User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish

Appeal

Hi. I have appealed the sanction you opposed on me here. Thank you very much and a Happy New Year. Dovidroth (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Half Barnstar
		You were very fast on blocking the bad username that was reported to U.A.A shortly before! Sadbunny3 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion in WikiProject report proposal

Hello, I am writing a draft WikiProject report for WP:SIGNPOST about WikiProjects Israel/Palestine and wanted to include the perspective of admins who are monitoring the talk page of related articles. Since you're recently one of the active ones, would you be up for answering a few questions, and do you have recommendations of other admins as well? The questions I am thinking are along the lines of:

• Admins who enforce WP:ARBPIA sanctions cannot be WP:INVOLVED. What kind of knowledge/skill sets do admins need to intervene where not only WP:BEHAVIOUR (WP:Harassment, WP:Socking, WP:1RR but also complex content disputes arise?

• What is something you wished more editors knew or prepared before getting involved in editing topics covered by WP:ARBPIA?

If you're interested, I can link you a draft/follow up with you/other admins if you like. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be willing to answer a few questions. The only other admin that I know has been watching some talk pages is Bradv, although several more have been handling page protections and contributing at AE. That also doesn't mean there aren't more admins who are haunting those talk pages, but I haven't seen any popping up. There's also hundreds of articles in the topic area, so I may be watching different pages than others. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Forgot the ping. Shushugah. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish @Bradv amazing! Here is the draft btw Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish could you give this a priority if you have time? I believe the WP:SIGNPOST would like to publish very soon (they're already delayed on deadlines) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Shushugah, I've added some responses there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I/P article moved without discussion

No consensus, no discussion, just a move. See [1]. Coretheapple (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Have you asked them to revert the move and open an rm? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I just did. Coretheapple (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

We'll see how that turns out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Coretheapple, you may also want to start a discussion on the talk page to see if there's a rough consensus for the new title. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not a regular editor on that page and I don't feel comfortable about what would essentially be a kind of "unmove discussion" after it has been improperly moved without any discussion whatsoever. I think a better procedure would be for the move to be reverted and then a move discussion with a broad community consensus, which is essential in renaming articles in I/P. I would revert per the BRD cycle, but to be frank I'm not sure how to unmove a page and I don't want to screw it up.

As you know this is an extremely hot topic, even more hot than the Gaza war right now, due to the British and US airstrikes going on right now. That is how I wandered into this article in the first place---as a reader!. Coretheapple (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I was premature. Sorry about that. Say what is the procedure when things go off the rails in these articles? The idea of going to ANI gives me the chills, but I hate to come running to you every time there is a problem, as there always will be, and in fact currently exists in the main Gaza article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You can come here, make a content noticeboard post if it's related in that way, or even drop a neutral note at AN, rather than ANI, requesting a bit of admin attention on a particular discussion. What's the issue on the main Gaza article? I've been sick, so I'm trying to get caught up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Good ideas. Sorry about your illness.

The problem at the main Gaza talk page is that the 23 December Requested Move resulted in a consensus that "Israel Hamas War" would be the base title, with or without modification. This determination of consensus is not accepted by a number of editors, resulting in an !vote after the RM was closed, in which one of the options (G---"Change to Israel-Gaza War") runs contrary to the consensys determined just a few hours earlier. I pointed this out twice and was told to pound sand.[2]

After I left this note here, Chessrat began an RM consistent with the closing of the 23 December RM.

So we have on the same page a discussion that iseeks to overturn the consensus of the 23 December RM discussion, which really should be hatted, and another discussion on how to implement that consensus decision.

A fairly typlical situation in the I/P pages I would say. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Airlines and Destinations tables

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, I wanted to propose a change to your close of this RFC: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187 § RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to challenge the close, since I think your assessment of the consensus is generally accurate. I thought about waiting to discuss my ideas in User:A. B.'s closure challenge, but I'm not sure when they will have the chance to formulate and post it, and my stance on the RFC close is different from theirs anyway. So is it ok if I post my proposal here? Sunnya343 (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I am proposing a change to the first paragraph of your closing summary and the common thread that you identified. My idea is to change the first paragraph to something like this:

After reviewing the !votes and discussion, it is clear that there is consensus that airlines and destination tables (or more specifically, the maintenance of complete, current lists of airlines and destinations) are generally not permitted per WP:NOT. Individual routes can be mentioned if reliable sources demonstrate they meet WP:NPOV. For some airports, all routes might fulfill that criterion. There is not a consensus for wholesale removal of such tables.

This is my reasoning:

1. I do not see a requirement for secondary sources in WP:DUE or WP:NPOV overall. (WP:BALANCE includes This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint, but this is not applicable to the airlines and destinations of an airport.)
2. I believe WP:DUE should be broadened to WP:NPOV, since contributors to the RFC cited both the whole policy as well as different sections of it.
3. This common thread in the RFC:
   • Quotes from people who !voted "yes" (or qualified "yes"):
     • airport articles should include such tables when including a table would be due
     • the list need not be exhaustive
     • WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV can cover relevant concerns
     • case-by-case makes the most encyclopedic sense; in general I would expect commercial airports with a handful of destinations would be the most suitable
     • For major airports like Heathrow, or Chicago IMHO it's not necessary: one can assume that there are many flights to & from many places involving those airports
     • If an airport only has flights to one or two other airports, for example, it would not serve the WP:READER well to not mention that
   • From people who !voted "no":
     • illustrative remarks on major and historic destinations, backed in depth by multiple independent WP:RS are quite a different matter
     • any routes that have enough coverage to be part of a BALANCED article can be discussed
     • If there are particularly interesting things about an airport, such as the aforementioned fact that KIND only has CYYZ and MMUN as international destinations, then those can be mentioned in prose
     • (My comment) it would be silly to insist that you may not explicitly mention the three flights available at the Kalamazoo airport. I'm sure you will find a good number of RS that discuss them in detail, given their significance to a small airport like Kalamazoo's
     • This would not preclude keeping information of genuinely encyclopedic interest
   • From editors who left other types of comments
     • all the usual guidelines relating to weight and reliable referencing (I'm thinking specifically of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS) should still be considered
     • I don't see why it's needful to have a complete list, but to me, it seems appropriate and encyclopaedic to provide some indication of which areas an airport serves
     • We should provided enough details on destinations to allow readers to have a good understanding of the airports reach. For smaller regional airports this will likely be the complete list, whereas for large international airports perhaps condensing it into countries served would be more useful
     • outside of table, one can describe in prose the general profile of cities that it serves - I can see this for small regional airports to say what cities that they link to

For some background, I decided to propose this change after replacing the list in the Harry Reid Airport article with a summary. Nearly all the references I cited are primary. Indeed, when talking about an airport's current operations, I feel that it's inevitable to use primary sources (and I wouldn't consider them "bad" in this context). Perhaps some editors will wonder why maintaining up-to-date lists of airlines and destinations (which requires citing mainly primary sources) is not allowed, while a summary based on such sources is. Therefore, I think the closing summary should more clearly state that the consensus is that the lists are generally not permitted because of WP:NOT. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Your suggestion ignores the (by far the strongest, as I pointed out in my close) policy based arguments. WP:NOT, which was widely cited makes it clear that the threshold for inclusion for content that would normally not be part of the encyclopedia is inclusion in independent secondary sources. Deciding what primary sourced information to include fails WP:DUE or the same argument for inclusion would apply to the exact dimensions of causeways and terminals, the depth of the concrete and asphalt runways, or the number of toilets and sinks. Per footnote C in WP:DUE, The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered. There are likely hundreds of primary sources for the depth of the runway pavement including blueprints, permit applications, engineering reports, environmental studies, and more, but no one would argue that it would be due without independent secondary sources discussing it. Choosing one primary detail to include and not another is based on its prominence among Wikipedia editors, not the sources.

I think I made it very clear that NOT was the strongest rationale in my close, where I started Addressing the arguments, the strongest and by far most common argument put forth by those opposed to the tables is WP:NOTALLSORTSOFSTUFF. WP:NOT is policy, and the strength of the arguments citing it are recognized by those supporting inclusion of the tables. Including that in the first paragraph isn't necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't that threshold apply to determining whether a topic merits its own article (WP:N - A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject [...] "Sources" should be secondary sources), not to whether certain information should be included in an article (WP:NNC)? Also, in WP:NOT the word "secondary" is used only twice, and both cases have to do with WP:N.

Including all of those details about an airport's facilities that you mentioned would go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But I think it's sensible to include the dimensions and material of the runways, even though I can only find primary sources for that information. These are just a couple of details in the article that concern a key part of the airport's infrastructure, and I believe they don't violate WP:NOT. Are you saying that per WP:NPOV, those details should not be included either (not asking sarcastically)? I don't see how footnote C of WP:DUE would apply here, since we are discussing facts about an airport's infrastructure, not different viewpoints on a topic like evolution.

Another example is the Aer Lingus flight from Cleveland to Dublin, which is Cleveland's only direct flight to Europe. It began in May 2023. Secondary sources about the route now exist (e.g. [3]), but naturally did not when the flight began. Does that mean an editor writing in May 2023 would not be allowed to mention this flight in the Cleveland airport article, because only WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources on it were available at the time (e.g. [4], [5])? No, I think the editor should be allowed to mention it, since this was an event that reliable sources were giving weight to. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I read below that you do not intend to change the close. Does that mean you still disagree with my suggestion as well? Sunnya343 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That is correct, yes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Airlines and Destinations tables

Hello,

Is there any way I can convince you to overturn the RfC to no consensus before I start something on WP:AN? I didn't notice the RfC for whatever reason - haven't been editing as often - and it's starting to lead to editing issues.

My biggest issue with the close is that I think you picked a conclusion not supported by the RfC. The question was posed as a yes or no question. Very few users brought up secondary sourcing. Only one user brought up WP:DUE. There are two clear valid arguments in the RfC: that these violate WP:NOT, and that they don't, of which the don'ts had a slightly higher number. (I think the WP:NOT argument is flawed, but only a few users made similar arguments, and the counter-argument is more difficult to put together. I'll spare you for now.)

In doing so you changed the status quo from the previous rule of tables acceptable per numerous prior RfCs, only new destinations needing explicit sourcing (agreed through consensus) to one where there's now a big argument about what sort of sourcing is necessary for these tables to exist.

Fortunately the arguments have been pretty limited due to the lack of enforcement. As far as I can tell, only two destination tables have been removed so far, including the one at Harry Reid International Airport, which has set off a huge edit conflict. If there hadn't been an RfC, the conflict would be easily solved - only one user is advocating for removal of the destination tables. And if you paruse through the history, you'll see what a huge impact this has had, because the tables are some of the most gnomed bits of the entire site, mostly by users who don't participate in RfCs. One non-RfC participant has already been blocked for personal attacks. Another user here threatened to withhold any future donations. I only learned about this because I noticed the destination table had been removed and didn't understand why - the sourcing as it stands seems fine to me. Whether they previously donated I have no idea, but the problem with the close as it stands is it's left the community in this weird limbo. I checked two airports I'm familiar with and none of the gnomes participated in the RfC.

The best way to solve this would be to simply change your close in the RfC to a no consensus, which I think is an accurate reading of the discussion in the context of the RfC based on your text, and one that doesn't draw in arguments which were made by only one or two out of the over fifty participants.

I do appreciate your attempt at closing it! SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll add to SportingFlyer's comments that there was an earlier RFC about WP:NOT and these sorts of tables in general (buses, boats, trains, planes) that affirmed that they were not a violation of WP:NOT. As I see it, that interpretation is still in effect. It doesn't affect other objections that were raised.

Finally, I'll note that the kvetching at Talk: Harry Reid International Airport and low-grade edit-warring on the article itself provide a foretaste of much wider spread disputation when we start deleting these tables from several thousand airport articles. I've relied on these tables for years and apparently others have, too. I've found myself in the ironic position on the talk page of upholding the RfC outcome against a mini-insurrection I privately agree with. —-A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident of my reading of consensus in that discussion, so I will not be changing my close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC closure review

I have requested closure review for the RFC on lists of airlines and destinations; please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

About the block of IP user 216.247.92.86

My reason of "block evasion" may be incorrect unless they were blocked more recently than the 24th of December for these edits. With the way they edit, though, I wouldn't be shocked if they're evading a longer term block. Thank you for the quick block regardless! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 01:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that it was one of the many ltas in the topic area. Glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Your ban

I completely disagree with this ban. I did not attack anyone personally and adhered to neutrality, unlike the other party, which did not leave a chance to attack me and try to take the subject to a personal war. We've all seen how Onceinawhile fished in troubled waters and diverted attention from my criticisms of him by mentioning "edit summaries" or comments in the Greater Palestine discussion that occurred about 5 years, that did not even involve him. I explained why I did not alert users. Which is that I wasn't sure this was the right field. For your information, while the deletion discussion was going on, Zero0000 was quantitatively deleting ([6], [7]) the content, i.e. references I added in an attempt to save the article. If this is not a provocation to me, then what is? Sakiv (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You can always appeal if you really think it was unjustified. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

[8], [9] Isn't this a personal attack? Belittling others is usually considered a personal attack, right? Sakiv (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You are not even answering. How on earth is this allowed? Sakiv (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's been 11 hours, most of which I've been asleep. Please keep in mind that other editors have different priorities, like having a relaxing morning and enjoying a coffee and a grilled pistachio muffin after caring for their pets and livestock.

Mild personalized commentary isn't great, but it's a far cry from your behavior, which continued after the topic ban where you essentially accused editors of coordinating behind the scenes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sanction appeal

WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sakiv Sakiv (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive user

Hello. There's a user vandalizing music articles, removing words from the first sentence (contribs). They tried it on the Get Up (EP) page (history) and have been reverted by another user, and have been refusing to listen to multiple users about this now. An admin warning might help but I am not sure. Thanks in advance for any help on this.--NØ 07:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I'm not certain about the consensus around the wording being changed or any MOS implications, so I'm probably not the best to handle this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Issue with a user making at least one hostile comment on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard

User talk:Te og kaker left a comment/vote on Mondoweiss I perceived as misguided at best and that I believe a reasonable person can interpret as antisemitic at worst.

Preserved for posterity: “Option 1: The issue here seems to be that a couple of hasbara users don't like to see anything that goes against their opinion. This is not an argument for claiming that a source is unreliable. On the contrary, if Wikipedia should only use the sources accepted by these users, it would become a hasbara propaganda outlet, which goes against all the principles of Wikipedia. --Te og kaker (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)”

(Another vote is questionable in light of this, but less clear in my opinion)

Would it be too much to ask for you to take a quick look at it? FortunateSons (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I am pretty new, so if I missed a rule or social convention, I apologise in advance! FortunateSons (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I have redacted the attack and warned the editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Repetitive RfC

Would appreciate your looking at an RfC commenced today on the article title of Israel-Hamas war, three days after an RfC process formed a consensus on that identical issue. Editors unhappy with that want a different outcome. Links to previous, just-concluded RfCs are in my comment there. [10] Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've notified the editor who commenced the move discussion in question. [11] Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this later, as it's clearly going to be a long read. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Just one bit of errata: I refer to the discussions as "RfCs" when I should have said "Requested Moves." Coretheapple (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Awdal article Rfc

It has approaching a month since the Awdal article Rfc [12] and numerous editors have contributed their votes and opinions. With the majority of editors expressing their support for retaining the sources, what would be the next step in moving forward.? Hawkers994 (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait until the 30 days are up and request closure at WP:CR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish

All of the editors who contributed in supporting the use of those deprecated sources are all from the same Somaliland project in Wikipedia [[13]] and have a shared history of editing. I think there should be uninvolved editors who look at the evidence completely independently that does not include any of us. That would be more fair.

MustafaO (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You yourself is part of the Somaliland project Wikipedia:WikiProject Somaliland and you took part in this Rfc Hawkers994 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right and I agree, that's why its better to have editors who are uninvolved.

MustafaO (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

But there are editors who aren’t even in the project like madarkis and Freetrashbox who took part, so why did you say all editors.? Hawkers994 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Madarkis has only 40 something edits and hasn't used Wikipedia for months and coincidentally just came in to contribute to this which is suspicious at best. If you look at all of the editors who voted the same way they all have a similar history in editing which is mainly revolving around pro Somaliland talking points.

Moving on, what about if we discuss ways of wording and see what we can work with? If you're happy to do that I can message you on your talk page and maybe we can find a way we all agree? We completely disagree and will continue to disagree but I dont mind compromising to end this dispute without pushing the issue further.

MustafaO (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It will be closed by an uninvolved editor if closure is requested at WP:CR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that’s exactly how it should be Hawkers994 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

CyberaiBot

I’m working on an ai that will analyze username blocks and im wondering if you ever state the word in the name that infringes the username policy. Thanks •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not, no. If it's block worthy it's generally not worth repeating. Most of the username blocks are related to promotion, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok well time to make a data base:/ •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit review request

Hi, could you review my edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANakba&diff=1199099467&oldid=1199098087.

1) I'm not sure if I'm authorized to do this "hatting"

2) I'm not sure if it was appropriate to do

3) I'm not sure if it was done well technically

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You should have just removed it with WP:ECP in the edit summary. No need to reply and keep it around. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if I pinged the right admin, so here is a link to it as I believe that you are certainly engaged in that area

I left a comment on user talk: JPxG, which is titled Complaint: Questionable actions of a User on AfD and the RSN . Looking back, I am now not sure if he was the right person to ask. Would it be possible for you to take a look? FortunateSons (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That would be better handled at AE or ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. It’s non-urgent and therefore AE, right? FortunateSons (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

AE and ANI are both the same as far as urgency goes. AE is a structured discussion where action is based on a consensus of uninvolved administrators. ANI is a free-form discussion where action is based on a consensus of uninvolved editors, and WP:CESSPIT redirects there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Based on that, I still prefer AE ;) FortunateSons (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I will wait if the user takes further problematic actions and not take any actions for now. Thank you for your help! FortunateSons (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Request

Id appreciate if you would take a gander at Talk:UNRWA October 7 controversy#Page title, specifically the part uncollapsed here. nableezy - 19:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs

Am I correct in recalling that you warned Coffeeandcrumbs regarding his "Zionist entity" rhetoric subsequent to this discussion? Because he is again using that kind of nomenclature on the same talk page [14]. Coretheapple (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Request about FAIT (if permitted)

Could you take a look and tell me if continuing making those edits would break a rule here?

(I am pretty sure that this request is permitted, if it is not, please make me aware of it)

Thank you for taking the time! FortunateSons (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

While the close is being challenged the consensus is on hold and you should not edit as if it were consensus. Even moreso because it's headed towards an overturn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. May I ask two follow-up questions:

1. Am I allowed to respond to a person who improved one of the places where I removed it?

2. May I cite this exchange if someone else edits during a challenged closing?FortunateSons (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by your first question, and for the second, it depends on how they're editing during the challenge. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Just to clarify the first question, I removed EI and they replaced it with a (better) source, I just wanted to thank them for the edit. FortunateSons (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain my ban?

Please quote what's relevant to CIR.

Please quote what's relevant to DEADHORSE.

Please quote what's relevant to IDHT.

You said you're an 'uninvolved administrator'. I don't get that, but the above three things might clarify that.

Why didn't you have a discussion with me, or give some kind of warning, before banning me? Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The totality of your contributions in the topic of American politics have demonstrated that you lack the necessary understanding of the policies and guidelines to contribute constructively. Your lack of understanding of what uninvolved administrator means is just another example of many that demonstrates this. In the extensive talk page discussions other editors have tried to explain the policies and guidelines to you, but you continue to edit in a way that shows a lack of understanding. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of gaps here Scottish. Are you going to quote me? Why didn't you have a discussion with me first?

It wasn't that I didn't understand involved admin's vs uninvolved admin's. The issue was I wasn't sure what you were applying CIR, DEADHORSE, etc. to -- my post in ANI or the RFK Jr Talk tab. Scottish, you found me in the ANI page and went out of your way to look through my history and look through the conversations in the RFK Jr Talk tab and you didn't like what you saw. This is a red herring from my post, and so made yourself an involved admin.

"but you continue to edit in a way that shows..." I'm not sure what you're talking about Scottish. The RFK Jr page is extended-protected and has been ever since I first saw it back in like June of last year. I can't make edits to that page for another 400 'edits' in that Talk tab or actual edits to other pages that aren't protected. I mean, your issue is not with me having good faith discussion in the Talk tab right? I'm confused. Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You were made aware of contentious topics here. WP:CTOP designation allows uninvolved administrators to unilaterally sanction editors for their behavior. I have the RFK Jr. Page on my watchlist and have been intermittently monitoring it. Seeing your ANI post was the final proof of disruption and evidence of WP:CIR that I felt necessary to issue the sanction. Reviewing your edits does not make me WP:INVOLVED.

Your edits to the talk page are disruptive, and your consistent failure to take on board the advice and warnings of the other editors on the talk page is disruptive. After my topic ban two other administrators supported an indefinite block because of your behavior. That you continue to not understand how others see your editing is another example of WP:IDHT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, giving you notice that I posted an appeal on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Scottish, you found me in the ANI page and went out of your way to look through my history, Cmsmith, this is what ANI is for. When you create a section at ANI, you are explicitly requesting that uninvolved administrators look into the dispute and evaluate if administrative intervention might be warranted. This means evaluating the whole dispute, not putting on blinders and assuming that the reporting party is in the right. This can sometimes result in what's called a WP:BOOMERANG: a report in which it's ultimately determined that the reporter has been disruptive, not the subject of the report. I'll note you were warned about this phenomenon by RegentsPark earlier. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It's really disturbing to see an editor (Cmsmith93) whose main focus is on the behavior of other editors while not making constructive edits or attempts to improve content. Their focus is in the wrong place and is a detriment and disruption to the project. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Disturbing? thats their job they do their job and are a vital part of the project
Also who the heck are you •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Cyberwolf, you may be misinterpreting Valjean's comment. Do you think Cmsmith93, the editor V is talking about, is a "vital part of the project"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait my bad
😣 •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I added their name so there is no confusion in the future. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Gorilla, I just gave a huge response to a couple of Admin on my Talk page so feel free to check that out and know that I won't really continue things here, especially since mine and Scottish's conversation has ended. I do quickly want to say though that it definitely wasn't clear to me that that's how ANI was for. And this should be pretty obvious for a couple of reasons.

1. I built a case against the user, hence why I quoted the hell out of him, while he interacted with multiple people, and from so long ago because I just started at Archive 1, instead of just quoting an interaction or two between me and him.

2. I was confused at first, as seen above, what Scottish was even applying CIR, DEADHORSE, etc to; my ANI post or the RFK Jr article. It didn't make sense to me why he'd be looking at me when I've just provided all of these quotes of someone else being rude. Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:ARBECR

I'm just wondering if Special:Diff/1202100023 is a violation of WP:ARBECR. My first instinct was to revert and place {{subst:Welcome-arbpia}} on their talk page but I figured I would use this as a learning moment. Thanks in advance! Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That's close enough to an edit request where I would let it slide. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Leaving the welcome template and CTOP alert would still be a good idea though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, that's why I asked! Just wanted a second opinion, thank you very much! Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I took the advice and added both the welcome and alert/first to their talk page. By the way, I really like the welcome template. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it's effective. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)