Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Goryeo 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 17:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Barnstar for you, since you sounded sad about not getting one.

		The Original Barnstar
		Sorry you didn't get one the first time around. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 21:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but don't worry about me, I already have quite the collection on my user page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

ArbCom

It's a little odd that relevant rebuttal gets deleted, but someone else can post false accusations and outright falsehoods, and not only are they are allowed to stand, but people swallow them and base their decision to hold a full case on it. Seems like peak WP to me, but when has a level playing-field ever been par for the course in this place? - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not the evidence or workshop phase where evidence is presented or rebutted. They are over their word count, and the case will be opening soon. Evidence can be presented and rebutted at that point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

When it's already too late? When Arbs have already swallowed those falsehoods and decided to rope in other people based on that post? That's not very logical, is it? Why is false evidence allowed to stand when it's being accepted at face value by several people, including Arbs, who haven't bothered to look at it? Arbs are basing their decision to include other people in this case based on falsehoods. Sorry, but that's utterly illogical. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not the evidence phase. There will be a week or two for presenting evidence and rebuttals, as well as the workshop phase. That response contained nothing that would informing our position on scoping and parties. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I well aware it's not the evidence phase. It appears to be the 'tell some lies and make misleading statements to get other people listed as parties when they shouldn't be' phase. Why are people being dragged through the stresses and strains of a witch trial based on false statements? You've not actually addressed that point. Why has no-one looked at the diffs (as I did in the diff above) and call BS on it? Instead I see Arbs casually throwing around the term 'tagteaming' and indicating a wider scope, all based on one post that contains lies and falsehoods. That's really quite poor; somehow I expected more, but I am unsurprised. - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The only comment made by arbs relating to tag-teaming is Asilvering's, For what it's worth, @GreenLipstickLesbian, I didn't take that comment from HJM in response to my block as a reference to tag-teaming to maintain SchroCat's preferred version of the article. What I understood HJM to mean was that others, including himself, had the article watchlisted and would be able to maintain it against the inevitable truly terrible edits that do tend to creep in over time. As Ealdgyth and others have noted, it is quite possible to do this without tag-teaming or incivility. That looks to me like not casually throwing the term around to indicate a wider scope, rather that the behavior described isn't necessarily tag-teaming.
Johnuniq, if you want to show your mentorship could be effective now might be a worthwhile time for a demonstration. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry: I'm not going to push back any further as I'm not sure you're in listening mode. I can see what sort of process this is going to be and the truth isn't going to play much of a part in it, it seems. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

🏆 wikiFeet Administrator of the Year Award 🏆

For five steadfast years and 75,000 impeccably judged clicks, your tireless stewardship as an administrator of the world's premier repository of toes, soles, and carefully curated pedicures has not gone unnoticed. The arbitration committee sends its sincerest applause (and an emergency supply of toe separators). Lifetime Achievement in Footography Moderation: For adjudicating disputes over sandal angles, enforcing the strict no-blur policy, and diplomatically resolving the Great Left-Right Toe Disagreement of ’22. Distinguished Curator of Metatarsal Metadata: For elevating captions from “nice feet” to “subtly evocative plantar prose.” Guardian of Proper Toenail Orientation: For ensuring all uploads meet orientation, focus, and glamour standards. In short: wikiFeet salutes you. Your dedication keeps the website pristine, the archives well-polished, and the arbitration hearings surprisingly wholesome. Please accept this virtual plaque, this honorary pair of golden flip-flops, and our humble plea — never stop submitting those beautiful feet pictures. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

if i steal your joke, would that be pedi theft? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Go for it. But know I'll pursue the matter with sole determination! –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh my, what a surprise! First, I'd like to thank my wife for pushing me to seek advanced permissions and for constantly reminding me that I'm still just some loser on the internet. I'd also like to acknowledge Pentax for their long range lenses allowing me to capture the wrinkles between toes and chipped polish with maximum clarity. Lastly, to all of you, your desire for candid foot photos of d-list celebrities trying to enjoy their lunch at an outdoor restaurant table is what this is really all about. Without you, I'd just be that weird person taking photos of feet without permission, but with you I'm part of a community! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Revdel on the user you just blocked as a sock

Please don't revdel just yet, there was a threat of harm that has been provided to the appropriate people and it is probably important they can see the diffs. Sorry if this is rude. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

If authorities need access they can get it. Don't feed trolls. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, sorry. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey my friend, thanks for the awesome block. Here, have za shawarma! Cheers! AbbaszaGoat (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Southern Tibet 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 15:31, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

April music

story · music · places

Happy Easter! - What you reverted was no evidence of a particular party, but of the conflict in 3/4 of the cases between the named parties. I never accused any particular party and am not going to change that. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

About your block of ProV4l12345

Should their slurs at Niqab be revdeled?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing that was BMX again.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Recommendation to update block

Is there a way you can update the block of MultipleContradictions to revoke their talk page privileges? The edit filter log shows Talk page abuse labeled right on it. BoxOfThings123 (what's inside the box?) 15:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

All set, thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

~2026-21848-68

Hello ScottishFinnishRadish, see here. Regards Serols (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) removed tpA Star Mississippi 17:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up my slack! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

All good. I've been offline a lot and glad to help when I can. Star Mississippi 01:59, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Since you just blocked Zoonotic

Now: User:Imphysicist. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Probably meat, but blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Just fyi, the role-playing as a different user, implying meat, is actually a part of his schtick. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I think @Tryptofish is right. Nobody other than the subject cares so much, and he's been blocked for doing this since 2012. Part of the routine is playing dumb perhaps with the confidence of IP hopping. Let me borrow your laptop real quick. JFHJr (㊟) 23:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I looked with my special goggles, and although it's possible it's also possible it was a pal of his. The end result is the same, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Now there's more TA WP:DUCK at WP:BLPN. Here. Thanks for anything you can do. JFHJr (㊟) 03:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Already taken care of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

~2026-23270-25

You may also want to revoke TPA here, fwiw. Thank you for your help. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

They've almost certainly already moved on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lists of wars involving the United States 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 14:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking care of the TA who was trying to sealion me. Much appreciated! JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help as always. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by ErnestKrause on Donald Trump. BootsED (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Your Zionism close

Given your premature close of the RFC, can you please advise how you determined consensus, given that WP:DETCON states that consensus is determined on the basis of the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
To me all of the 'close this RFC' !votes are lacking any any policy arguments. TarnishedPath^talk 12:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

When there are enough spoiled ballots the exercise becomes untenable, and "this RFC is not workable or otherwise has problems" is a policy based argument. It's worth noting that the only uninvolved editor that showed up from a bot notification also called for a closure as a bad RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I get the policy-based rationale, but there is one thing that doesn't make sense to me: the RFCBEFORE discussions were about two options (A and B). The RfC included both, yet, the supporters of option B didn't want to !vote even though they claimed that there was consensus for their preferred option (instead, they described the RfC as "bad"). M.Bitton (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd just hope that there is a clarification that the closure is without prejudice to having an RfC on the topic after workshopping. We can all learn to adhere to WP:NODEADLINE in this conflict. An RfC is needed - let's just make sure we put in the pre-work to make it one that will actually decide this question. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

My concern here is that there will be some attempting to reintroduce the previous edit, sans discussion, and claiming that they have consensus when there is clearly none. TarnishedPath^talk 13:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

They can't do that: 1) there is no consensus for it, and 2) they didn't !vote for it when they had the option to do so. M.Bitton (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

It's pressingly clear there's no consensus. I do stand by that a lot of people seem to be rushing to solve this discussion and I understand that given it's been an open conflict on the page for a long time but I think it would just benefit us all ("us all" should be read very broadly here) to get this right and hammer out a consensus that will endure for more than 5 minutes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it's vanishing unlikely that someone, at this point, would try to reinsert that as a consensus version, and if that happens we can cross that bridge. There's also no prejudice on holding almost any RFC, unless there is a community/Arbitration moratorium in place. I would hope that everyone realizes that this is to give the workshopping a chance to work before the next RFC is created. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 15:30, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Re: Principality of Hutt River

That block seemed really fast and hard for what appeared to be a first warning PA. Is there something I'm missing? I have to assume there's something I'm missing. Tessaract2 (hello) 14:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassment with edit warring is enough for an indef, and there's some history you can't see. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! Tessaract2 (hello) 14:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

No worries. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish. Could Anymous182737 (talk · contribs) be a sockpuppet of Anonymous13938 (talk · contribs) and Random1321 (talk · contribs)? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Robby.is.on (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

You may want to look at one of your edit summaries

Not sure what happened here. CMD (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

An editor changed their username, which used to be their email address. It's still visible unredacted on the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

It changed between you making the revert and my seeing the revert? CMD (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

11:42, 11:52, so it did. I am now sure what happened here, apologies. CMD (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I was concerned when I first saw the summary too, and had the oversight interface opened until I saw what happened and that the username wasn't redacted in the section they started. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Please remove TPA

~2026-26178-57 needs TPA yoinked. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Already done. Also, that makes me sound metal as fuck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's a Barnstar and some cookies!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For being a great administrator! Great job, ScottishFinnishRadish! Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

		Cookies!
		Zahrazamedahmedi has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Happy editing and have a great day! Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For dealing with that user who was harassing me. Thank you for your help! JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Question

Can I ask as to why sometimes there seem to be reblocks that don't seem to be conflicts around the same few seconds? I know people have different thresholds for such subjective matters, if my duration is the issue... ~Lofty abyss 17:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Because there is often other disruption from other related TAIVs that make a short duration block ineffective. In an average day of patrolling I find myself blocking at least a few TAs that you've previously blocked for 31 hours, and then often the IP address due to longer term abuse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If it's due to that wouldn't it be more effective to target the IP directly? With TAIVs I usually see them as if they're just more edits on top of any they currently have, and if I used to go with a 31 hour block before they were introduced, then I'd do the same now (I believe, though, that even if a TAIV is indeffed the underlying IP is only temporarily blocked). ~Lofty abyss 17:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If the TA isn't indef blocked you can't tell at a glance how many related TAs are blocked from the contributions page, which makes everyone's job harder. There are >10,000 blocks a month, so the 10 seconds it takes to click and load the additional TA contribs/block log adds dozens of hours of volunteer labor a month. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

You mean because of the changed icon? Well, if that's the reason then, presumably, the mediawiki interface can be changed (if a request is made to its devs) to differ when it's temporarily blocked, too, even if I didn't necessarily notice a difference until now (I enabled a script that can differentiate between temporary/permanent blocks, so don't usually rely on the icons...) ~Lofty abyss 17:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Mark blocked strikes out the names of blocked users. There's also a gadget in preferences that does that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

My point is that I'm not quite certain if it "adds dozens of hours of volunteer labor a month", as others might be using these scripts too, and it's easy to do so, nonetheless, even if they weren't before; although, sure, it'd be more time-consuming to load up contribs (personally, even before using this specific script, I relied on popups, which can still show who's blocked), so I'm not entirely sure if this is a recent issue, after TAIVs were introduced (graphical icons can also be changed), but I don't think temporary/permanent blocks were much in contention before then... ~Lofty abyss 12:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Lofty abyss, please, just indef vandal TAs. The only reason IPs aren't indeffed is because they could be shared or change. That isn't an issue with TAs, so just indef them like you would any other vandalism only account. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, my earlier mention of subjective thresholds I think makes sense, here... I mean, sure, IPs are not an issue now, but that's not the only reason why I go with temporary at times, and in the case of sources being needed I think it makes sense for it to be temporary, to see if they have any sources they could include thereafter. Sure, they could request an unblock, and such, but it always seemed to me, in certain situations, to be more efficient if temporary/permanent are used in this way (although, sure, thresholds differ), and it's not like I don't go permanent for some TAs, I just usually want to see an intentional aspect, if it's blatant vandalism (and if you're thinking of the article about that military ambush, they seemed to be claiming some weren't civilians, which doesn't seem to be blatant vandalism, and might possibly be the case if sourced, but I didn't know much about the subject matter to know either way, at any rate... it still seems to me though, generally, that in uncertain/unsourced, or not egregious cases, that temporary blocks can be used...) ~Lofty abyss 16:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Did you check the filter hits where they were attempting to replace the article with "NPA NPA NPA"" (Special:AbuseLog/44080159 Special:AbuseLog/44080165)? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I happened to miss that, as I usually look at those logs if they hadn't edited after the final warning, to see if they still tried to edit but were filtered... not sure why they did that (which still doesn't seem to clarify intentionality one way or another)... I don't mind if some are indeffed (as long as there's some kind of disruption), to be clear, but I ended up with certain ways of sort of flowcharting this mentally over time (as described above), that seems to be somewhat rational (even if others have different approaches... like, I wouldn't usually block if it's not after the final warning and not egregious, but some do... I can certainly look at filter logs more, though). ~Lofty abyss 18:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

There's a script for that, User:Daniel Quinlan/Scripts/Unfiltered.js. It adds filter hits to the contributions page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

That seems useful... would be even more if popups could function upon hovering over the diff... ~Lofty abyss 19:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Lofty_abyss, Special:Contributions/~2026-26033-86 is another example. 9 associated temp accounts, the underlying IP had 5 previous blocks, the last one for a year. You temp blocked the TA and wasted the time of another admin as well as another editor who had to revert their vandalism. If you're not going to do due diligence when investigating vandal reports at least just indef the temp accounts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

None of the other TAs are blocked... by due diligence you mean checking the IP's logs? You do that every time? Because it was just made more difficult now, since TAs are a feature, as before TW would show the logs in the interface, but now one would need to go there specifically... so, ideally, really, it's somehow automated as well, whether in MW or TW, as going there manually would take several clicks; this seems to be a problem, not any intent to waste any time, but if TAs made the process a bit more inefficient I presume the devs can ameliorate the situation... ~Lofty abyss 18:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You should be checking the other TAs to see if they had been vandalizing as well, as you would look at the entire IP editing history before TAs were implemented. That also ties into indeffing so it's clear at a glance that other related TAs are blocked. It takes less time to check IP history, both with TAs and legacy, than to duplicate work down the line. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Other TAs seemed to have a mixture of disruptive, and mildly constructive edits, so I wasn't sure about an indef, since I usually only go for that when the vandalistic intent is clear (whereas with this some words seemed to have been changed for some reason, which might be tests, I couldn't know for sure), but, ultimately, it would be useful if there was some script or such that listed the IP's blocks, as it was much easier before to know at a glance (TW even shows duration/expiry). ~Lofty abyss 18:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Very well deserved barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I really thought that my case at WP:ANI will fall unnoticed because I had seen few editors just appeasing to the vandal but you did a great job. Please keep doing what you do, ScottishFinnishRadish. :) Sddarealone (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Republican Party RfC Thanks

Hey I just wanted to say thanks for helping out with the Republican Party (United States) RfC. You and Chaotic Enby saved everyone from a much bigger can of worms Retr0r0cket (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Glad to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

HistoryofIran impersonator

I'm not sure who HistoryufIran is, but they seem to be loutsocking as ~2026-27329-97. They've also edited on glkwiki. Any chance you could clear this up? Thanks. lp0 on fire () 14:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked them locally, which is all I can do. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Your block of ElrondHubbard666

You blocked User:ElrondHubbard666 as a sock of User:Inhailerradio were you aware that Inhailerradio was softblocked not hardblocked? So technically its not socking as creating a new account is allowed on a sofblock. Personally, given the edits I'd agree that Inhailerradio should have been hardblocked, but they were softblocked so the creation of ElrondHubbard666 is not technically in violation of sock puppetry. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I've unblocked with a warning, deferring to 331dot's judgement on the soft block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it was close but I came down on the soft side as they had disclosed their relationship with the station and used the draft process, and I've seen more promotional drafts than that. But I can understand the differing view. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

And the draft isn't so bad that I actioned the speedy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Negative userpage

Sir ratinigton the 1 (talk · contribs)

Userpage says "Burger King is bad"; is this a misuse of user page or not? --みんな空の下 (トーク) 11:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't rise to the level of having to take any action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

If nuance was tangible I'd gift it to every active patrolling editor upon them downloading Twinkle.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of monuments and memorials to Wojtek 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 01:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

TBAN clarification

Hi SFR,
I want to clarify my current PIA 90 day TBAN. Obviously there is a AE discussion ongoing and I had posted some links to prior AE discussions started by Samuelshraga. Some of those links were concerning PIA and I was thinking that linking them was permitted under WP:BANEX. However, I've now reverted to remove the comments/links as I thought I should seek clarification from you. Does BANEX permit me to post links to those prior reports filed by Samuelshraga at AE? TarnishedPath^talk 07:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It falls under banex of it's the section about your behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It was text/diffs about Samuelshraga's behaviour. Is that covered by the part of BANEX that states Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Another editor's behavior is not covered except in cases of clear vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, my apologies then. I thought it was and then removed it when I thought I should seek clarification. TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

~2026-27916-69 talk page access

Any chance you could revoke talk page access at User talk:~2026-27916-69. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

~2026-29067-93

Whack-a-mole time. Another Absolutiva sock. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

JMF (talk · contribs) does not know about extended-confirmed restriction in contentious topics area about Indian military history. By the way, it remains unprotected. ~2026-29131-15 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Autoblock hit me

Hello! a block you placed on user:5.149.14.37 has hit me as i was editing draft:sparx maths if possible could you permit me to continue editing please? Jabba550  ✉ Talk to me :D 09:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Jabba550, I've softened the block so you should be all set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

thanks for that :D Jabba550  ✉ Talk to me :D 13:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

MW Message Delivery

Intrigued by edits here and here. Sock puppetry? Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

ImJustHereForThis is probably just fucking around with multiple accounts at different times based on behavior. I assume the LTA just pulled a couple new accounts from the creation log, and I didn't see anything when I looked at them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

User:ConsumersDistributingonline

He's back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-26572-27 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Jon Schillaci

Hey, @ScottishFinnishRadish. This edit is not disruption, and what is {{Connected contributor}} template? I don't know what exactly is. —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 11:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It was disruption, and you apparently restored it without knowing what it was. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha! I've check this diffs and was suppressed. My bad for now. :) —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 11:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid Response Force

Hi @ScottishFinnishRadish,
I noticed that your closing of the Afd didn't go as expected. It appears Template:At was deleted few weeks ago.
I went ahead and replaced it in the Afd with {{subst:Afd top}} and {{subst:Afd bottom}}. Just a heads up in case I got something wrong. – NJD-DE (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Looks like I'll have to find an updated afd closing script. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Help request

Hey there; I wanted to ask an admin for help with an ongoing situation. Something is going on with this user that isn't quite right and I think needs admin attention. I'm coming to an admin directly because I have undone some of this user's edits based on poor sourcing, and contributed to them being blocked for a time - I don't want to attract their attention given what they're currently doing by pinging them or trying to report them to the incident noticeboard. Is it okay to ask if you can take a look at what's going on and try to help them, or at least stop the disruption and harassment? I left an identical help message with another admin, but they may have gone offline. It seems like this needs attention sooner than later, so I thought asking a few people wouldn't hurt. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 08:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

(Answered by two administrators with a request to take it to ANI.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

My user page was vandalized

I just woke up to my user page being vandalized. I have since reverted it, but I know the user who vandalized it: RobinMiner$$ RobloxMiner$$ (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like this was already addressed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Random question

Hey, I noticed a user got blocked. If he only made one negative edit, why was he blocked for being vandalism only? Here is the user: User:~2026-30158-30 Cooldudeseven7 💬 talk~📜 ctb~🖊️ gb 17:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Because of the related temporary accounts as noted in the block log. I review related temporary accounts and IP history when deciding on a block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I was just curious Cooldudeseven7 💬 talk~📜 ctb~🖊️ gb 17:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

No worries! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You may be eligible to vote in the U4C election

I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)