User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 24

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

	... this man has some good advice for you.
	Thanks for being an angel and doing a devil of a job at ANI. Havradim leaf a message 06:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I let that fester too long without addressing it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Disruption seem to continue @ Harapanahalli: Revision history via IP mode.

• Previous discussion User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#‎Requesting attention / blocked User talk:Darshan Kavadi - seems Previous helping/blocking admin Lourdes -unlikely to be available any more.

This is just to keep you informed.

Bookku (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish,

There is currently a clarification request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Clarification request: EC protection of Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war regarding the recent AE decision to protect the page Talk:2023 Israel-Hamas war.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Freddie Freeman 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 00:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, ScottishFinnishRadish. I thank you again for your help, but I would like to understand: your message means you have just banned me for life from ever editing on anything related to Israel / Palestine, and that because I made one 1RR mistake without knowing I was doing it (I didn't use the revert button, I re-added content), and then, even if I also immediately self-reverted, correcting my mistake, the minute you pointed it out? If you warned me that I committed the mistake and I immediately undid it in a matter of seconds, with no repercussion to Wikipedia whatsoever, should I be punished? But specially, with a ban for life? Wouldn't you be willing to reconsider it? Dan Palraz (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You were warned when your topic ban was closed that another violation was likely to lead to an indefinite sanction. I find it unlikely that you're not familiar with 1RR after your last trip to AE, and if you're not familiar with it after that you shouldn't be editing that topic anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm less than impressed with your quick revert of another editor letting me know about your prior sanction history. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I insist: I was never explained clearly, precisely, what the 1RR means, and I had no idea that what I was doing counted as a "revert", since I didn't use the revert button. In my edit "summary" I specifically announced, in the "Edit summary" field, that I was bringing again the info someone had removed, which proves that I had no idea it was a "revert" and a violation, or I wouldn't be announcing I was doing it. It was an honest mistaek – and then, the moment you pointed out that I had broken a rule, I immediately self-reverted. Would you please be able to take that into consideration, and please, at least reconsider the ban for life? I apologize once again, acknowledge my mistake, even if I insist I clearly didn't know I was committing a violation (and announcing it); and I immediately corrected my mistake once pointed out, in a matter of seconds. Even if unintentionally, though, I understand I made a mistake and apologize for it, and accept I may be punished for it, but I beseech you to please reconsider a punishment for life for one honest mistake that was so quickly corrected, without any harm done. Whatever you decide, I promise I will take another months-long self-imposed break from Wikipedia starting immediately after your veredict, but I beg you to please reconsider a punishment for life for an honest mistake that was immediately self-reverted. Dan Palraz (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have been both blocked and topic banned for edit warring and 1RR violations and you remained ignorant of what a revert is then you certainly should not be editing in three ARBPIA topic area. Indefinite is not infinite, but I suggest you wait at least a year before appealing, and come equipped with a demonstration that you've learned what reverts and edit warring are and an edit history that demonstrates that you're not edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I thank you, but I insist: I announced I was re-adding the content, meaning I didn't know it was a violation; after this whole situation, I clearly learned my lesson and will take a voluntary break from Wikipedia. But I won't be able to continue editing even other parts of Wikipedia until then, out of panic that I might be somehow indirectly violating the ban because whichever content I might edit might end up having some distant relation to the banned topic. So, if I can beg you, please give me a certain amount of time for the ban, so I can feel comfortable editing again, even if in other topics – but again, please take into account that I 1) publicly announced and even called attention to what I was doing, in a clear sign that I did not knowing it was a violation; 2) immediately self-reverted, with no harm done. And once again, I apologize, honestly. Dan Palraz (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I will not be considering this appeal any further. Instructions for further appeals are included in the topic ban notification template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you once again. Can you please confirm if I understood what is written there correctly: is it correct, from what I read and understood in the page you linked, that my ban can only be reverted after at least one year has passed since today, or unless you reconsider it? Dan Palraz (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Click on the appeals process in If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. in the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for putting a stop to those fellas, been real pains. Here's a pint. CommissarDoggo (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I have pinged you to a comment made on my page. As you have been active since that ping, I would appreciate an answer. If it makes it easier, please think of this as being part of WP:ADMINACCT. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you happen to have VRT access? If so, Ticket:2023102910002766 may be of interest to you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Alas, I do not. I'm waiting on my access to non-public information application to be processed. Now you have my curiosity piqued. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Alas, your curiosity shan't be satisfied 'till access be granted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Eh, it's not that piqued. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my very obvious error. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I almost made that error myself. That said, I'm docking your pay and bringing this directly to Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Naturally. Heads will roll!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Battle of Kosovo on a "History and geography" 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 19:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

As an admin, please carefully evaluate "revision wars", *especially* on contentious articles that are likely to be squatted on by ideologues. The evidence must be the standard, not the "popular will" present on a page. The Undos placed on my edits were delivered without intelligent justification, and thus they were worthless. Quantity is not relevant. This was less a "revision war" than it was bullying.

A person or a team of ideologues hitting Undo without justification deserves a ban. A person *protecting* an evidence-based edit that she carefully wrote deserves, if anything, a merit!

Your ban pointed the wrong way. If you care about evidence-based and non-ideological articles, you have to be on the lookout for whether a "revision war" or a "bullying war" is taking place: the pivot point of discernment must be the presence or absence of evidence. Lifetrance (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

While there are exceptions to the 3 revert rule, considering yourself to be "right" is not one of them. Also please do not accuse other editors of being "ideologues", that goes against the civility policy and could lead to further sanctions against yourself as the article in question is in a contentious topic area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"Considering myself to be right" was a rather glib interpretation of my argument. Lifetrance (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Lifetrance, while evidence certainly matters, consensus is sort of the name of the game around here. As such, it's usually most effective to use evidence as a means of persuasion rather than some sort of "I win" button. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that many of us get confused about what "Consensus" is. Consensus in the Wikipedia sense is a supermajority of editors citing evidence-based positions from credible authorities. Opinions don't play into it. As such, an "Undo" without the requisite justification isn't reflective of a lack of consensus, merely a lack of aligned opinion. Lifetrance (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you've heard of WP:BRD? Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I am another administrator and you were definitely edit warring. It make no difference at all that you are convinced that you are correct on the content dispute. Edit warring is not permitted and there are several forms of legitimate Dispute resolution available to you. My sincere advice to you is to never edit war again. It never ends well. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Framing my argument as my being "convinced that I'm correct" is a strawman. You're smart enough to see that. Lifetrance (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much all of that, yeah. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

And all of that rebutted. Lifetrance (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, your magical invocation of a non-existent "I win" button is singularly unconvincing and unavailing. This is headed to site block territory unless you can learn to act collegially and discuss rather than relying on repeated instances of ipse dixit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Already there. Funcrunch (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed a lot while I was asleep. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:ScottishFinnishRadish

User:Hawkers994 has started editing on the Awdal page a week after you gave this warning:

"You've both already been blocked and if the edit warring resumes you'll be blocked again. The rest of the back and forth belongs on the talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)"

The whole discussion as to why that source shouldn't be used is here, I wrote extensively on the subject: [[1]]

I wrote and clarified in great detail that it is WP:OR. The source that he used to make his edit does not conform to what the content he wrote states. I added 5 sources that disprove the content that he added. But I feel that it is warranted that the content he wrote is removed, not only because it is WP:OR, but there are countless more sources that disprove it.

MustafaO (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked you from the article for a month for immediately going back to the article with no discussion on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand but I have one contention. I added content on the page without removing any material to avoid any edit war. So I didn't edit war. Could you please go back and check the history.

User:Hawkers994 edited the page earlier today before anyone else did without using the talk page aswell. I inititiated the talk page discussion here:[[2]]

Please have a look at the history, it was the other user who started making edits without using the talk page.

MustafaO (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You made another edit directly related to the disputed content with no further discussion. See WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The other user did initiated it with no discussion whatsoever earlier today but only I received the warning and partial block.

I was under the impression that we were told not to edit war and remove content but it was ok to add? Whatever the case may be I acknowledge that I was wrong and should have gone straight into the tak page and will do so moving forward. I was the one who initiated discussions with the other user in all of our previous interactions. I have one request, can all edits done today be reversed so that a new discussion can take place come next month on the talk page when I can return to it?

MustafaO (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You can still edit the talk page now, so you're more than welcome to discuss the content there while you're blocked from the article itself. The article can stay at whatever version it's at now, ala WP:WRONGVERSION. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok got it, I have a question, I genuinely want to know why only I got the block? The other user didn't use the talk page either and resumed editing articles which also violated the stipulation. All I did was add content. I didn't delete anything and even called out to you. So I don't understand why they haven't been given the same block despite initiating.

MustafaO (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I saw the other editor only reverted an unexplained content removal. That revert was to your version. The editor that removed the content was warned.

If you discuss civilly on the talk page I am open to reducing the duration of your block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That was his 2nd edit, before that he was the first one to add the content onto the article the entire day despite breaking the stipulated agreement. This was his edit which was the first of the day on the article: [[3]]. This was despite you telling him and myself not to do so a week ago. You said to both of us to not add anything onto the article unless we discussed it on the talk page after the 1 day block. After this he waited a week and added the same content without using the talk page. He was the first user to do that. Afterwards what I did was I added my own content in addition to what he added without removing his contribution despite disagreeing with it completely [[4]]. That's why I informed you that I believed he made a violation. I never assumed I did. Could you have another look again at the history for the whole day? Please have a look. At the very least I think he should also be given the same caution, if not more for starting. If he wanted to change it, he should also have used the talk page because we both got the same stipulation.

MustafaO (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I did miss that edit, so now you're both blocked from the article for a month. I suggest you work it out on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, also just one last question and sorry for taking your time. We both (me and the other user) exhausted ourselves and are not going to agree with eachother. We went all round here: [[5]]

And then here: [[6]].

So I don't think we'll see eye to eye. Can someone else intervene, have a look and arbitrate and conclude it? Thank you.

MustafaO (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

There's WP:3O and WP:DRN that might be able to help. There's also other options listed at WP:DR. DRN is a moderated discussion, but all parties have to agree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

MustafaO (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. As I said, of things proceed civilly and constructively then I'm open to unblocking early. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok will do, if unblocked, I will definitely use the talk page and the means of resolution you sent me moving forward and br civil, I see where I've fallen short. If there is any procedure you will would help me get unblocked early please let me know :)

MustafaO (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:ScottishFinnishRadish

Hope you are well and good. I had a request regarding the Awdal page. This was the last version, [7] on the 2nd November before the first violation took place. It was a pp dispute tag by Isabelle Belato and this was the version when you asked that the talk pages be utilized. Subsequently, the other user added their contribution a week later which was outside of what was agreed and that is currently the latest edition of the article. Would it be fair and ok if you or anyone else could roll it back to the version at the time you said use the talk pages? I think that would be fair and it wouldn't reward the user that their version gets to stay especially after going against what you've said. This was the last version of the article before the user violated the agreement: [8]. If you look at the history there was at least a week before the other user waited to add their edit and now it's the current version despite the violation. I think it would really help and be fair that it goes back to before to the other admin's edit when you made the request. I think that would resolve the issue completely.

Kind regards

MustafaO (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It'll have to sit at the WP:WRONGVERSION until there's some consensus for how to proceed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

a barnstar for insufferability. Just sayin'.😋 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

So my wife can make an account to leave me that barnstar every day? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

...who is that? You have a longtime fan? Drmies (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I have a few, I think. My wife is going to be excited to know that she's with a virgin, though. That should be exciting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

On a Friday night too! Enjoy! I hope it's everything you dreamed of. I checked one of your trolls and blocked User talk:Opppka. I see that Yamla already checked Lifetrance so I don't think there's more that I can do. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Eh, it's not a big deal. Comes with the territory, as I'm sure you know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The best and nicest way to prove you're not a virgin is to have pictures of your children in your wallet at all times :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No kids here. My wife and I prefer time and money. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Because I don't trust pings:

I'm sorry for the stridency in my oppose at your RFA, for not posing my concerns first as questions to give you an opportunity to defend yourself, and for not choosing my words much more carefully and adopting a more measured tone. The way I opposed made the RFA more painful than need be. I acknowledge the discomfort my role in your RFA played, and regret that.

The post in that discussion continues to broader discussion of RFA criteria, but I'm sorry that my words and actions made things harder on you than they had to be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I appreciate you reaching out and accept your apology. As I said during my RFA, there's no hard feelings. You thought you were doing what was right for Wikipedia. You did make a little mistake at WT:RFA though, I had two GAs at the time of my RFA. I also fulfilled one of my "campaign promises" and got Frelinghuysen University up to GA, this time reviewed by someone I'm fairly certain you're familiar with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I did indeed miss that (and thank you for those articles). Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It makes me very happy to see this coming together of two good people. While we're correcting small mistakes of the past: SFR you have not yet won that chess match with Tamzin, as the supposed checkmate left one escape move! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Well fuck me. Must have missed that in all the excitement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking the reverts on Kristy Swanson. While it obviously would have been helpful if the edit summary was at all related, the onus was on us to do some checking as to why the date was being removed. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 02:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Their first removal mentioned that in the summary. [9] I know it's easy to revert, and those edits looks like they could be vandalism, but it's helpful to check exactly what you're reverting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat related concept, same user. They've now edited the date of birth on the Daniel Stern (actor) page (diff). Based on the citations already in the article, his birth year is actually 1957. Logically this would dictate putting a Uw-biog warning of some sort on their talk page, but given the context I would rather assume good faith. Should I remove some of the warnings given by others and post a handwritten message at this point? Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 03:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove comments that other editors left on their talk page, including warnings. Handwritten messages are a good idea, though, especially when the bad edits may be an issue of confusion rather than malice. I see that the IP is blocked now, so they just have continued with the disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Back to the original subject of this message. I went back to the original sources today and it seems the references were pretty clear. The subject's official Twitter page lists their date of birth as December 19th, and that seems pretty cut and dry to not violate WP:DOB. For the year, the reference provided puts them at 51 years old in 2021, which correlates to a birthdate in 1969. I also found this CBS article that she was 36 in 2006, which again correlates to the date originally given in the Wikipedia article. Seems to me like the data shouldn't have been removed since it wasn't violating WP:BLP. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 01:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to restore then. I didn't see the birthdate on Twitter when I reviewed the links. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

You mentioned at AN that a discussion didn't meet the threshold for a close. Out of curiosity, what is the threshould for a close, and what harm does closing discussions below that threshold do? Fermiboson (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast threshold, but if the result is fairly clear upon reading and the stakes and fairly low then there's not a whole lot of reason for a formal close.

The harm is one of resource allocation. Editor time is the most valuable resource in Wikipedia and using it to close a discussion that doesn't need it takes effort that might be better spent at the list of aging discussions at WP:CR. It also reinforces the idea that every discussion needs formal closure.

I wouldn't object if someone wants to close that discussion, we're all volunteers and we can use our time as we wish. I just don't think that there will be any real benefit to it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Asking anyone who had already made three posts in the past day to wait was a good idea. It would however be more useful if some discussion did then resume. I see that Falun Gong is still a contentious topic, which it still should be. And I do wonder whether the filing at DRN immediately after the filing at FTN was forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping there would be some more outside input, rather than the same editors going back and forth. Yesterday I dedicated my high attention wiki-time to closing some RFCs, but I plan on looking into the article and behavior as soon as I have the time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

A thread at Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#I._Antisemitism_insinuations,_II._Contemporary_use could use benevolent oversight from uninvolved admins. There has unquestionably been foruming and casting aspersions, and also some attempts by involved editors to delete or collapse others' comments that they have questionably construed as being foruming or casting aspersions. I don't think it calls for any disciplinary process, but moderation could be helpful. Sennalen (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I closed that dumpster fire of a thread and watchlisted the article. I suggest you start a new section with your proposals, and if you find the discussion going in unproductive circles either bring it to a noticeboard or start an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I explicitly did not personally attack someone by claiming the borderline absurd because otherwise he would have been clearly lying. Did you look into the matter, no you just erased it without checking thew fact that he clearly either lied or didn't know what his account did a few minutes earlier. I'm trying to bend over backwards to show good faith to someone who clearly wrote something that is true partly based on his own moves minutes earlier to make his false statement less so.

I'm assuming you did not actually check what I wrote cause otherwise you would have known I was the only one who was clearly following Wiki guidelines, he was only doing so if one chooses to believe his account was hacked or other such wild ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yestyest2000 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) your attitude towards other editors is part of the reason •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm being very generous and kind, I'm assuming goodfaith despite the facts being way beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm still assuming the goodfaith of someone, who's account changed an article to take out a key word, and than used a few minutes later the fact that same key word wasn't on the page as proof to his point of view.

But where is the good faith of others in me that I am using good faith, is this a one way streak? Yestyest2000 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You dont tell everyone “im assuming good faith” •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

except the rules disagree

Assume_good_faith#Demonstrate_good_faith

"You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. "

In fact I don't even have to assume good faith

"Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with editors. " Yestyest2000 (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

False, your very bad at wikilawyering I see. It clearly says on a banner that assume good faith is a behavioral guideline and is agreed upon of the majority of wiki users. •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

But since the rules still demand I assume your good faith, I must assume either your account was hijacked, or you have a major short term memory loss. is a clear personal attack. Your repeat of the attack here and your wikilawyering are also disruptive. If you cannot engage civilly with editors and avoid disruptive editing in the WP:ARBPIA4 topic area you will be topic banned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yestyest2000, I want to make this crystal clear, you've called me a liar in front of a bunch of witnesses without evidence in a topic area where general sanctions are involved. I've given you friendly prompts about WP:ARBPIA4 multiple times but my patience with you so far is not a not a suicide pact and will run out. TarnishedPath^talk 11:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Please explain why the comment was deleted and the user was banned? Ucraniano2 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are you deleting comments?--Ucraniano2 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ARBPIA4 and WP:ECR editors who are not extended-confirmed (30 days and 500 edits) are only permitted to make constructive edit requests on the topic of the Palestine/Israel conflict. This includes your account as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

		The Closer's Barnstar
		For this barnstormer of a close. For the record, even though you made three comments in the one above, I think you could close it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. That wasn't one of the longest RFCs I've closed, but it was certainly near the top of the list for time spent deliberating and crafting the close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

In the sources I provided, there are screenshots of her tweets that have since been deleted, albeit there are still some remnants if you look up "Michelle Zacarias Hamas" on Google. Her page also looks like she wrote it herself to be used as some kind of poorly-written résumé, neglecting to provide biographical data that basically all Wikipedia pages about currently living people should have. Furthermore, she isn't notable enough (and hasn't done anything significantly of note) to warrant having a Wikipedia page about her, so why get rid of my deletion nomination? Brobbz (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources you provided should in no way be used in a BLP. If there are issues with the article fix them, tag them, or ignore them and move on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with them? They are screenshots taken directly from her Twitter. Brobbz (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Screenshots on someone's Instagram are not reliable sources. There are no reliable secondary sources saying these screenshots are real. There is no reliable secondary sourcing demonstrating that the content is WP:DUE for a BLP. Again, read WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to say thanks for your recent closes at RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. Tried to spend some time knocking down the RFC backlog yesterday. I appreciate the thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't wish to relitigate this RSN, but I strongly disagree that the assertion made in one response that there was no evidence of fabricated claims was rebutted. This assertion was not rebutted, no VenezuelaAnalysis article provided as example contained any falsehoods at all except one, and a swift correction ensued. Can you please remove that part from the summary? Mottezen (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I've reviewed the RFC again and I'm confident that my summary is accurate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what your closure means for the article? Does it mean we can move the anti-activist wording to the society and culture section? Does it mean it should not even be included in the article at all? Your clarification of the situation would be helpful and prevent edit warring. Thanks. Prcc27 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus that it should be in the article, but no consensus as to where. Right now, the status quo is in the function section. Until there's consensus otherwise that's where it should remain. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" 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 07:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lango people on a "History and geography" 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 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

A couple weeks ago, you blocked 50.205.182.253 (talk · contribs). It appears they are now at 12.21.236.98 (talk · contribs).

It also appears that this is a long-standing problem. Wracking ^talk! 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. If they come back at that IP I'll drop a longer anonblock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the page logs, it seems that Favonian had set semi-protection to expire 2 May 2026. Looks like that was reset by your recent full protection, which expired a few days ago. We've just seen an uptick in IP vandalism, so I was going to bring this to RPP, but thought I'd let you know about the apparent bug in the system first. Not sure if there's a way to make it so that when full protection expires the previous semi-protection kicks back in, but in any case the page seems to need it. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I just gave it 18 months of semi. That issue with protection comes up all the time, and it's always annoying. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)