User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 21

149.62.192.0/19
Might need to revoke TPA to prevent threats and personal attacks. LDM2003 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , looks like picked up my slack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * such a slacker! -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith
Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, I set that RfC tag at what may seem a premature juncture under the "Disgraced his country" heading because I though I'd more than established with overwhelming reliable sources that references to Justice Besanko using that phrase should be used not only in the lead, but at a bare minimum under the judgement heading but others have ripped it out of the article all together and I'm in a situation where I've had aspersions cast at me about WP:POINTy, WP:BLUDGEONed and WP:NOTGETTINGIT because of my good faith discussion on in talk. So if I discuss anything any further anywhere I'll just have others again come at me with aspersion of POINTy and BLUDGEONed and that I'm commenting about another area, and this is a direct quote, "in retaliation for demands to properly source the 1,000% more controversial war criminal label". This is why I felt it necessary to invite other editors who aren't already involved. AlanStalk 12:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , you should make sure that you have a clear and neutral RFC statement before adding the tag. For example, Should the article subject be labeled as having "disgraced his country" in the lead?a) Yes, unattributedb) Yes, attributed to the Justicec) No
 * Putting an RFC tag after a discussion like you did is going to lead to a meandering discussion that is incredibly difficult to find consensus in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, that wasn't clear on the page I read. it just gave the impression to add the tag. Thanks for your help. With your edit summary, I thought you meant more discussion needed to occur and with the last discussion I had in regards to "Former television executive" I'm a bit over it unless there are other eyes around. AlanStalk 12:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was far more concerned with keeping any RFC focused and on point. When dealing with a contentious BLP like this, expect that there will be a couple RFCs, at least, because BLP material that has been objected to should have affirmative consensus before restoring. Often times that leads to RFCs if discussions don't have a clear consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been any RfC's already. AlanStalk 13:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ps, can you please check that I've done it correctly. Don't mean to be a bother. AlanStalk 13:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I tidied up the RFC formatting and added a couple categories to it so it gets sorted correctly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly. AlanStalk 13:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and no worries about being a bother. I'm more than willing to help. In contentious situations it's often helpful to have some uninvolved assistance to keep things running smoothly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide advice on how to deal with this? The very act of raising a RfC is now considered to be "continuing to litigate his previous contentious BLP edits" AlanStalk 14:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you shrug and let the RFC continue. People disagree with each other all the time. Non escalation is generally a wise path. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

You bet DALL-E can confirm that..
See? It's true! Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 06:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That was one of the first things I ran in DALL-E. It almost made a comic strip out of the 9 results. The last result was Godzilla throwing an entire courthouse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick blocks
Is there any good reporting procedure for reporting those ranges? In the last month, the 172.56.160.* and the 172.56.161.* ranges were pretty much exclusively used by the same guy for vandalism, including multiple times/addresses today. Wes sideman (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You can report the range at AIV. The last address you posted was pretty stale, but I did drop a /24 range block. I'm looking to see if there's anything a bit broader I can do. It's T-Mobile, though, so it's pretty active and there is the possibility of a lot of collateral damage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Devolocity
This user is continuing to add promotional content to their talkpage after you blocked them. Could you revoke their talkpage access? Thanks. ConnerU (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you kindly, although I wouldn't say tireless. I get tired of a lot of what goes on, if you catch my drift. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you. It's a tedious job, but at least it won't be a thankless one. Andre🚐 22:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!
...for deleting that message. Knitsey (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem. I revdelled some of their edits as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I went to go get a drink with the intention of asking for a revdel but you were so quick lol. Knitsey (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Extend block time
Extend block time from 31 hours to 6 months to avoid spam. User ip : 2402:8100:390C:43B1:B438:D785:BEC3:5671 Rolex2022 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to block a mobile IP range that has only edited today for longer than 31 hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, when he will try to spam again. I will reach you. At that time can you block him permanently? Rolex2022 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

And Thanks!
For that quick revdel on Talk:Emmanuel Weyi! Someone's got a real vendetta going... Geoff &#124; Who, me? 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, glad to help! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

return of the sock
Andre🚐 20:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked. I'm busy right now, so if you haven't, could you file the paperwork at SPI, please? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do! Thanks! Andre🚐 20:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

YOUR TALK PAGES
Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish, I have been deleting your user talk and user pages several times in few wikis as they are being vandalised/spammed. Recently, I just thought of permanently protecting them (talk and user pages) on affected wikis that I am able to. Of course you can request these settings turned off at any time. Thanks. Tumbuka Arch  ★★★  13:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , you're more than welcome to protect them, and I'll request improving if I ever begin editing on those wikis. I appreciate the work you're doing cleaning up after the angry vandal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Mind taking a look?
Hi,

Apologies for this but thought to go via admin as I'm more looking for a second opinion here rather than definitive "incident" route at this stage. I've bumped into this user via a page and there's something about them that seems off. They've created articles that seem in-depth (though use Portuguese sources so outside my wheelhouse on reliability) but their userpage is full of bizarre insults aimed at the site (check under extended content at the bottom of the page as well), odd comments they've made on the current Wagner events seem highly partisan ("Besides the Daily Mail which doesn't count for Wikipedia's politburo"), and seem to be making "political" edits (if supported with RS) that push what appears to be their I think fair to say right-wing/libertarian political/economic viewpoint, such as adding what feels like their personal commentary with data that didn't exist at the time of the event the article refers to and inserting into multiple articles edits that promote the Robinhood stock trading platform. I hope it's understandable why the mix of behaviour makes it hard to determine if they're malicious or not in intent.

If you could take a look at their behaviour and judge the best course of action that would be much appreciated. Apache287 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , they've been blocked as a sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that certainly escalated quickly. Thanks for the help. Apache287 (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent reliable source error
Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, Sorry about the mistake I made earlier regarding the reliable source and communicating information to IP 2601:240:E200:3B60:9592:2091:C98F:C348 ‎ 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries. I have a lot of exposure to those types of sources through edit request patrolling, and pretty much none of the celebrity biography websites are reliable. Most of their terms of service make that clear as well. I always check the terms of service and about page when unsure about a source, and that normally gives me a decent idea of it's reasonable to use in a biography. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

On WP:NOR
Concerning this diff, if you believe - and if it seems to you to be a plausible reading of community sentiment - that "reading" is more accurate and less ambiguous than "interpretation" in that text, then of course you should make the change. My reservation about the insertion of "reading" in that context is that the phrase proposed, while it doesn't run into problems with wiki-jargon, is actually more ambiguous in relation to everyday English than the previous one, because the resultant sentence seems to me to invoke the wrong sense of "reading", which would defeat the purpose of reducing confusion. Newimpartial (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * What I was saying with that diff is that either would be fine, and wouldn't require an entire RFC to be rerun if there was reasonable consensus that the wording change would be appropriate. I haven't followed the discussion since then enough to know if such a consensus emerged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks for that, much appreciated. I hope you have a great day as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Maps close
Hi,

I was hoping to ask for some clarification of the maps close in regards to proposal 2a and 2b. Considering that close, would it be against consensus to interpret proposal 1 (Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources.) as permitting the use of dynamic maps or referring to the satellite layer?

To be clear, I'm not asking if the consensus forbids such a use, only whether it permits them.

In line with this, if it should not be interpreted as permitting their use, would it be in line with consensus to clarify the proposal with a note saying so? BilledMammal (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It would permit them, based on the consensus of the reliability of whatever dynamic map content and what is being summarized from the map. The consensus was against the inclusion of the wording in WP:NOR, and the reasons for the opposition were pretty varied. I see that as a consensus that there's a number of reasons that the specific wording shouldn't be added, but not necessarily that what the wording proposes should never be done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * not necessarily that what the wording proposes should never be done To be clear, that wasn't what I was suggesting it should say; just that given there was a consensus against permitting it in that discussion no aspect of that discussion should be taken as permitting it as that would subvert the consensus, even though other policies and guidelines may permit doing so and the consensus against permitting it in that discussion does not change that. BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Defeedme and WP:DENY
The 108.58.9.194 IP traces to Hicksville, NY. It previously reverted an edit of mine, that I made in routine patrol of "awaiting review" articles, as part of their harassment of me. Another IP, 47.21.94.238, removed talk page messages after Defeedme canvassed Springee and Kcmastrpc ‎for the Klete Keller campaign they're on, once those two had weighed in (I assume in a lame attempt to cover their tracks). That IP also tracks to Hicksville, NY. That would be a pretty big coincidence, if 108.58.9.194 isn't another Defeedme IP. That's why I removed the talk page message per WP:DENY. Wes sideman (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree it's suspicious, but they also have an 18 month editing history that looks unrelated, so I'm hesitant to pull the trigger on that IP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly I can understand not wanting to block the IP; there's a chance it's just someone in the same house in Hicksville (it's a cable company IP, so probably a semi-static home IP address) that's into weather doing those edits. But the comments on the Klete Keller page are written by Defeedme, which was why I invoked WP:DENY when I deleted their comment. Wes sideman (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Or it's an unrelated editor. The IP is fairly static, as they have been making the same type of edits since January 2022. They've even reverted some harassment on pages outside of their normal activity so it's not unreasonable to think that it's just a regular IP editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * One that also just happens to be in Hicksville, NY, the same location as someone who made edits of talk page comments about Klete Keller, and that also happened to followed me to an unrelated article to revert me? That would take some serious suspension of disbelief. Wes sideman (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * IP geolocation isn't exact, and for cable internet providers normally locates to the headend and CMTS where the IP addresses are allocated. Optimum has a headend in Hicksville which covers Babylon, NY, which serves hundreds of thousands of customers on Long Island. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

DS violation at Trump
Hello SFR.

There's been a violation of the BRD page sanction on the Donald Trump page here:
 * 1) edit by Jerome Frank Disciple.
 * 2) reverted by Space4Time3Continuum2x
 * 3) reinserted within minutes, and without talk page engagement by Jerome Frank Disciple.

I'd appreciate it if you would volunteer to address this matter. JFD does not appear able to temper their enthusiasms to ensure that they observe the 24-BRD. That's too bad, because for quite some time until recently, editors on this page handled many difficult issues in a smooth and reasonably compact process with few AE issues.

I have restored SpaceX's version.

Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Addressed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Query: when posting that block notice, you cite "(Arbitration enforcement (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2) - second violation of enforced BRD at Donald Trump)". I see at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 the boldfaced instructions: "Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Arbitration enforcement log, not here."However, at that linked log, I don't see this block mentioned. Have all the i's been dotted and t's crossed? [or vice versa?] :) –  . Raven  .talk 06:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * First logged action and second logged action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry to be critical but I am troubled by this block. It seems disproportionate for a trivial revert of an edit that was clearly based on a misunderstanding, and the blocked editor has retired as a result. Within reason I can understand a "rules are rules" approach on this kind of page, but there is still some call for discretion, which I would have applied differently here. Note that there also was an ongoing talkpage discussion that both editors were participating in, in a civil and reasonable way, before this was brought here. I also disapprove of SPECIFICO, an editor with a lengthy DS history whose judgment in AE reporting has been criticized by me and others in the past, coming to the page of a specific admin in this way. On an external site this is being referred to as SPECIFICO seeking revenge for a sanction imposed against herself, and it is hard to avoid that conclusion. I value your administrator work and value your judgment, but I'd ask you to reevaluate this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , I shuffled between a few different block settings before hitting the buttons on this, in part because of their history with SPECIFICO, and in part due to the somewhat benign nature of the edit. However, I had a discussion with them about their technical violations of CTOP sanctions on May 5th here, where I explicitly stated I'm just trying to warn you that you're editing near quicksand so you need to be aware of the restrictions. You've been editing in WP:CTOP areas, so you need to be very careful. Then, on May 17th, I blocked them from article space for three days for an enforced BRD violation on Donald Trump. They were unblocked after this discussion. Now here we are with yet another violation of CTOP article sanctions.
 * I feel that after a personalized warning and a block that a one week block was a reasonable response, despite the fairly obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality displayed by SPECIFICO in this instance. Should we ignore repeated violations of CTOP article sanctions because the reporter has their own history? I'm interested in when you think that repeated behavior, despite being warned and blocked, would merit a single week block? Is it just because SPECIFICO reported it that the sanction is an issue, or would you think it was heavy handed regardless? I have significant respect for your judgement, so I hope that doesn't come across as antagonistic, as text lacking tone often can.
 * It is unfortunate that CTOP often serves to set a minefield for newer editors who don't know how to play the WP:GAME. That is why I reached out to JFD in early May, because I recognized that their editing style and the topics they were getting involved in were exactly the type that would lead to them making violations like this. I was really hoping that after the first block they would get the idea that they should pay significantly more attention to the CTOP sanctions placed on the articles they were editing, but that seems not to have happened. I'm disappointed that they have retired over the one week block, and I hope they decide to return to editing after, and I also hope that if they do return they learn the goose step that everyone else does. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your points, but I still consider SPECIFICO's conduct loathsome and the block ridiculous. De minimis non curat lex, and teaching our editors to "goose step" (a horrendously off-putting metaphor) and "play the game" should not be an aspiration. In answer to your questions, on this report I would have taken no action at all, regardless of who made the report; the ill-motivation for it, and the ongoing talkpage discussion that was underway, further reinforce that conclusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope that I didn't come across as supporting or aspiring "playing the game" and marching in rigid formation. That's just how editing in CTOPs plays out with the sanctions regime in place, and the long-term editors in those topics know how to toe the line, and often how to get others to flinch over it. That is not good, bad, and certainly not the way things should work. However, it is the way things work. The entire purpose of those sanctions is to prevent edit wars, and I've certainly seen dumber edit wars than "twice" vs "more than once".
 * Should I wait until it's a full edit war before invoking the sanction in place to prevent edit wars? The entire idea of that sanction is that there has been disruptive edit warring on the page, and to prevent that disruption a draconian measure was put in place. That disruptive editing began, and I blocked someone who was warned about and blocked for the same behavior in the past. Just because the content objected was a trifle does not mean that the edit warring wouldn't be disruptive.
 * All of that said, as I mentioned above I significantly respect your views. I'm going to reduce the block to partial, and I'm amenable to (and was before this discussion) lifting the block if I can get assurance from that they will carefully read and adhere to the sanctions placed on the articles they're editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reconsideration and courtesy, but I still think your approach reflects a (presumably inadvertent) willingness to punish harmless mistakes and reward sanction-gaming. The rules exist to serve the encyclopedia and not as ends in themselves, and if this discussion is typical of how the new contentious topics regime is to be enforced, I would propose to abolish it. Ironically, according to Marvin Schick's book, it was Jerome Frank who insisted that no set of rules should be permitted to dominate ... to the point that form would be more important than substance or that some procedural requirement would justify an injustice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * reward sanction-gaming - that is a personal attack. It is surprising and very unfortunate. It reflects very poorly on you. SPECIFICO talk 13:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's see what some other people think. FYI, pings don't work without the full username. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps rather harsher than saying "I worry that your approach unfortunately (and presumably inadvertently) would tend to have the effect of punishing... and rewarding...." — which, more than 'willingness', is the problem, yes? –  . Raven  .talk 18:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we disagree on the harmless mistake point. I saw it as a harmless mistake the when I warned them, and either a willingness to disregard article sanctions if they believed they were correct or an unwillingness to make themselves aware of or follow article sanctions when I partially blocked them for three days after a subsequent violation. A third violation, the second on an article they were already blocked for, doesn't strike me as a harmless mistake. Either they do not believe they should have to follow the sanctions because their edit was actually more informative, or they still are not paying attention to the sanctions placed on the articles they're editing. Both of those behaviors are disruptive in their own way. While the violation itself was small and over very similar text, that they yet again violated article sanctions is what is disruptive.
 * We're in agreement on the sanction-gaming issue, but it's a very tough nut to crack. Should we then just give a pass to anyone that makes a report against another editor if they've had history? I'm not overly concerned with SPECIFICO's reaching out to me as an uninvolved admin, as I get the impression that they're less than impressed with me. This comes up every time there is an ANI thread related to an editor's behavior in a contentious topic. Where is the line drawn to down-weight or disregard a response? We've seen that there's clearly no "fruit of the poisonous tree" that applies to those reporting at ANI with 's topic ban and subsequent discussions. Reporting a CTOP sanction violation to an uninvolved administrator remains a legitimate way to handle these violations. I also know that it's shitty to report someone that you've clashed with in the past, which is why I've always reached out either directly to an editor or emailed an admin to speak to someone in private instead of making a formal report in those situations. That is not necessary though, or even standard practice.
 * If this was not such a clear cut violation of a sanction that JFD had already violated on that article, then I would have been looking at the behavior of the one reporting. Again, it's not the kind of report I'd make or how I would have handled it in SPECIFICO's place, but it is a completely legitimate report. There's no grey area to the violation and, though it was minor, it was also the second such violation on that article, and the third violation of a CTOP sanction on an article. Would it have been better if someone else had reported it? Obviously, but we generally don't disregard legitimate reports because there is an issue with the one making the report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We're going to remain in disagreement about this. I don't think there was any disruption caused by the two edits in question, which in any event were being discussed on the talkpage and the minor content issue worked out by the time you blocked. Even the person who posted here (I won't mention their name again) apparently didn't realize there had been an inadvertent minor violation until over an hour after joining that discussion. I don't think this was a "completely legitimate report"; I think it was petty, retaliatory, "gotcha"-type garbage. But it wouldn't have been better if someone else had reported the minor violation; it would have been better if no one had mentioned it, because it was trivial, inadvertent, and harmless.
 * As you point out, the rules are susceptible to being invoked against inadvertent, technical violations, but the appropriate response is to reject reports based on those sorts of violations. An admin is not duty-bound to impose any sanctions, much less harsh ones, predicated upon fully harmless edits by the "violator" followed by what you yourself describe as "shitty" behavior by the reporter. Significantly, no set of written rules and procedures can ever eliminate the need for the enforcement authorities to exercise good judgment and discretion. When as an arbitrator I voted over the years to authorize discretionary sanctions in a variety of topic-areas, this is absolutely not the sort of thing I had in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict - same point as NYB, actually) I don’t really approve of the way this played out. It is true that JFD reinserted within minutes, and without talk page engagement. But, after doing that, and before this report was made, JFD engaged in the talk page thrice on that specific content, pinging SPECIFICO from the start, and SPECIFICO even replied in that discussion without telling JFD to self-revert. I feel that there is some leeway for leniency there. Would it have been possible to have page blocked for a week instead of site blocked?  starship .paint  (exalt) 12:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The previous time that user Jerome violated the same sanction, I did the usual courtesy notification on their talk page and they declined to self revert and later indicated their displeasure at my having come to their talk page to let them know. That is why I chose to defer to a trusted Admin to handle it. NYBrad, I also don't think you should join the editors who cite my history without reference to the circumstances and natures of the varius items in my record. That fans the flames of what has repeatedly used as an ad hominem without reference to the detail or diffs to demonstrate any connections between various current-day aspersions and settled, adjudicated past incidents. I was not aware that Jerome said they were retiring, and that has nothing to do with either me or SFR. I don't see many editors hang up their mouse after a straightforward violation and enforcement. Now, looking at Jerome's talk page, I see they took the occasion to make a personal attack against me, also an unusual reaction in this circumstance. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, in an AE thread awhile ago in which I defended you from a sanction, I observed that you don't have the best judgment about when to report other editors and should probably stop doing so. I repeat that advice; your behavior here in reporting a minor technical violation to a self-selected administrator, after having been engaged in a talkpage discussion with the editor for over an hour, is despicable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 to this. SPECIFICO, "sanction-gaming" is not so much a personal attack here as it is a reasonable inference based upon the facts. Dumuzid (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've said my piece about SPECIFICO, but also, my specific usage of the term "sanction-gaming" was aimed at discussing the general approach to enforcement that SFR describes above, rather than this one specific instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't sterilize your wording that is unambiguously viewed on this site as a personal attack with such deflection. Ironically, if you would have taken the time to really review history before using it as a weapon, you would see that the reason there are so many warnings, brief page blocks is that most were far more insignificant than the one I reported. You would also have seen a much larger number of complaints against me originating on contentious pages that were dismissed. You would have been able to make a statement here that might have been useful to SFR, me, page watchers, or the project in general. Moreover, your apparent failure to secure your knowlege of the incident, your intervening on another Admin's legitimate discretion (wheel war adjacent), and your obstinate refusal to take responsibility for your actions is far below the standard we expect of Admins on this site. If you think edit-warring by violating the 24-BRD sanction is a minor technical violation, why don't you simply remove that sanction -- recently elevated by Arbcom to be one of our few authorized CT page restrictions -- then perhaps consider removing it from the scores of AP pages where it keeps things running smoothly. I expected you to abide by "let's' see what others think" but I guess you just changed your mind and doubled down with gratuitous, vicious language to disparage, discourage, and intimidate me. Your behavior is shameful and a disgrace to your once prominent role on this site, now descended to what everyone will always be able to see in this thread. It's a sad devolution. I am sorry for you. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding "changing my mind" about commenting further about you, you may have&mdash;completely understandably&mdash;misunderstood the order of some of my posts based on their position in different parts of this thread. As for everything else, such as whether I have used gratuitous, vicious language to disparage, discourage, and intimidate you, or engaged in behavior that was shameful and a disgrace, or acted in a wheel war adjacent way by posting my opinions here without taking any actions at all&mdash;I'll leave all that for others to judge. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Editor you blocked is still editing
User:Sir Knson is continuing to edit under the IP 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:5CD6:7B9F:13A1:224B in defiance of your block. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * picked up my slack and took care of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:PragerU&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 08:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Frontiers in Psychology&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion?
Nearly a month ago you blocked an IP address for block evasion; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A42.200.141.17

The same IP adress has now started editing again, in the same page, WP:AIV. Since I have no idea what block was being evaded when you blocked, I can't tell whether a new block is needed. Maybe you would like to look at it. JBW (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Since been blocked by Materialscientist for three months as a proxy IP. Good seeing you again! DrewieStewie (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Talkback
I understand you have been very busy lately, so take all the time you need. I failed at pinging you since I tried that a few days after I had signed the message, so this is a substitute. Have a good day. DrewieStewie (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Shim119
I don't understand the rev/deletion. Something to do with the jumbled numbers and letters I removed? If you can't explain publicly, please e-mail me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * , ygm. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Khrystyna Antoniichuk
has repeatedly removed a reference to a doping ban. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khrystyna_Antoniichuk&diff=prev&oldid=1164049718 I've reverted 3 times and didn't want to fall foul of 3rr restrictions. I placed warnings on their talk page about unexplained removal of content. I wasn't sure what action to take? The link they keep removing is a press release from the International Tennis Federation giving details of the ban. Advice if you have any? Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * , this looks to have died down? If it starts up again, let me know. Sorry for the delay. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:JoJo (singer)&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 06:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Question concerning the GizzyCatBella/Jacurek requested topic ban
I have recently been finding the Eastern European topic ban you imposed very inconvenient, not because I want to write about Eastern European matters, but because I want to be able to write about French matters. Could you tell me if you would consider the edit (which updates a completely outdated entry about a French media outlet) boundary-testing? I ask because after I saw "Czech" on the screen, I realized that somebody could try to use it against me. I have undone the part of my edit which could be used against me due to the topic ban the sockpuppet requested. Similarly, in recent days, I've done some work on the riots in France, and at one point I opened a discussion at RS/N and typed the word "Ukraine" (concerning militantwire.com) because that is the subject their EiC has most-often been cited on. I quickly corrected it, because my intention is not to test boundaries, but to make positive contributions concerning the reliability of sources writing about the French riots. Then when someone asked me for further information, I had to pirouette in order to answer their question... Do you think it was necessary for me to self-revert either of these two contributions? Frankly this second-class citizenship is frustrating, as it requires me to be constantly self-censoring for no good reason and because it, parenthetically, allows folks to threaten me for good-faith edits. Has your thinking evolved concerning the topic ban that only three people thought was a good idea, one of whom is now indefinitely banned? Given the subsequent history, insofar as this was not a community-based decision, I imagine you are free to lift it yourself at any time and it would be to your credit were you to do so. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 00:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Self-reverting those parts of the edit was a good idea, as they are violations of broadly construed topic bans. If you'd like to seek a removal of your editing restrictions I suggest you appeal at WP:AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Clive Myrie
Hi, could you look at the recent IP edit to Clive Myrie needs hiding please. Moons of Io (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)