There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ariel Fernandez shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Just balancing the meridians Roxy the dog. wooF 16:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily good-faith BLP reverts are exempt from 3RR. Thanks for the warning though, I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, That's great, I can revert your e/w edit. Thanks. 16:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxy the dog (talk • contribs)

I was going to post the edit warring template myself until I saw this, but you really need to step back from edit warring ScottishFinnishRadish. It is not ok to continue edit warring, even if others are doing it. You add to the disruption too when you do that. It's one thing if someone invokes BLP initially, but given how much edit warring has been occurring, you should be aware WP:BLPREMOVE cautions against what you are doing continuously claiming a BLP exemption Please keep in mind BLP is very clear: Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

Right after the page protection was removed is not the time to jump into edit warring again since the policy is very clear not to rely on it to continue such reverts. In reality, that exemption is reserved for very clear cut BLP violations, and more nebulous issues have to be handled like normal content disputes. In this case, no one can blanket remove the content (even if the current iteration didn't include all sources), because much of the events are sourced to the journals themselves, making outright removal not quite square with WP:BLPREMOVE. If someone was going to revert under BLP, such as blogs, they would have to be much more surgical and careful in what they remove instead of the blanket reverts you are doing.

I suggest to undo at least your last revert and let other editors handle things. As seen with other editors already, you are setting yourself up for a block right now, as it really does come across as you trying to "win" an edit war, so it's generally better to deescalate rather than continue an edit war. As someone stepping in from the outside of this topic, I highly suggest you take this caution seriously because your behavior among others was really sticking out as I tried to review the topic. KoA (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel with the current BLPN thread, the clear emerging consensus, and the number of editors with BLP concerns that I am on very safe ground invoking the BLP exception to 3rr and edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that attitude of using BLP as an excuse to edit war is all the more reason why I came here. If you are feeling emboldened to revert (a serious behavior problem), that is all the more reason to deescalate instead of set yourself up for a block. It's still very possible to be disruptive even if others agree with you. Again, please slow down and reflect a bit, because your behavior does not look good to those of us who are uninvolved. KoA (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may notice that the person who reverted directly after protection expired was page blocked, and the page was protected after I reverted the IP. I am fairly certain we're firmly in BLPRESTORE territory, and I suggest you take part in the already existing discussion at BLPN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm not at their talk page saying roughly the same thing because they're already blocked and aren't continuing the reverts. You however, are. WP:NOTTHEM behavior is not ok, which your comment squarely was, and BLPN is not the place to deal with behavior issues. Normally discussion like this is an attempt to stop disruptive behavior without needing sanctions, but doubling down like this doesn't look good if sanctions are pursued either. Like I said before, please take this seriously, as I'm seeing some pretty strong WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from you that often causes people to react like you are right now when uninvolved editors try to address it like I am. When other editors start seeing a dispute spill over and caution you about your behavior, that's generally a red flag that you need to step back from things like edit warring and let other editors take care of perceived issues instead of you generating more heat. Hopefully you heed that advice so the article can settle down. KoA (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you mention above, Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. This has been raised at BLPN, and currently it looks like consensus is against inclusion, and as it is still under discussion, and there is a clear good faith objection on BLP grounds, policy states it should not be in the article. I appreciate that you're not relying on templates, and are actually talking person to person, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on reverting the information while it's under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Your comments and edit summaries frequently make me laugh out loud in front of those around me, so I thought I'd thank you appropriately for the quality of your jokes and witty remarks. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! They don't always go over as well I hope, but every situation can use a little levity. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish. You're using 745 words at WP:ARC. The limit is 500 words, unless you have an extension. You can request an extension on the case request page or by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org, but we generally prefer that you get an extension before going over the limit. In the meantime, you can collapse any parts of your statement in order to reduce your word usage. Please note that the clerks may cut off your statement at the limit at any point. (cc: @ArbCom Clerks: .) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L235, I was already removing part of it. I'm at 548 words, excluding my response to Enterprisey, is that fine? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed a bit more, I think I'm good. Sorry about that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
This is regarding the edits which is used to be done at [[1]] is clearly have mentioned at here. So meanwhile only have to add some small edits which is been already done so far at here. I'm requesting you to just move the edited form of the [[2]] to this so far if you give me permission to edit the Bigg Boss (Tamil season 5) for a few seconds I've would have done it asap.
Thank you.-- The_Featured_Editior 20:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, I'm not familiar enough with the topic to judge if that edit is an improvement or not. You'll have to wait for someone with some familiarity to review the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit description you wondered how it happened. It happened because I did it as a clerking action. People had replied to your original comments and so hiding those makes following the flow of discussion harder than necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap, I'm sorry. If you look a couple sections up you'll see L235 saying you can collapse any parts of your statement in order to reduce your word usage. I'm just trying to follow all the rules and such. Shall I uncollapse, and request a word limit extention? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For your valiant efforts, I am privileged to grant you my highest honor: a {{minnow}}. May your battles in the fields of edit histories forever extend themselves in a most civil of manner and collapse all stone walls. <3 A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw my uncollapsing as a defacto grant of a word limit extension and the clerks understood it as such. I see you've undone it as well. Thanks for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I must have just missed the clerking action on my watchlist, and I was having a dog of a time getting it to work in the first place, since I was editing on a phone and using Discussion Tools, or whatever it's called. Turns out a colon in front of the cab template breaks it. I thought I just fucked something up again. Glad it's all worked out now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Humor Barnstar!
		Your comment on COIN made me laugh, and from ur username, page, to ur edit summaries, man thanks for being a good sport. Cheers.

Tame (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which comment, because I say a lot of dumb stuff. I think my best comment recently was this, though it wasn't terribly well received. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, when you respond to an edit request, make sure you flag it as answered, otherwise it will still show up as a request that is pending. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss one? Happens from time to time, but considering I've answered in the thousands of edit requests I think my flagging it answered rate is pretty high. Normally, if I see one answered but not flagged, I just swap the flag for the user. Thanks for the heads up though, I'll keep an eye out and try and make sure I swap the flag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me Plz عِظْمَت (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would need details about what assistance you need. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im very dumb plz help me, I want to learn how to edit, I have sources عِظْمَت (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a request with a source, from the International Monetary Fund about 2022 Iran GDP (Nominal) estimate, you are obligated to change it, Iran GDP (Nominal) is $1.14 trillion now, it is not $611 Billion, I hope you are not an Enemy of the Article of Iran, or the Iranian People عِظْمَت (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obligated to make any edit, and my enemies are prominently listed on my user page. I looked at your source and did not see that number mentioned, but I did see a 2 percent gdp growth figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish revisiting this now that you've begun your evidence. I probably should have suggested you email me your evidence before posting so I could offer specific advice rather than the general advice offered here by me and echoed by Dreamy. So that one is on me. If the editor is not a party to the case, posting evidence of behavioral issues grouped by by that editor is basically out of scope. Instead presenting diffs of theirs, grouped by a "theme" as in your example at Sharon A Hill, is what I was attempting to indicate was alright and why a ping would not be needed. Posting diffs of editor behavior of named parties is, of course, with-in scope. As such I would ask you to please revise your evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fine, in that case, to have a subsection labeled for each noticeboard discussion, and have the diffs linked there? It seems like it'll be difficult to show that the area is a toxic morass filled with stonewalling and personal attacks without posting diffs outside of the named parties. Obviously I have no experience with the whole arbcom thing, so I'd really like to get this right, and not eat up your time making dumb mistakes like the one I just did. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I'd see this as a bad edit illustrative of the issues in these BLPs, if I'm going based on article, rather than user. Would that be acceptable if the section were Thomas John (medium)? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Showing patterns of issues either by article title or noticeboard discussion could both be ways to provide evidence with-in scope of the case. But I would also encourage you to think about, given the limited word counts, about where you feel you have the strongest evidence that is going to lead to productive remedies. Simply rearranging the diffs about users into categories that comply with the scope may not be as effective as focusing partially on those and then in more depth to articles/discussions/editors that are at the heart of the case. But it is ultimately your call what evidence you want to submit (as long as it is with-in scope as we're discussing here). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it was within the last discussion anyway. I actually have very limited experience in this topic area, and my exposure has been pretty limited, although almost always negative. Can you take a peek at my sandbox and see if that's ok? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having only looked at the organization, I don't see any issues with that format. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion: I found it hard to be sure, when reading your evidence, to tell where you were arguing something like "this editor has been disruptive and should be sanctioned by ArbCom" versus where you meant something more like "this is an example of how things have become difficult in this topic area". Perhaps it might be helpful to differentiate that a bit more, because it sort of sounds like you intended everything to be the former. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]