User talk:Seraphimblade

; Archives
	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ; ;

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade.

Please read before posting

Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.

If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond (a ping will also suffice), it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
No lulztxtspk or emojis on my talk page, please. "You" is spelled "you", "though" is spelled "though", "because" is spelled "because", "people" is spelled "people", and so on. There is no character limit on Wikipedia comments, so there is no need whatsoever for ad-hoc abbreviating. If you don't even take yourself seriously, don't expect me to take you seriously either.
If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
If you are here to discuss edits made to an article, please use the article talk page, not this talk page, to discuss them. If I made the edit and the question is specifically directed at me, you are welcome to ping me.
If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email.

RFC SBM - clarification

Hi, I was wondering if you could clarify the closing summary at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC Science-Based Medicine. Specifically, it seems that the summary leaves a lot of ambiguity about which articles are considered SPS and which are not. My sense of the !votes was that specifically articles by the editors (Gorski and Novella) were unreviewed and therefore SPS. But the summary only states that "at least some articles on this site can be considered self-published", which seems to open up every SBM article up for debate.

You can see an early example of this at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Science-Based Medicine - cleanup needed. SBM is used twice in this article, both articles by Gorski that would seem to fall in the SPS category. One of those citations is used without attribution to support negative content in the lead ("The lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese sentiment.").

As you can see, editors at that talk section have argued, citing the closing summary, that these Gorski articles do not need to be treated as SPS, and that the RFC requires no action. If this was not your intent, would you consider rephrasing the closing summary to resolve the ambiguity? - Palpable (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palpable, I really do think it will probably need to be taken case by case in a lot of instances, and I wouldn't want to act as arbiter for particular instances. As your issue is a BLP concern, you could always ask for input at the BLP noticeboard. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Thanks for the pointer. - Palpable (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the close at RSN

Closes, especially difficult ones on controversial topics, are always appreciated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

From the editors: Looking back, looking forward

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024

In the media: Will you be targeted?

Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last

Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Wikipedia

Opinion: Reflections one score hence

News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free

Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next

Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Wikipedia

In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take?

Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics

Humour: How to make friends on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:John Quincy Adams on a "All RFCs" 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 10:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Louise Glover on a "Biographies" 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 23:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

Details of the balanced editing restriction

In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
- This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
- Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.

If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed