User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

This user is a farmer in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

bunny

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

I am confused why you deleted my comment “I could see why someone would think waving a Palestinian flag or wearing a keffiyeh in a celebration of the October 7 attack is pro-Hamas and therefore antisemitic (although it is unclear what proportion of those who gathered in France and Germany right after October 7 were doing that). It’s fine to disagree, and that is why it should be left as an accusation. It is certainly not objectively not antisemitic. It’s also not really relevant, as that would be Wikipedia:OR.” was removed from the Talk section of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Hamas_war_protests. What rules am I violating? The other commenter is proposing the removal of “an accusation of antisemitism” on the basis that is not antisemitic. I objected to the proposed change as it (1) is subjective and (2) is Wikipedia:OR. If you let me know what I did wrong, I will not do it in the future. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are who not extended-confirmed may only make constructive edit requests dealing with with Arab/Israel conflict. You cannot take part in content discussions in the topic area. Details are on your talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am still new to the Wikipedia editing process. I thought the Talk section was for discussing and proposing changes to the article, but I will only propose changes on contentious topics in the future. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not even do that, not in that subject area. Not until you meet the criteria outlined. --Yamla (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I may have misspoken here. You should wait for ScottishFinnishRadish to clarify whether or not constructive edit requests (but nothing else) are permitted. --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only constructive edit requests. Further discussion to establish consensus for edit requests may only take place between EC editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ScottishFinnishRadish. I have one more question (sorry!). Why was my constructive request to include the information that “The union, Starbucks Workers United, posted “Solidarity with Palestine” on social media platform X above an image of a bulldozer operated by Hamas tearing down a fence on the Gaza strip during the attacks against Israel” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/13/business/starbucks-israel-palestine-workers

(that quote is directly from the CNN article) was removed? Just simply stating “…union for making a social media post in solidarity with Palestine” is misleading.

I understand that I am making several suggestions on Israel-Hamas topics, but they seem to be somewhat biased (intentionally leaving out information) and I would like the opportunity to be involved in proposing changes to make the articles more balanced. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because multiple iterations have already been declined. Other editors can see the request, even if declined, and decide if they want to move forward with some part of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were a few iterations over the source (but https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/13/business/starbucks-israel-palestine-workers ended up being acceptable). And the last iteration M.Bitton rejected it for Wikipedia:OR, so I proposed instead of changing it to “…social media post supporting Hamas” (which may be Wikipedia:OR) to “Solidarity with Palestine” over an image of Hamas militants braking into Israel on October 7.” (not Wikipedia:OR). I’m also not the first person on the Talk page to point this omission out. Am I going about requesting the change incorrectly? 71.179.129.209 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for the change, which is why it isn't being done. If you'd like to discuss to build consensus you'll need to create an account and gain the extended-confirmed user right through constructive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am not that invested. It is a glaring omission that paints a false narrative (Starbucks is suing for “solidarity with Palestine” as opposed to Starbucks is suing because of a post supporting Hamas), and I thought I could quickly recommend fixing it, but it seems to be more trouble than it’s worth. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my edit request was not contested. It went through several iterations, all of which were constructive (e.g., use a different source or phrase it move closely to the source) and not because they disagreed with the change. I don’t see why I violate Wiki policy to have my request not considered, especially when the article as it stands is non-neutral and intentionally dishonest (as anyone can see from the source). I am not going to jump through hoops, but I hope you reconsider my request to have the proposed edit listed in the Talk section and discussed. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish 84.225.147.49 (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SFR, seeking your advice on how to deal with an editor that refuses to participate in talk page discussions on their reversion despite three requests to do so? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally a quick trip to ANI takes care of lack of communication if you've already reached out on their talk page. Do you have more specifics? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were pinged twice and a talk page message was left: [1] [2]. Also on a separate article same issue [3]. Still ANI? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a logged final warning and instructed them to discuss those reverts before making any further reverts on the page and to discuss any further reverts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply here demonstrates exactly the kind of behavior that a good admin should have. Thank you for being extremely receptive to input from other editors. I think I speak for more than a few editors that disagreed with the block when saying that your humility here is more than enough to reaffirm trust in your mopping. Thank you for your work in this role. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My task as an admin is to use my judgement to enforce our policies and guidelines as the community interprets them rather than my own personal interpretation, so when there is a gap there a bit of adjustment is needed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to follow your example in my interactions on here. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left on the talk page of this contentious topic my view that the October 7, 2023, attacks should be included in the list because I read the argumentation in the page discussing whether they should be included and the weighing of the arguments suggested including. I have less than 500 edits, therefore I cannot edit the page itself since it is contentious. I think that my comment is a constructive one. I understand if the comment is repetitive and this means that it should be reverted/deleted as it was. However, some notice of the dispute (whether the October 7 attacks should be included in the list) should appear in the list itself, at least letting the user decide whether they should be included. What is the proper way of suggesting this? Ngeorgak (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ngeorgak, until you are extended-confirmed you may only make edit requests, not take part in discussions to establish consensus for article content. Even if constructive, edits that are not edit requests made by those who are extended-confirmed will most likely be reverted on sight. I apologize for the strictness of this rule, but it is due to a large amount of sockpuppetry and other disruption in the topic, so the Arbitration committee instituted these draconian measures. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed you had recently reverted an edit from 172.59.210.195 on Interstate 94 in Michigan, and wanted to know if the prior edit is okay to stay?

I'm not familiar with the topic of the article. It has 16 new bare URLs that were added in that edit and I don't want to waste time fixing them if the edit itself is going to be removed. OIM20 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine. I just mass reverted as everything I'd checked was disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with this new editor? Deadball1. Much of their edits are about the Israel-Palestine conflict despite having far less than the 500 required edits and they're fully aware of the restrictions considering this edit summary on Talk:Mohammed Deif and this similar edit. Perhaps just as bad is that almost all of their edits are unsourced or POV. A few examples are:

• Tulkarm Brigade
• 2000 Hezbollah cross-border raid
• Afghanistan–Israel relations
• Palestine Stadium
• Isfahan
• Acid attacks on women in Isfahan.

They also used an IP 76.175.20.202 to edit war. On Operation Ezra and Nehemiah he reverted five. 92.27.113.41 (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@92.27.113.41, talk page stalker here - the edits on Isfahan seem very similar to those of sockmaster SelfStarter2. I'll send to SPI. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filed here. After some further digging, I've got no doubt it's them. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy because ma story today is about a Czech mezzo soprano who is mentioned on the Main page on her birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I point your attention at WP:ITNN#September 5? The first entry is ready, but no admin in sight, - the five who usually do it haven't edited in hours, one not even in days. - It's not by me, I just watch the mood and understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my phone during a work day isn't when I want to try editing something onto the main page for the first time, sorry. If I already had some experience, maybe, but that's out of my wheelhouse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and understand. You may have seen that I told Martin a few things, including that in valid "ready" cases like this, they are not rigid about the limit. And indeed, it got posted this morning. (For Maryvonne Le Dizès, however, there was no such "ready" marking when I had to leave home late on that last day, instead only complete ignorance - after one initial support - for three days.) Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday, top of my talk! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I forgot how long the thread already is, - look for 11 Sep or "Don't canvass about Herbie!". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is about a man who played jazz when it was banned by the Nazis, - you can listen to how they played it later. - What do you think of my talk page corner for "help wanted", recently recommended? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great way to seek assistance with articles. I appreciate you taking the criticism and suggestions on board. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't worked, though. You haven't visited the DYK nom ;) - So far one person arrived there and at one of the deletion suggestions (the same person), and nobody at the RD nom, the second day. I will not panic again, I will not panic again, I will not ... - (I'll travel, that will help. Tomorrow will be the last day, as in the other case.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's my story today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to report that all four cases where I said that help was needed have now been resolved. - my story today is about one of the greatest users I had the honour to meet here, mentioned in my edit notice, which often helps me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Third Opinion request about Asian fetish on the Third Opinion noticeboard. In looking at the request and the history, I see that you semi-protected the article and redacted some edits as purely disruptive material. The Third Opinion request said that the originator had some issues with an IP whose address changed. I concluded that the IP was probably a troll. I also see that there was one registered editor who was blocked almost immediately who had a disgusting user name, but was blocked for vandalism (not for the user name). I removed the Third Opinion request as being a response to a troll, and advised the originator to edit normally and ignore the troll. Is my inference mostly reasonable, in particular that any content disagreement on that article was probably trolling and should be ignored? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is a legitimate content dispute as well as this article being the target of an LTA. Special:Contributions/2603:8080:1F00:518:FC41:3866:EC40:EA86 appears to be a good faith contributor, for instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to revoke talkpage access. 73.67.145.30 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All set. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the false statement, it turns out we have multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs, that you made here. There are not "multiple" editors "that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing", nor "been part of opening such RMs."

When I asked you to back that up with diffs, your first response pointed to a pair of RMs where the first RM said, "This RM is intended specifically to fix the incorrect year disambiguation as soon as possible ... It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording." Participating in a second RM, when the first RM was just about the disambiguator and explicitly said no prejudice to another RM about the title, is not an example of "!voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing," and not in any way analogous to the current situation, which an RM that resulted in "moved," without any "no prejudice to another RM" statement, and that was upheld at MR. Furthermore, you were around during that earlier RM, and you know very well that the entire plan back then was to have one RM about the disambiguator, and another RM about the title. So you know those two situations are not in any way analogous, and that this example does not back up your claim.

When I pointed this out to you at AE, you posted a second pair of examples. Again, the first RM in that set of examples said, "This close is without prejudice to opening a further discussion." So, again, participating in a second RM, when the first RM ended in "not moved" and explicitly said "without prejudice to opening a further discussion," is not analogous to the current situation, which ended in "moved," was upheld at MR, and did not have a "without prejudice" aspect.

In your second example comment, you wrote: Both of those RMs had no prejudice towards another RM, as did the RM at the center of this report, which had a consensus against a moratorium. That is also a false statement. The RM at the center of this report is Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 2#Requested move 3 May 2024. Neither the RM, nor the close of the RM, "had no prejudice towards another RM." If I'm wrong about that, please quote the language. In fact, quite the opposite, that RM, unlike the others, ended in "moved" as opposed to "not moved," and it went to Move Review and was endorsed (as you know). That's the opposite of no prejudice towards another RM!

There are not "multiple" editors implicated by your examples, and none of them had been "part of opening such RMs." The examples you used are "not moved/no prejudice to another RM" example; the current RM, contrary to your statement, did not have a "no prejudice" provision. These are multiple false claims against other editors, made by an admin while reviewing an AE report. This is serious, and it's admin misconduct if it goes uncorrected. We all make mistakes sometimes, but please fix these false statements before you resume other editing. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive 4#RfC on page move moratorium was opened three hours after the RM closed, [4][5] and was the next edit after Joe Roe finished their move. It was specifically asking for a moratorium on move requests. It was closed with a clear consensus against such a moratorium. Having no prejudice against further discussion is not the same as having a consensus against a moratorium on further requested moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus against a moratorium is not the same thing as an RM statement or RM close that says "no prejudice". You wrote, Both of those RMs had no prejudice towards another RM, as did the RM at the center of this report. You did not write "those RMs had no prejudice towards another RM, and this RM at the center of this report had consensus against a moratorium." If you had written that instead, it wouldn't have been a misrepresentation. You still have time to fix this now.

been part of opening such RMs is flat untrue. None of the editors who opened any of the RMs, participated in this AE. You still have time to fix this now.

Your overarching attempt to point out hypocrisy to arbcom is undercut by the fact that you're comparing RMs that ended in "not moved" with explicit no prejudice to another RM (in one case, it was pre-planned to have two RMs), with a situation where there's an RM that ended in "moved" and was upheld at MR. This is a major distinction that, by omitting or mischaracterizing the distinction, becomes a lie of omission in my view. You still have time to fix this now. Levivich (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to read none of the editors who opened any of the RMs, participated in this AE. and look at your complaint against IntrepidContributor who reopened the RM, and has a statement by the editor who originally opened the new RM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so:

1. Your initial statement: it turns out we have multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs
2. Your first explanation listed me, Selfstudier, and David A - but none of us opened such RMs
3. Your second explanation listed David A and BM - but none of them opened such RMs
4. Now you're saying, you were actually referring to IntrepidContributor and WikiFouf?

So, to recap, you pinged Arbcom because: (1) me, Selfstudier, David A, and BilledMammal previously participated with no procedural objections in RM opened with days after earlier RMs closing which earlier RMs were explicitly "no prejudice" against a new RM ... so that's something to ping arbs about? And, (2) IntrepidContributor and WikiFouf opened this current RM within two weeks of the MR closing ... that's something to ping arbs about? Seriously, that's the substance of your complaint? Cuz forgive me, it seemed like the substance of your complaint was that editors are being hypocritical -- that the same editors who are objecting to this RM did not object to previous similar RMs. That is untrue, but now you're saying, no that's not what you meant, you were actually talking about one group of editors who participated in past RMs without objection, and a second group of editors who started the current RM?

BTW, IntrepidContributor did not "open" an RM but reinstating it. Only WikiFouf opened an RM. And WikiFouf, as far as I know, has never edited in this topic area before.

You're digging a hole here instead of just correcting the incorrect statements. Levivich (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The substance was drawing the attention of Arbcom to another situation where there was similar behavior all around, and hoping that would get us to a better venue to handle it sooner. It's plain that we disagree that a clear consensus to not restrict further RMs is functionally different than a discussion being closed with to prejudice towards further discussions, and that's fine. We can also disagree that restoring an RM that was reverted is being part of opening that RM, and that's also fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is disruptive about there being multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs? You describe that as "similar behavior": similar to what? Levivich (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for generally being a balanced admin and doing a good job keeping things calm, but I think the RM close was premature. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia:Snowball_clause#What_the_snowball_clause_is_not: In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome, which often requires that the full process be followed. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensure that all arguments are fully examined, and maintain a sense of....ut this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process. Be cautious of snow closing discussions that normally run for a certain amount of time, that have had recent activity, or that are not nearly unanimous. Andre🚐 18:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If more than half of the editors responding are bringing up good faith concerns of a process issue, including the presented options, as well as several uninvolved admins at AE agree that it is disruptively soon to the earlier RM then it's best to stop the time wasting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more like Wikipedia:Steamroll minority opinions. There were also quite a few editors who opined that the earlier RMs and move reviews were flawed. I can't agree with your action, as it's not consistent with the historic application of the SNOW clause. Consensus is not a vote. Andre🚐 18:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that it should be reopened I suggest WP:AN as an appropriate venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that going my way, and I'm not out to ding you. Just wanted to register my disagreement. Andre🚐 21:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SFR, I don't understand why you felt the need to close a discussion on an article talk page that would normally run for 30 days and undergo a more formal closure process. Would it be possible to engage you and ask why you closed the discussion just a few hours after pinging tens of editors instead of tellus us to post on AN? There is really no rush here and these hasty actions are quite unnecessary. I would like to see you undo the close and let it runs its course. IntrepidContributor (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SFR, I appreciate your attempts to handle this topic area. I do not think closing it procedurally was a good idea. There is really no other mechanism to "re-argue" a move review, and there is a significant minority (if not majority) of editors who think the move review did not adequately address the concerns in the last move request. The policies and procedures on WP advise that if no consensus can be found, a new discussion can be opened to form a better consensus, and that's actually encouraged. The MR closure, while labeled an "endorse", was more a "this discussion went on so long and there's not a clear consensus here". As such, I do not think either a procedural close or a SNOW close was appropriate. That said, I don't plan to challenge it because I respect that this will be a lot easier to discuss after ArbCom takes action in the topic area. So uh, if you really want to take this in any case, take it as a thank you that you tried, and an apology that it won't have worked/done anything useful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @IntrepidContributor, Talk:Gaza genocide#Requested move 7 September 2024 was an RM, not an RFC. Wikipedia:Requested moves are normally open for seven days, not 30 (also, RFCs are explicitly allowed to run for any length of time, though we suggest that it always be at least one week, and the RFC bot assumes you've forgotten about the RFC if you haven't removed the tag after 30 days). This RM was open for a hair over three days, so about 40% of the usual length.

  If any of you believe the summary does not accurately represent the discussion, then Wikipedia:Move review is the place to go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yeah, move review is a better idea than AN, which I mentioned above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe what you are doing is improper. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have posted a topic ban appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Ecpiandy just to let you know. Ecpiandy (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have recently range-blocked the IP 2003:EE:9F20:1D00:7119:4EDB:AF14:6EDB (via 2003:ee:9f20:1d00::/64) for 31 hours (thank you for that). I noticed that similar (mostly even the exact same) edits to the some of the same pages were made by 2003:EE:9F1A:5800:B8EF:5D09:8896:BD76 (see, for example, Alliance 90/The Greens, Sahra Wagenknecht, or Pierre Woodman), who was range-blocked yesterday (via 2003:ee:9f00::/43) for two weeks. I'm not sure if there were other blocks to similar ranges before that, but, for example, the range 2003:ee:9f08::/48 (also with similar edits) was blocked yesterday as well, for 72 hours. If we believe that those ranges belong to the same person, a longer block of 2003:ee:9f20:1d00::/64 would be warranted, wouldn't it? Could you perhaps take a look at this situation and check whether a longer block of 2003:ee:9f20:1d00::/64 would be warranted (if you didn't already do that after seeing this piece of information in my AIV report)? (Perhaps a block of a different/larger range, encompassing all of the mentioned ranges, would also be an option, I'm not sure.) Thanks! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across another recently blocked range with the same edit pattern: 2003:ee:9f0b::/64 (blocked two days ago for 60 hours). The IPs 87.171.174.211 (blocked yesterday for 31 hours) and 176.7.4.10 (blocked yesterday for 60 hours) also show the exact same pattern, but those are obv not in (or similar to) the mentioned ranges. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked a larger range for a month which will hopefully take care of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, hopefully :) Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you see anything else feel free to drop me a note. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was indefinitely content blocked for some inflammatory statements and edit warring regarding the Israel/Palestine war and would like to appeal this decision or have it downgraded to a timed ban. I fully accept my comments and warring were not in line with Wikipedia's rules and philosophy and accept the judgment that was made and have not attempted to circumvent it. I am not super interested in editing Israel/Palestine articles directly but I would like my account to be in good standing. In addition, I would like to be able to contribute to I/P talk pages. I believe I have contributed to Wikipedia earnestly and have made a good faith attempt to respect the rules in my editing history---with the exception of this topic, which I agree brought out the worst in me and I regret it. Thank you for your consideration, if you reject this appeal I will continue to respect it and drop my appeal attempt. Tobyw87 (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to remove the topic ban, as you haven't edited since it was placed. If you want the opinion of other admins feel free to file an appeal at WP:AE. Any admins that see this here are also welcome to weigh in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you help me with Metrication in the UK, and the talk page, and Lead photo discusion, or how to stop a disruptive user. I have gone to a 3rd party and they have advised they agreed with the submission 2 meaning, which i agree with. We now have consensus of today of two users. What should I do now? Friendliness12345 (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start an WP:RFC with the options for the lead image. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can post a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom. Be sure to include a link to the exact discussion: Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#The lead photo WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please talk to Amayorov about bludgeoning at this RfC?

I notified them about my concerns that they may be bludgeoning here, and they were told by another editor at the RfC itself but they don't seem to be getting it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that some of my commenting in the first hours after the RfC was opened might have been overzealous. I disagree that any of my later contributions can be characterised as bludgeoning. In one place, I reviewed two newly linked research articles by Khalidi. In another, I acknowledged that Morris doesn’t himself make an assertion as to the causes of the orders, but quotes from a primary source verbatim. I also asked an editor how they would incorporate multiple viewpoints using Wikivoice. I don’t see how that is “repeating the same argument” or “ignoring evidence” that characterises bludgoening. Much conversation currently happens without my involvement, and of which I’m a silent observer. Amayorov (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amayorov, you've made 29 of the 96 comments, and used 1855 of the 6100 words so far in that discussion, including replies to every no !vote. Please disengage from the RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Amayorov (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish I suppose I can still respond to people who ping me with direct questions regarding the RfC (e.g. asking me to amend the phrasing, etc)? Amayorov (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine. Just please don't fall back down the thousands of words rabbit hole. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay :) Amayorov (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SFR, Just a note that consensus for the section of text was arrived at in the discussion at Talk:Zionism#Revert. This was confirmed with @Theleekycauldron prior to the current wording being restored by me at Special:Diff/1243007031 on 30 August. So the changing of the material by Profavi1 and then the reverting back to consensus wording by Onceinawhile isn't necessarily something that requires full protection. I've now advised Profavi1 of the discussion in which consensus was arrived at. TarnishedPath^talk 04:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I dropped the protection and added a hidden note before the sentence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. Thanks for your efforts. TarnishedPath^talk 12:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the good work. Beshogur (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The account Howdysalmon seems to have been created with the sole purpose of harassing me over an AfD. I notice they're now banned (thank you!) and I was wondering whether I can revert this reply. It's completely unrelated to the article at hand and I have no intention of interacting with that account. I don't know whether removing replies from other editors (even if they're off-topic replies from banned users) is acceptable, so I thought I'd ask to be on the safe side. GhostOfNoMan 01:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, but in the future you can remove that type of disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! And good to know. :) GhostOfNoMan 01:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]