User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yreuq

This [1] may prove of interest. Note in particular the edits to the Petr Vaníček biography. Given the few individuals that have edited it, and the subject matter that the two Wikipedia contributors and Vaníček share in common, I'd have to suggest that it isn't unreasonable to wonder whether the three are somehow known to each other. See also Yreuq's non-response to my question here. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I count as involved with them as I reported them to ANI here. Based on that, their current behavior, and your bit of investigation I think a second trip to ANI is in order. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup. I'm not sure I'm best placed to start an ANI thread currently though, as I'm somewhat sleep-deprived and liable to nod off at any moment. I suppose there isn't any great urgency over this anyway, unless Yreuq escalates the situation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I've done more digging, and confirmed that User:Geoeg had (grudgingly) more or less acknowledged a CoI with regards to Vaníček: more specifically as a grad student of Vaníček. I could say more, but per Wikipedia policy on revealing real-life identities, probably shouldn't. In practice it is unlikely to be of any consequence anyway, if Yreuq's behaviour continues. I'll do a bit more nosing around though, since the information I now have suggests another topic where a sock could possibly be lurking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see them remaining unblocked for much longer, although any more pattern recognition you can build up for possible future socks can't hurt. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No luck with sock-hunting, though Yreuq seems now to be throwing sockpuppeting allegations at others. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, this saves some effort. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, looks like the problem solved itself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Close at WT:NFC

Thanks for the close [4]. Word counting, it's over 16k words, and 27 printed pages. I know that's a lot to digest. I appreciate you taking the time to give it a thorough review. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. That's not too bad compared to some I've closed. I normally measure the long ones in tomats. I've closed several that measured a a tomats or more, and the first vector 22 RFC was about 4 tomats. When I find myself with some time I try to knock out some of the big ones that tend to linger. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a very interesting measuring mechanism. I think it's equal in mass to a teacup of a neutron star, yes? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I use it in the hopes that people in already huge discussions will take pity on the future closer and take the already existing number of words into account when deciding if they really need to make another reply. Communicating that you're asking someone to read literal novels with of text may make the issue a bit more plain. Some of that is really out of hand with the current vector22 RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I pity whomever attempts to close that. Though, even if it ended in clear consensus to roll back I doubt the WMF would do anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The folk etymologist in me immediately recognized the 'tomat' as a reference also to part of a 'tome'. Such an apt unit of measurement. "The sea was angry that day. Like an old man returning soup at a deli." The pithy words of Hemingway are a sublime and iconic foundation for this newly coined measure of literary bulk. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish! Thanks for your thorough closing statement at the RfC. The arguments you discounted all deserved to be, in my view, but I noticed that, at the end, you gave the raw !vote percentage rather than a modified one in light of the discounting, so I wanted to give an analysis of that.

To start, there were 35 supports and 27 opposes. Of the supports, the oppose side tried to frame them as considering only the "well, it's not illegal" bar, but I actually could not find a single support !voter who did so. Every supporter who mentioned legality also mentioned helpfulness for readers or some other reason. "It's legal and good, so we should do it" is a sensible two-part argument.

Of the oppose side arguments you called out, both were due to flawed logic (considering only existing policy is the is–ought fallacy and the slippery slope fears are the slippery slope fallacy), not just that they're insufficient in isolation, so I'd expect all !votes that used them to be at least partially (conservatively, say by a third) discounted. Whpq's !vote is entirely the is–ought fallacy, and Kusma, Masem, Bilorv, Hammersoft, North8000, David Fuchs, and Jayron32 all included it. Kusma, Masem, Mhhossein, and The Wordsmith all invoked the slippery slope as a major point.

Discarding Whpq's !vote and weighting the others by 2/3, we end up with an adjusted 35 support to 23 opposition, or 60% support. That's right on the border between no consensus and passing. In that situation, trends are often used as tiebreakers, and I wanted to speak to why I think that would be justified here. In any discussion, per WP:CONLEVEL, we should try to assess how the broadest possible segment of the community feels about something. There is a vocal minority of editors who object strongly to any use of fair use media. They do not represent the broader community, but many of them watchlist the non-free images policy and !voted oppose early. After the first dozen !votes, the support percentage was 62% (or 64% using the weighting above). In the hypothetical scenario in which the discussion remained open until ever active editor !voted, it presumably would have converged toward this percentage.

Again, I agree with your discounting logic. It just seems that, by that logic, the resulting strength for the support side actually looks like a consensus in favor. Looking forward to hearing from you, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

As I previously noted, consensus is not evaluated by the number of votes on either side. It is not a percentage. It is theoretically possible to have 1000 people in support of something, and one opposed, and something can fail to reach consensus to support. Trying to eke out a few more percentage points doesn't change things. If you want to discount votes, I can do so just as easily. Quite a number of supports tried to base their support on it being helpful or useful. As I've noted before, this is a deeply flawed argument. If it were a valid argument, then we would permit non-free content such as album covers in discographies, character images in list type articles, images disambiguation pages, etc. etc. etc. You say the slippery slope argument is flawed. I say it isn't. In fact, your own !vote to begin the RfC cited two reasons; legality and helpfulness. Neither is a valid basis on which to include non-free content in such a wide-sweeping, mission-undermining change in policy. Similarly, I can just as well claim flawed logic for anyone who based their !vote at least in part on it being legal. It's always been legal. Noting my agreement with the slippery slope elements, I don't entirely agree with ScottishFinishRadish's close. But, SFR closed it. It was a difficult task, and given that it sat on WP:CR for 10 days, it was a task that not many wanted to take on. There have been two RfCs on this matter in just this year. Sdkb, I applaud you for your efforts and passion in trying to get this approved. I'm not saying that to patronize you in any way. There are plenty of things that happen here that I don't agree with. But, that's the nature of being part of a large community of people. It's time to move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

That was a lot of math, and specific weighing percentages. I gave the percentage to demonstrate that even with the weighing I applied based on the strength of arguments, it was not enough to demonstrate a consensus in a discussion as close as it was. To find consensus in a discussion that close one position must be significantly stronger than the other. This was not the case in that RFC. It should be clear that I did not weigh arguments using the same method that you did in your example.

I place no stock whatsoever in what the breakdown of support and oppose is at any specific point in a discussion, other than how the it stands at it's conclusion. We have no way of knowing why different editors responded to the RFC when they did, and we also have no way of knowing what portion of editors would support or oppose if we managed to poll every editor. Judging anything based on how I think others would have !voted, or when !votes were recorded is assigning weight where none should exist, and if I thought that the initial or final responses were more indicative of community sentiment than others, it could easily prejudice my closure. There's also no reason to try and interpret trends for a tiebreaker when no consensus is a perfectly acceptable result.

Those that may be against any use of non-free content may not represent the views of the broader community, but they are a part of the community, and their input is worth as much as any other. The same could also be said for those who may want to use non-free content to the fullest extent that fair use allows. Views that may not match the broader community are still taken into account in discussions.

I hope this clarifies things. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment clarifying your reasoning, SFR. I don't agree with your specific approach, but I recognize that there are differing philosophies about how to close discussions, and yours is certainly within the universe of common ones.

The one other question I had about the close was, how did you assess the argument that the proposal will discourage the creation of free content? Quite a few oppose !votes used it, but from my perspective it lost a lot of weight when no one was able to articulate a plausible scenario in which that would happen, despite being directly challenged to do so. For a discussion like this that is on the threshold between a no consensus outcome and passing, even partially discounting that argument alone would likely push it over the line. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that "quite a few oppose !votes used it" as a primary argument, or even an argument at all. It also came up in the earlier RFC, and one !vote called back to it. Also, David Fuchs vaguely touches on it, and is drawing from the policy as it currently stands, and Wugapodes goes into extensive detail about the benefits of the approach of seeking out free content, which can be used by anyone, not just en.wiki in a limited fashion. Wugapodes' statement does quite a bit to demonstrate the argued benefit to creation of non-free content that the current policy provides. There was also a smattering of discussion on the topic of incentivizing free content, but it didn't gain much traction with supporters or opposers, and I'm not going to give more weight to topic that the discussion participants clearly didn't assign much weight to either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Joey Sanza

May I kindly know just what I didn't wrong with my description in List of serial rapists you removed so I may come to improve it in a final draft? If you'd like to guarantee I receive the reply, you can either mention me on your wall or message me on mine. I'll need time to get back to you. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

ContributingHelperOnTheSide, you added someone to the list of serial rapists with no source, but used a citation needed template. Any sort of contentious material, which definitely includes being a serial rapist, must be sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Draco Safarius

Well, well. See First law of holes. Thank you for letting the AN discussion resume. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. Seemed like that was getting out of hand. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You might be interested that DS has created a longish account of the issue about Nagi/Alice on a Google page. (Evidently this is a web hosting feature that Google provides.) Apparently they see this dispute, over a fictional character who seems to be a secondary fictional character, is of sufficient importance to take the dispute off-wiki. I don't have a clue as to what they plan to do next, either while still blocked or when they come off block. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If they resume their disruptive behavior when the block ends, I will block them indefinitely, and I doubt that I am the only administrator who feels that way. Cullen328 (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That was my plan, as well. I figured a short block to see if they got the message that their behavior was unacceptable would be a good first move, but I don't have high hopes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:Cullen328 - That editor has posted what appears to be a goodbye message, and so appears to have quit. Some editors simply don't have the temperament to work collaboratively with a large number of people whom they don't know. We call it not here, but there are actually several subspecies of not here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not just building an encyclopedia, it's collaborating with others to build an encyclopedia. Some people aren't cut out for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Frelinghuysen University

On 1 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Frelinghuysen University, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that of more than 300 schools offering evening classes in the District of Columbia in 1907, only Frelinghuysen University admitted Black students? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frelinghuysen University. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Frelinghuysen University), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

March songs

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)

TIDRP

We can do the Time Warp again! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I was about the write the traditional sing-along, but then I realized I'd probably end up blocked for personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Anon over at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

2601:602:8200:4a10:9572:f4f8:fc6b:ecce (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
14:33, 2 March 2023: Hope aiding and abetting misinformation helps you sleep better. You're no different than a holocaust denialist.
14:30, 2 March 2023: Please fuck off.
14:20, 2 March 2023: Please fuck off with your farce. The truth will be out irrespective of your denials that are now verging in the same territory as holocaust denialists.
13:10, 2 March 2023: @Shibbolethink Honestly surprising you've managed to get this propaganda piece running for so long but it won't last much longer. Please keep on running this con. The house of cards is crashing as we speak.

My warning against WP:NPA at 14:25, 2 March 2023‎

Any way you could help out with this? Thank you, and appreciate you regardless :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SFR :) They're really coming out of the woodwork with this one. I don't think it's bad enough for anything to be done on the talk page as a whole, not yet anyway... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Fana (singer)

Thanks for your comments on the draft article:Fana (Singer) on January 30, 2023, If you have free time, please recheck if the sources updated by contributors are verifiable and now qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Thank you! Kicker2 (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Kicker2, it still does not look notable to me. Only one of the sources provides any WP:SIGCOV, and it reads like a republished press release[5]. A bunch of articles about something else that mention her name once[6][7][8], or not at all[9][10], do not demonstrate notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow

When did you become an admin? Congratulations! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Back in September. I think you actually supported my RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see now! Did not remember that. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the congratulations. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TrangaBellam - limit extension

Hi, my initial request is about 275 words, I had to respond to another user, and despite my efforts the response is a little over 400 words. I am not able to shorten it any more. Can you approve this extension of my limit? Marcelus (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You should request the limit increase at AE, or from an admin involved in that section. I have had extensive interactions with TrangaBellam in the past, so I will not be taking part in that AE request in my capacity as an admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. So far no admin is involved so I will wait. Marcelus (talk) 12:15, 3 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)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sanctioned Suicide 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 00:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Quick Question

First of all, I need to declare my open and obvious conflict of interest with regard to the page I am wondering about (I kid). It looks to me like we have an IP engaged in a slow edit war, and I am curious if this would be an appropriate case for semi-protection? It's much more minor annoyance than grave concern right now, but I thought I would ask. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I went with a month of semi, even though the disruption has been going on a bit longer than that. Hopefully the break will encourage them to discuss or give up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks as always -- I can once again rest easy! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if they pop up again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey SFR! So recently a user of I am mentoring said they wanted to nominate me for adminship and eventually decided not to (which I was perfectly fine with) after hearing from some others that I needed to "mature a bit more". Now, while I'm not wanting to try and quickly fix that, it did get me thinking a bit about adminship, so I figured i would ask you about it since your account's age is around the same as mine (not that it's entirely relevant to being an admin, altho I've noticed that long-time editors are more likely to succeed), what exactly were your thoughts when becoming an admin? I'm wanting to hear from someone with around the same amount of time on-wiki as me just so I could possibly see what I might need to improve on over time to increase my chances. I know there's WP:ORCP however I feel that it would be better for me to contact some specific editors first to get their thoughts before possibly doing ORCP. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that I'll be much help with this, because I didn't really plan on being an admin, and didn't have much of a taste for it when first approached. The main reason I ended up accepting a nomination was because it would let me respond quicker to some of the harassment I saw going on. I didn't edit with adminship in mind, and to be honest the path of "get involved in an arbcom case, take a hardline BLP stance on some people who probably aren't good people, and answer 10,000 edit requests" probably isn't the wisest way to go about it. I feel what helped me (barely) pass my RFA was that people who had seen me work in contentious topics and close discussions appreciated or trusted my judgement and willingness to get involved. Bilby's support at my RFA stuck with me a bit on that point. So from where I sit, I think the best thing you can do is demonstrate a willingness to get involved in difficult topics, paired with strong, NPOV, policy based contributions. If people respect your judgement and contributions then eventually people will reach out to you about RFA. If you have any other questions, or I can clarify anything, feel free to ask. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I see what you mean and I'll strive to do my best (tho I usually stay out of difficult topics because I really don't like arguing with people over things that seem ultimately pointless). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a few minutes?

In a recent COIN discussion, I offered my opinion about what I saw as red flag behavior I often see with paid editors. I deigned NOT to provide the specific evidence and made an open offer to any admin to review my evidence and make their own assessment. I need to NOT educate other COIs about how to avoid scrutiny. While one admin did request evidence, they have not chosen to make an assessment and write a summary in the discussion. Would you be willing to give the thread, the linked AfD and my evidence a look? Even if my concerns end up discounted, I'd appreciate the attention from trusted eyes. Thanks in any event. BusterD (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I will, but I'm about to head afk for an hour or two, and may be busy tonight. I'll take a peek when I have some time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a liberty and send you the email. BusterD (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your weighing in. As it turns out, the OP's instincts were correct. BusterD (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks that way. Was the sock master doing paid editing? I would have liked to have been able to take some action, but I didn't see anything concrete enough to feel comfortable doing anything other than keeping an eye open. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ullu

Hello, could you please repeat your helpful 26 February removal of the mess of OR and SYNTH at semi-protected Ullu? It was much needed, and the mess was made (and reinstated) by sockpuppet VishvaGuru1, who's been blocked today. Thanks. 2A01:4C8:47:ADC4:6849:1AFF:FE6D:166D (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed it again. There is probably some mention of it that is WP:DUE, but I don't have the time to work through it now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

sanction/topic ban for GG

I still think this is a bit much, but consensus was against me, so I have to accept it. However, it's not strictly necessary -- I'm willing to stay away from that particular topic without an official ban. If I were unbanned, I would abide by this. Barring that, there's one more change I want to make, regarding [11] I want to make this edit: This decentralization allowed for a long-term, targeted focused campaign against consistent targets. (removing the strikethrough, adding the underline) in order to avoid redundant wording. However, I need your clearance first. Xcalibur (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Xcalibur, strictly speaking, this is a violation of your topic ban, but I don't doubt it is made in good faith. Please refrain from discussing anything within the ban going forward so that you can successfully appeal sooner rather than later. That said, I agree entirely with this edit -- I have already reverted once today, but assuming no one makes the change before tomorrow, I will do so. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize this message was a violation, I'm unfamiliar with this sort of thing. Anyway, glad we can agree on something at least, I just don't like to leave things unfinished. Given the situation, I won't attempt to expand further, so that can be the finishing touch to the bit I was able to contribute. Xcalibur (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You can find the relevant policy at WP:TBAN. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Bigdan201, not only is this a topic ban violation, but this is as well. Consider this an only warning. Except for asking for clarification on your topic ban from an administrator, any further discussion anywhere on-wiki about anything related to the GENSEX topic area will result in escalating blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Xcalibur (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me, am I allowed to ask something of you and Dumuzid, in relation to this matter? Don't mean to pester you, but I kinda have to. Xcalibur (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You are explicitly allowed to ask questions that relate to the extent or limits of your ban, so if it's of that nature, go ahead. Does that answer the question, or are you still unsure? I am willing to talk off-wiki if necessary. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. First, to Dumuzid, I was wondering if I could remind you of something, no hurry, just didn't want you to forget (eta: this has now been addressed). Secondly, in regards to [12] I'm wondering if I'm allowed to comment there again, mainly to point out that the IP edit was NOT ME (as someone falsely stated). I also wanted to make a prudent suggestion to the admin in regards to Dronebogus' attempt to escalate further. I'm just trying to tie up loose ends here, which should be distinguished from bad-faith attempts to stir up more conflict. As I said, I'm unfamiliar with this, and had no idea my previous edits were technical violations. I'm essentially asking if the aforementioned actions are within the bounds of my tban. Xcalibur (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let me narrow it down to my main request, regarding this edit [13] which falsely accuses me of using an alt account (you can check for yourself, it's not me) and puts an unwarranted strikethrough. I'd like to remove the strikethrough, and put it through the false claim of "strike sock" instead; maybe also delink AGF while leaving the letters. Can I do this, or can you do it on my behalf? Xcalibur (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The IP was blocked by a checkuser for block evasion, and their edits rolled back or struck. I'm failing to see an issue here. No one said you were that IP, as far as I can tell. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood. Well, hopefully that's all. The last thing I'll say is that NOTDEMOCRACY applies to that latest thread, which Dronebogus didn't ping/notify me for, and is excessive/redundant imo. I'd like to at least have a chance to abide by this. Xcalibur (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You're continuing the behavior that led to your topic ban here. That's a surefire way to end up blocked. Drop it and go edit an article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Received and understood. Xcalibur (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

triggered much?

1 minute and you removed my entry in the discussion about nord stream... what's wrong? is the times suddenly an unreliable source? did i touch a sore spot perhaps? 87.1.18.129 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Try posting it again without the wildly antagonistic tone and you'll likely have better luck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

the tone is appropriate to the nature of the discussion. they lied, you (as in wikipedia editors) helped them lie, knowingly or not, and you keep lying and hiding the truth from wikipedia readers even once it's been exposed, which in my honest opinion shows it wasn't accidental. my source is reliable. if you don't like it that's your problem. i would have added it directly to the page. but you didn't want me to do that did you? can't let any wrongthink get published...

if you don't want news to be discussed then let the page be edited so no discussion needs to take place when news drops. if you want there to be discussion then you got what you asked and you should be grateful about it. 87.1.18.129 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Your "honest opinion" and $15 in United States currency will get you a dozen eggs. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you think I stand on whatever random article I reverted you on, but I assure you it had nothing to do with my personal views. If you had provided the same source without the propaganda and gaslighting... terrorists responsible for the attack look like terrorists... for those who want false virtue over harsh truth. my guess is they'll put it as a footnote at the end of the page and pretend it never happened while still claiming "it's disputed". then you'd actually make headway in discussions. Let me see I can provide an example.

New media report implicates Ukraine

According to this new report by The Times it appears that the attack on the pipeline was the action of a group from Ukraine, and knowledge of that was covered up by NATO member intelligence agencies. How should we cover this in the article, and how much weight should it receive? Someone Really Angry on the Internet (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Something like that wouldn't be reverted, and would be an excellent start to the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Brownsburg, Indiana

I see you reverted an edit at Brownsburg, Indiana. I'm sure you've noticed the phenomena; articles with the most cleanup tags are posted at the newcomers board, and all the new editors visit these articles to help fix them...but they have the least experience fixing needy articles. I'm always glad to see new editors, but it's a bit like Lord of the Flies. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That was actually a masking edit for a spammer. Very common that they go to the newcomer tasks to try and make their spam blend into their regular edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a whole other world out there. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Match sock to name

This sock you keep blocking is AudiGuy-1204. Just in case you were curious.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Should I bother tagging or noting in the block? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we may be at the tipping point of diminishing returns on the tagging.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that, because it's so many extra buttons. It's not a big deal on a computer, but it really messes up my workflow on my phone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of messing with your flow.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:37, 9 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)

Block-evading IP editor

Might want to block this IP! Thanks! Be gone, IP! ;) Tails Wx 19:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Tails Wx 22:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Holodomor revert

Hey, this edit you reverted seems to just be a count of the countries listed in Holodomor#Countries_recognising_Holodomor_as_genocide it seems to need a specific citation as the info is clearly in the article (per: MOS:LEADCITE). Is there something i'm missing here?—blindlynx 23:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I saw that it was cited in the lead via the sfn template, and assumed that it was specifically sourced to that. Since you believe it was in error, I'll revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh that makes sense. Thanks, i removed the template as it's wildly out of date—blindlynx 23:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and thanks for letting me know about my error. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 10 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)