edit Wikipedia again, but I was thinking about writing an essay on my user page (or a subpage) about my topic ban, and what I think it says about the current state of Wikipedia. Am I not allowed to do that either? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, there are exceptions for getting clarification of your topic ban from an administrator or for making an appeal in the correct venue. Discussions on your talk page unrelated to those exceptions that deal with the topics of your topic ban are a no-go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - although I really have to get further clarification. Is someone who was banned from editing about the weather literally not allowed to write "I was banned from editing about the weather"? That seems quite a bit broader than what's explained in WP:TBAN. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You can do that, but as the language is "broadly construed" and leaves a bit of grey area, it's easy to step on a landmine and wind up blocked. You can tell people you are topic banned, but further discussion, e.g. when someone says As I'm sure you've realized, WP has a leftist/establishment bias which permeates controversial articles here can easily lead to breaching the topic ban. Also, as the less-than-constructive replies had started, I figured getting out ahead of that before there was an argument about politics on your talk page was probably a good idea.

As far as an essay goes, there are off-wiki platforms that may be amenable to hosting it, and where it would likely be a better fit without risking a block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I hate to ask this, but could you please undo the talk page change you made? The problem I see now is that the text "will be blocked if they respond" seems pretty clear-cut - and if I do ever write anything about the topic ban, the evidence will be there that I was "warned" not to do so, and could presumably lead to a lifetime block or whatever the next step is. Again, I'm not planning to contribute anything more to Wikipedia, but I still would rather not be blocked. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Done, and no worries. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

2A02:27B0:4502:2220::/64

The user behind this IP you blocked lately appears to be the same as previously blocked range 2A01:C23::/32, making identical edits to the Chris Hipkins article. Looks like some sort of LTA to me. AP 499D25 (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like that's already taken care of. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up on ANI Close

Hi SFR, I wanted to follow-up on a close you made recently at ANI.

Alsoriano97 seems to be continuing the conduct issues highlighted in the ANI discussion. He has continued to use the concept of international notability as a standard for inclusion on the "Years" pages, which was rejected by the community as non-compliant with PAG during the ANI.

He recently edit warred over internationally reported news from the US [1], [2] based on the deprecated standard. During a talk page discussion, he cited the deprecated standard directly "international coverage ≠ international huge notability", a direct rejection of consensus formed in the ANI, and IDHT/stonewalled the discussion upon being asked to follow PAG [3]. I also note the general uncivil and battleground style of wording of his replies.

Alsoriano97 was recently blocked [4] from Portal:Current Events by Daniel Case, a page with a similar format and purpose, for persistent edit warring of a similar nature, claiming widely reported US events are not internationally notable. He was blocked twice in succession due to edit warring right off a block, with the most recent block ending only earlier today. He has been blocked twice previously for the same behavior, and had been warned by admins and the community in an ANI filing. A search [5] by an administrator returned 66 potential violations of 3RR over a 3 year period.

I further note that he made a post on his talk page after he was blocked recently, shortly after a SPI was filed for potential block evasion, casting aspirations on myself and the blocking administrator. Of special interest is the fact that he names both TheScrubby & Jim Michael 2 as editors he is closest to, both of whom was central to the captioned ANI, a acknowledges TheScrubby's "retirement" after the conclusion of the ANI.

Alsoriano97 has previously conducted himself on the "Years" pages similarly to the abovementioned editors, removing content in a way which suggests ownership of the pages [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], (Edit War: [14], [15], [16]). Of note is the general uncivil and battleground style of wording of his edit summaries.

Would appreciate if you could take a look at the situation. Carter00000 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I can take a look, but this would be better at ANI, so the community can weigh in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Please take a look first and let me know what you think. I came directly to you because I felt that this was more of a "enforcement" of a clear and direct breach of the principles previously established at ANI, so would save the community's time by not opening a fresh ANI filing. Carter00000 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There's really not enough there for me to take action absent a community consensus to do so. They're already blocked from portal space, and further edit warring will be met with escalating blocks. If you'd like a different sanction, then there would have to be community input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, my concern is with the editors actions on 2023 in article space, part of WikiProject Years, which was previously discussed in this ANI filing [17] and closed by you. Specifically, my concern is that the editor has continued to enforce inclusion criteria which was clearly deemed to be non-compatible with PAG per community consensus as a result of that ANI. I feel that this is a direct rejection of that consensus, so should be addressed as disruptive editing.

The editors previous actions in portal space and WikiProject Years is provided as context, to establish a pattern of behavior, and show that disruption at 2023 & WikiProject Years by the editor is likely to continue without administrative intervention. Carter00000 (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up on Sam Hyde

Make sure that the Sam Hyde page accurately reflects information found at List of Mensans namely that he is on that list. Please consult sources 43 and 44 on the page List of Mensans for grounds to add it to his personal page.

Thank you and I love you and what you do for this community so much. Keep up the good work, buddy Gregbingus (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

They were both tweets. which are unreliable sources, so I removed him from that list as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Power trip much? Gregbingus (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Help at Pregnancy article

Hi there, we have been having IP problems at the Pregnancy article--please see the history. Could you do something about that? Thanks. Sectionworker (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Sectionworker, I've protected for a week, hopefully they'll get bored. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you really part Finnish? Sectionworker (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Finnish enough that I called my grandmother mummu. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, well then Finnish poika, did mummu feed you kalamojakka to make you grow big and strong? Did she teach you to count to five? Signed, not a Finnish tutta. (Now I've used all the Finnish words I know.) Sectionworker (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. My father spoke Finn when he was a kid, until he was about 5, but assimilation killed that off in the entire neighborhood where he grew up, so by the time I was around there want much left aside from what we called my grandmother. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering because I did the poem and translation at our St. Urho article. The counting is not quite right but I believe that it was actually written wrong. Anyway, it was lots of fun. I grew up on da Range in Minnesota so I had some idea about what it would sound like. Sectionworker (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom Case

Hello there SFR! I wanted to ask you about the additional bans that you imposed upon my editing at the request of Volunteer Marek and Gizzy Cat Bella during my appeal. As you know, I had offered to avoid any pages that were marked as DS (or now CT) in any area. Instead, following only VM, GCB and Shibbolethink (I think) you gave me a much wider topic ban from all things Eastern European (including Russian literature, Polish jazz, WWII history, etc.). As you know exactly zero evidence was provided of any "bad behavior" like edit warring or making personal attacks on talk pages, etc.

I also agreed to a 2-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, but opposed a 1-way interaction ban with him. You imposed a 1-way interaction ban with him based on the comments of VM and GCB. Nobody else (I'll have to check on Shibbolethink) agreed to that.

I believe that given the scope of the ArbCom case: "Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed ", the decision of GCB & VM to try to ban a person from vast swathes of the encyclopedia without a single diff showing wrong-doing speaks volumes about their conduct. In fact, I'm fairly certain they were particularly worried about the Dalej jest noc page, the history of which I know something about and which should be mentioned in the ArbCom case, as it very clearly shows "conduct of (several) named parties"...

I would encourage you, even if you do not lift the overly broad topic ban and change the 1-way interaction ban to 2-way as I am hereby requesting, to make a statement to ArbCom about your decision to accede to the wishes of these two. As you know less than two weeks after requesting my ban from Eastern Europe pages, VM was sanctioned in this very area. GCB has recently been warned about her actions in the area. In your statement to ArbCom you could list the names of all those who were in favor and all those who were opposed to the topic ban and to the 1-way interaction ban (myself included).

As I said at the time, I am sure that you were just trying to make everyone happy. However, hindsight is 20-20. There was no reason to ban me from Polish jazz, Russian literature, or anything in the Eastern European sphere on the sole basis of a request from two people so deeply immersed and so frequently sanctioned in that battleground. I would very much appreciate your reconsideration of the merits of such overkill and a brief statement to ArbCom about the event. Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Also on a minor bureaucratic note, I notice you never logged either of these additional sanctions. Perhaps that was not so much an oversight as a sign that they shouldn't have been made? :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to appeal your topic bans WP:AN is thataway. Thanks for the reminder on the logging, that was an oversight on my part, I'll make sure to log it within the next couple days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not my topic bans I wish to appeal but yours. Think about it a bit more carefully and do the right thing by reporting yourself to ArbCom. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(I may be about to anger you both.) SFR: I've already expressed my admiration for you having been able to close that unban discussion. In doing so, you observed correctly that I hadn't objected to the proposed interaction ban, and I did endeavor to act as a go-between and did open my mouth a lot in the discussion. But as I hinted there, the interaction ban and the topic ban that got entrained with it were based on off-wiki evidence that I presume I and most participants were unable to see, since it was presumably in private threads on WO. Except in the case of truly toxic stuff, it's of dubious appropriateness to base any sanction on Wikipedia on entirely off-wiki conduct, all the more so if it's off-wiki conduct that isn't available for public examination. How do we know it was anything more than robustly reasoned disagreement? It doesn't seem fair, and it may be disproportionate. And as SashiRolls implies with their examples here (Polish jazz ...), "broadly construed" is very broad indeed. But SashiRolls, the restrictions have been imposed. SFR's short response may have been short because what's done is done, you are not permitted to talk about someone and some things except as part of an appeal. He's said he'll be logging the restrictions, so they are obviously in force. (And I for one have noted that you've been doing what you said at the appeal that you would: improving articles.) If I understand correctly, you say you have evidence germane to the arb case? Why don't you e-mail Arbcom requesting an exemption from your interaction and topic bans to permit you to submit that evidence? And then you will know you've contributed to Arbcom's making a good decision. /Buttinski Yngvadottir (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

My terse response was mostly because after 2 months, the likelihood of me going back over that huge discussion again is about none. I'm sure the close was very important to SashiRolls, but to me it was just another day of editing, and I've pretty much forgotten everything about the discussion. What I do remember is that to find any consensus strong enough for an unbanning had to take into account the legion concerns of other editors, and to find enough support it basically came down to "restrict it all." Emailing arbcom is definitely their best path forward to provide evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Your unwillingness to consider your overreach and your arrogant tone have been noted ("... is thataway", "likelihood of my going back over... is about none", etc.) There was no need to add restrictions for a clear majority of people in that discussion to accept the unban. You made a super-vote to add ridiculous limitations, presumably as a reminder that you were very powerful after almost 2 years in the projects and that I was not after well over a decade of contributing to the projects. I had hoped you would recognize your overreach and recognize that there was still room for growth now that your SFR account had turned 2. I will not bother you further now that I've given you a chance to reconsider your actions and you have declined to do so. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The multiple personal attacks in your reply seem to be at odds with your statement during the unban discussion that you hereby promise you it will be very boring as far as PvP-drama goes. That behavior also lines up with many of the responses in the discussion along the lines of it comes back to one thing: they view every disagreement as a battleground, make up enemies in their head, and relentlessly focus on showing how their enemies are out to get them. At this point, I've browsed the discussion again, and I'm confident that my close was a very reasonable reading of the consensus. There are other closes that would have been reasonable as well, including something along the lines of Although a majority of editors supported an unblock, the amount of qualified support and the broad concerns about temperament when involved in disputes or in contentious topic areas lends significant strength to the opposition. There is no consensus to unban. It's also possible that another closer would not have read that the additional bans were necessary to establish consensus. That would have been reasonable as well.

I suggest you steer clear of personal attacks, if you have any concerns about the current arb case, email arbcom, and if you'd like to request a loosening of your bans take it to AN. Lastly, waiting two months to object to a closure and getting upset that the closer doesn't want to spend significant time rereading, absorbing, and relitigating isn't reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) SashiRolls, I think you need to keep in mind that there was considerable opposition to unbanning you at all. I supported your unban, and I was quite uncertain until the end what the outcome would be. Bludgeoning SFR's talk page about your unban conditions is not the way to go about loosening them: indeed it's likely hurting your case. If you edited productively for a few more months, and then asked the community for the opportunity to edit non-political EE articles, you're far more likely to get somewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies SFR. I appreciate that you recognized above that a reasonable close could not have included any new sanctions at all. I did appreciate that you listened to the majority even if they were admittedly less strident than the minority. I'll read the details of the sanction GCB requested once it is logged and will of course comply with it. The narrower it is, the longer I'll go without appealing it. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Luckily, someone picked up my slack when I closed that thread. DanCherek logged them here. Thanks, Dan.

The restrictions seem pretty cut and dry.

One-way interaction ban with VM (Don't talk about VM in any way)
One-way interaction ban with Tryptofish (Don't talk about Tryptofish in any way)
Topic banned from post-1932 American politics, broadly construed (That would be anything, anywhere on en.wiki dealing with 1932 politics in the United States, broadly construed)
Topic banned from GMO and agricultural biotechnology, broadly construed (That would be anything, anywhere on en.wiki, dealing with genetically modified organisms or agricultural biotechnology, broadly construed)
Topic banned from Eastern Europe including Russia and Poland, broadly construed (That would be anything, anywhere on en.wiki, dealing with Eastern Europe, including Russian and Poland, broadly construed.)
Prohibited from commenting on AE requests where they are not a party (Don't take part in any AE cases in any way, or discuss them anywhere on en.wiki, when you are not a party)

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully, I'm aware that the community imposed none of those restrictions. People voted to unban me and acquiesced to restrictions which were not community-imposed. A vocal micro-minority succeeded in convincing you to add two new restrictions to the pile. That's fine. That's the distributed morality game. Claiming collective responsibility for a single person's initiative (as in the case of the AE ban) is quite unfair to the collective, though, it makes en.wp look worse than it actually is. Oh well. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Close challenge

I post here about American Politics Topic Ban by ScottishFinnishRadish as formally required. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sheikh Hasina

It appears that very little has changed in two months. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That's the feeling I have. If I was sure that it was under CTOP I would have handled it myself. Now we just have to hope a few more ANI lurkers respond. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Helpful? Maybe?

I have a NYT subscription and am able to send a handful of articles to others for free, if you ever need anything.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, the select all/copy method normally works reasonably well, but I'll keep that in mind. It'll definitely come in handy when I'm confined to my phone, because the cheating method doesn't really work on mobile. Thanks a ton. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, rebel.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm such a rebel that I just built a big cardboard tank for my cats to play in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You built...a kitty Thunderdome?!?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No, like this, but large enough for three cats, and not as detailed. They're a tank crew working to harass my dogs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Can they, like, shoot projectiles at the dogs?(not a serious question) This is the best thing I've seen all day!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, as soon as cats are in it the dogs have to sniff at the holes, which means the cats shoot their paws out and slap the dogs right in the face. Much fun is being had by all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I just emailed you a picture. Of course because I had my camera out the two cats inside hid. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I only have a dog, so I'm off to pick up a cat on the way home so I can experience it for myself. Tah!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Everyone should have at least one cat to remind them that the universe doesn't give a shit about them. A cat will work to remind you every day that they are the only thing the universe cares about, and that you should follow suit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, could you please take a look here?

I don't thinking this editor is here to build an encyclopedia looking at [18],[19],[20]. They were blocked back in 2017 for disruption at Narendra Modi, went largely inactive and recently returned, started making a large of edits which were either plain disruptive (for example [21],[22]) and/or consisted of adding one word with each edit to inflate edit count (for example [23] [24] and so on) till they got EC and then they started editing articles under ECP. There is an ANI thread of their gaming but that's gone unattended.

I have been dealing with them on one of the ECP articles (Rahul Gandhi) and trying to engage honestly looks like a waste of time to me, don't have the energy for this either, they repeatedly remove material or add a flurry of poorly sourced, synthetic or unsourced material, many of which contain BLP violations (for example [25] [26]). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to take a closer look at this tomorrow, but a post to AE might be in order. I'm simply not familiar enough with the context to do anything right now, although my gut agrees with you.

@RegentsPark and Abecedare:, either of you have an opinion on this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

script

That revdel script, is the button I'm looking for in the more dropdown as 'request CV revdel'? I have so damn many scripts installed that when I install a new one I sometimes can't figure out where the new button is. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm pretty sure that's something else. Reading the script, I think it's a "Revision deletion" button with a little downward arrow near the top of each user contributions page. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

On contribs (newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

25 March 2023 Revision deletion >

Clicking the arrow expands a revdel toolkit. Most of the time though I use the check boxes on a page history and then change visibility of selected revisions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah! It's on the contributions page of a user, not the history of the article! I see it, thanks, both! Valereee (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you weigh in?

Hey, SFR! 😸 I am writing to request your intervention regarding a pair of editors who are engaging in disruptive behavior on the Disclose.tv AfD discussion. Isi96 and another editor are opposing proposed discussion without providing substantive rationale based on policy, guidelines, or conventions. They appear to be more focused on maintaining the current version of the article rather than discussing the merits of the proposed discussions.

The disruptive behavior used may constitute as WP:STONEWALLING and includes:

Avoiding substantive discussion
Reverting changes without engaging in discussion
Relying on non-substantive arguments
Ignoring good faith questions and discussion

One editor, Isi96, has misrepresented my words and used a straw-man argument to lodge a COI case against me to derail productive conversation. Then using the COI in further discussions to discredit my contributions not on merit, but through personal attacks on credibility.

Furthermore, I have opened an Administrative Review case for potential policy violations related to these incidents here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This behavior is making it difficult to reach a genuine consensus and is hindering the collaborative editing process. I believe that it is important to address these issues to maintain a productive editing environment.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I apologize for having to bring this to your attention, but I feel as if the contentiousness is becoming too much for all parties to reasonably handle. I will respectfully accept the decision of administrators and the administration team. Barring review, I will be disengaging with the editors on formal COI cases and Administrative reviews so that I may continue to put my available, but limited, time into other topics and articles. DiamondPuma (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The Oversighted Edit by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.16.82.174

On the edit to the help desk by the user, they had claimed of being raped by the article subject, and I believe them per WP:AGF. Why was the edit removed and oversighted. I looked at the criteria, and can’t figure out why. It appeared to be a genuine concern from a distraught user. I know you didn’t oversight it, but you edited the page. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The user appears to have created an account. See User:Manwell2023. They posted a comment on their IPs talk page. It may need to be oversighted too. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a huge, massive BLP violation. I revdel'd and requested oversight. There's nothing to be done on Wikipedia about it and accusations of rape by editors against living people do not belong on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s true. Thanks for explaining it. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the heads up on the account. Of you ever have any other questions, you're not than welcome to ask. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if this discussion needs to be oversighted now, but feel free to request it. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No one is actually named here, so it's okay. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your respectable contributions in the dark alleys of Wikipedia HolmKønøman (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have a lot of room to improve. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Less specific block?

Hi, I've encountered vandalism from this IP range lately [27], and wonder if a broader block is possible. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

162.216.141.57 disruptive editing

162.216.141.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Within a few hours after expiration of the 1-month block you put on 162.216.141.57 for "Persistent addition of unsourced content", they are back at it with unsourced and disruptive edits. — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ahem

You misspelled "bunny". Twice.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Ponyo, should be fixed now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For reverting the personal attacks at ANI just as I was about to do it. Thank you! JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, glad to take care of some trash. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Kimi Räikkönen

Hey, could you look at the editing by the 2409 IP on Kimi Räikkönen? Appears you've blocked the range recently from talk pages for disruption - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 17:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

GhostOfDanGurney, this is actually related to the section a few above this, Less specific block? The range is pretty large, and it's, I believe, the range for an Indian cellular company. The range is large enough that I can't even view the contribs, but a wider block would cause significant collateral damage. It's definitely starting to look like something has to be done though. If I can find the time I may try breaking it down to smaller ranges and checking the contribs to see if there's any constructive editing going on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the reply. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 17:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)