User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Repeat sock

Two weeks ago you blocked 2.96.227.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for block evasion. As soon as your two week block expired he was back editing. Any chance of you taking a look? (Also at WP:AIV) 10mmsocket (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Response to your question

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish! I just wanted to let you know I responded to your question regarding my topic ban appeal. I am not sure if I responded in the right place so I wanted to leave a message here just to let you know. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I saw it, and I'm waiting for other admins to weigh in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

An apology and a request

Dear ScottishFinnishRadish, I apologize for breaking the rules of Wikipedia, that wasn't my intention. I hope I am not breaking any rule by writing to you here. I deliberately didn't want to edit the article itself but rather make a contribution to the talk page. However, I probably shouldn't have edited the section headline as I did in my attempt to clarify the topic. I also apologize for that. As you can see from my detailed comment (now deleted), there is clear evidence that part of the article is incorrect. It is the same problem mentioned by user Ketil. I only noticed the article today, but I followed the events very closely as they happened in November and saved the links for the posts on X/Twitter with the relevant pictures and video. As you can see from the evidence, it is quite clear that the story of an ambulance struck by a missile in front of Al-Shifa hospital is based on a misunderstanding, or most likely a mix-up between two ambulances, one clearly hit by a missile, another clearly not. Since the aim of Wikipedia it to get as close to the truth as possible, don't you think my documentation is worth including in the article's talk page? If I am going about this in the wrong way, can you please point me in the right direction? HarderD (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Due to the extended-confirmed restriction placed on the topic you can only make WP:Edit requests. You'll need to provide reliable sources, rather than tweets, to support the change you'd like to make. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As Ketil mentioned in the talk page, all the international media (i.e. reliable sources) showed pictures of the not very damaged ambulance and incredibly concluded that it was hit by a missile. And, as you can see in the Wiki article, the only "evidence" is that IDF said that it had hit "an" ambulance, most likely the one on the coastal road. But OK, I accept that we're stuck with the official media version of the story, even though there is no evidence. In November I contacted both CNN and Times of Israel to see if they were interested in looking into the story, but never received an answer. And I understand that the work of the Twitter OSINTs can be seen as original research and therefore can't be used on Wikipedia. I suppose Ketil is right (again) on the talk page when he writes that getting to the truth is probably a lost cause at this point ;) All the best and thank you for your time! HarderD (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

We can't use WP:Original research, such as interpreting photos. If it hasn't been discussed in reliable secondary sources our hands are tied. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again. I understand. You might, however, consider leaving my comment (reply to Ketil) on the talk page. Then maybe someone will look into it one day if/when such secondary sources turn up. Just an idea. HarderD (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That is prohibited by WP:ECR. It's likely that the talk page watchers saw both your talk page message and this discussion, so if any extended-confirmed editors find that it has merit they can bring it up at the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts?

What do you think of me possibly throwing this appeal over to AN for review? It's been sitting for about 3 weeks without action, and I'm sure many admins have reviewed it but didn't feel confident acting on it either way. Oh, and hi.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remember placing the block, which surprised me, because it looked recent, them I noticed it was a year ago. Yeah, AN is probably the right call.

Hello to you, also. Long time no chat. I haven't had to bother you for a CU in a while. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

We live in different wiki worlds now, you're all wrapped up in the world of AE and closing contentious discussions, while I'm a sock-blocking one-trick-ponyo. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Wanna trade? Seems that your world might be slightly less stressful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No way, Jose. I guarantee it's less stressful, and also: I'm lazy. I generally only have socks and ne're-do-wells wielding pitchforks, which works fine for me. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Well shucks. I'm other news, I raise ducks now. I think I have it backwards, as I'm raising mammals for white meat and poultry for red. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

To close the loop: I did the thing.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and working the unblock queue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

JohnR1Roberts

I see you blocked him for an ECR violation earlier. See his latest edit today.[1]. I am not sure what exactly to do. Maybe an indefinite topic ban? And a block or not? Doug Weller talk 07:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

They're already essentially topic banned, so I go with escalating blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Expired RfC

What is the correct way to proceed with this RfC? Was it correct to restore the expired RfC template as I did here [2]? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You can leave the RFC template removed. If discussion is pretty much wrapped up and consensus isn't obvious you can place a request at WP:CR for closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP:RGW on a user talk page

Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish I am reaching out in part to gather expertise on whether a user page I found violates WP:RGW, WP:POLEMIC, or any other guidlines. The user in question is BangladeshiEditorInSylhet. Their user page contains language such as "We can also remove Pro-Zionist statements on Wikipedia" and "The Pro-Zionist editing lowers the credibility of Wikipedia and makes it less reliable." This is concerning because, if followed by the user, would lead to biased and unproductive edits in an area that is highly divisive. This editor has been prolific since joining in November 2023, with over 4000 edits in that timeframe largely focused on Bangladesh. However, many edits related to the Middle East and conflict in Israel and Palestine have been reverted, such as as on the Battle of Bint Jbeil, the Second Intifada, the Palestine Liberation Organization, etc. The reason for these revisions was the addition of biased language.

I am fairly unfamiliar with the protocols here. Thus, I am reaching out to hear what you have to say. I also know that you previously edited this user's page to remove certain content that you viewed did violate some Wikipedia protocols. Thanks, Debartolo2917 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs of recent disruption or bias? I warned them back in late June, so preferably after that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Catalonia

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, just fyi in case you didn't notice: A registered user Charles Albert Noble is also involved in deleting "from Catalonia" so that could also be block evasion from IP addresses you've blocked, maybe? In my knowledge I don't know if there is a sock master behind the continual removal after someone else continues to revert and gets blocked for socking etc.. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

Would it be ok to email you? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

IP sock ECR violations

This Buenos Aires based IP violating ECR is probably AndresHerutJaim judging from this comment. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked and placed some protections. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

an award

	a duckling for you
	thanks for dealing with that vandal Daisytheduck quack quack 03:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks you kindly. I'm glad, as always, to help. I also have 21 ducks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Martin Van Buren on a "Biographies" request for comment, and at Talk:Libertarian Party (United States) on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Talk:Fred Trump on a "Biographies" request for comment, and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment, and at Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Most likely a IP socking

[3] [4] [5] and this one shot id [6] of [7]. Can the article be protected? There are other IP ranges that have been doing the same for months. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I gave it a month. In the future you can make your request at WP:RFPP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Let him decide

Let @Makeandtoss decide on what to remove from his talk page. When he said "no more talk page messages here", doesn't have to be 100% and that I can't apologize for misunderstanding WP:BRD. You seem to have a very black and white view on words. Alexysun (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

They already asked you not to post on their talk page. Please do not post on their talk page again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Please read my statement again. Thanks. Alexysun (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You were asked multiple times to stay off their talk page, which was clarified further after I reverted you. Stay off their talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Unblock my ip address, please

I've used credible sources to backup my edits and will continue to do so. I can do back and see my edits and show the links to all of the sources I used. 68.234.69.24 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This IP address is a callback proxy and is running IPIDEA_PROXY, LUMINATI_PROXY, OXYLABS_PROXY and should be blocked from all editing as such. --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. --Yamla (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request

I have filed an unblock request on my talk page. You didn't bother to respond. My appeal was rejected on procedural ground saying that only the blocking administrator can unblock. Will you engage my concern? Or will I have to appeal your block at WP:AE? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you have refused to respond, I have filed an appeal at WP:AE. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding ECR

Question: is it still an ECR violation if a a 30+-day-old account with 500+ contribs edits in ARBPIA, but a large part of their first 500 contribs were themselves ECR violations and a large part of their first 30 days were spent blocked for said violations?

Bajaria has gone right back to their prior Israel-Hezbollah conflict edits (including one before they actually hit 500), but they've now technically hit the 500 contribs/30 day marks, so I'm unsure if they can be reported at AE or not. The problem lies in the question I've posed above - while they've hit those marks, a large part of hitting them was violating ECR and waiting out blocks as a result.

It really is a shame, because they seem somewhat productive - it's just that they appear to flagrantly disregard/ignore ECR. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Aaaaand nevermind on Bajaria themselves, as they've been blocked for disruptive editing by Graham87. Might be worth answering the question anyhow, though, as a guideline for the future. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I would pull EC or block for that. A bunch of ECR violations that contribute greatly to gaining EC is gaming or just disruptive in book. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Struck part of my comment upon seeing the nasty rant against Graham following their ban. Yikes… The Kip ^(contribs) 21:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious account is WP:QUACKing, but I'm not sure what the duck is.

This user registered their account in 2009, made just three edits in 15 years (one of which was an ECR violation in March it appears Starship.paint warned them about), and has suddenly become very interested in Talk:Kidnapping and killing of Hersh Goldberg-Polin. I ran it by Sean.hoyland, given his experience with socks/sleepers, and his guess was it could be a sock of long-term-abuser NoCal - however, I disagreed with that assessment, given NoCal's LTA page describes him as a fervently pro-Israel and/or virulently Islamophobic editor, while this account in question is complaining of anti-Hamas/pro-Israeli bias, specifically arguing that Biden's statement on Goldberg-Polin's death should be removed. I'm not sure if NoCal's ever tried to pull a false flag before.

As they've gone past the initial edit request into a full-on debate, it would seemingly violate ECR, but I'm also unsure if simply disputing the denial of their edit request goes beyond the bounds allowed by ECR (especially given the user who denied the ER hasn't exactly been well-behaved in the area - you pblocked them just a few days ago). They've also seemingly got a heavily flawed understanding of WP:DUE, WP:BIASED, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

TL;DR the age of the account, prior lack of edits, and sudden interest in this topic sound sock/WP:SLEEPER/WP:COMPROMISED alarm bells for me, but I'm not sure if they're technically violating ECR, and the poor understanding of policy means either they're genuinely inexperienced or putting on a good show. I also have no hard evidence for said alarm bells - I'm purely going off connecting the various dots.

Thoughts? The Kip ^(contribs) 07:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link to the discussion on my talk page.

I mean, this is a remarkable coincidence.

• if you look at the timeline in the NoCal100 -> Fistook period there is a proliferation of socks, or at least detected socks (the time step might suggest lots of missed socks). Fistook registered on 2009-03-27. Mozumder registered the next day.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, unless he’s putting on an extremely well-acted facade I highly doubt it’s him - Occam’s razor applies here. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You could easily be right. What I can say with confidence is that you are far less cynical than me. As for Occam, they didn't have the benefit of reference material like The Wisdom of Psychopaths and Clerkley's Mask of Sanity. I have a heuristic for trying to understand and predict the behavior of people who may be using deception here for "the greater good" or however they rationalize their dishonesty (I have no idea). Not "What would Jesus do?", rather "What would a sociopath/pathologically dishonest person do?". This opens up a whole world of possibilities of theater including making perceived foes look bad and perceived comrades in arms look good. Also, I've noticed that several recidivists seem to think they are in Shin Bet, which frankly I find adorable. It is their only endearing characteristic. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Another couple of thoughts before I forget. If it is a pro-Palestinian sock, we have less data about them. I don't know whether this is because they are rarer than pro-Israel socks or whether we are not as good at detecting them. Either way, I would expect to see an increase in pro-Palestinian socks because using disposable accounts a better strategy for the organized advocate, and maybe that increase has already started. The other thing I wonder about sometimes is breaching experiments and content generation, I mean partisan content creators/people who have online profiles doing breeching experiments to generate things they can whine about. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Indian National Congress 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Advice

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)

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)

They were pinged twice and a talk page message was left: [8] [9]. Also on a separate article same issue [10]. Still ANI? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

An appreciation

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)

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)

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

Question about Listing the Hamas attacks on list of Islamist terrorist incidents

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)

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)

Query on edit 1244105723 on Interstate 94 in Michigan

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)

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

ECR ARBPIA violating and POV pushing editor

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)

@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)

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

Third opinion about Asian fetish

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)

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)

User:Distinto gentiluomo

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

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

AE

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)

Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive 4#RfC on page move moratorium was opened three hours after the RM closed, [11][12] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Appeal request

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)

You've got mail

Hello, ScottishFinnishRadish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

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

Recent rangeblock

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)

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)

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

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

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