Jump to content

User talk:Rosguill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your close of the AA discussion

[edit]

While I agree that this was going nowhere fast, and that opening the discussion was technically a violation of GS/AA, I tend to think that this is a situation where we should IAR. It seems procedurally unfair not to allow non-EC editors to appeal community restrictions that affect their ability to edit. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

voorts, I considered that, which is why I didn't impose any sanctions or further warnings from what is otherwise a clear-cut violation. However, it was clear that they were intending to bludgeon the discussion and that other editors were collectively taking the bait, so I decided to close it to conserve community time. signed, Rosguill talk 01:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with closing this discussion; my intent was to make a note more generally about IAR. And, for what it's worth, I think SSCG was being earnest here. They initially posted at ARCA and when I told them that that was the wrong place, they opened this at the proper forum (unfortunately before I could share some advice with them). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

[edit]
Happy First Edit Day, Rosguill, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

[edit]
Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025!  ♦ Maliner (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Awards for 2024

[edit]

The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award

This award is given in recognition to Rosguill for conducting 2,044 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

[edit]

Hi and thanks for the new page review permission.

Are you happy to adopt me while I get up to speed on this?

I'm thinking that my first step would be to look at a new page and run my view past you before I act.

I'd probably begin by trying to identify AfD.


Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukewarmbeer that seems reasonable. Another way to get up to speed quicker is, whenever you come across a page you aren’t sure about in the queue, watchlist it and see what other editors decide. signed, Rosguill talk 14:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Made a start and nominated Francis Glennie for deletion. Was that the right move? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, looks like the right call, although the AfD discussion itself will be the true judge of that. What searches did you conduct for the WP:BEFORE?
I normally wait longer since the creation of an article and/or since a notability tag was placed (~1 week usually) before proceeding to deletion, but I think I’m unusually cautious in that approach (and I also focus on the articles at the back of the queue, which have usually already been sitting unattended for some time). signed, Rosguill talk 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply..
Just Googled and came up with nothing.
I'm thinking that rather than tag in a fairly clearcut case, with a large backlog in mind, some speedy (but not hasty) housekeeping might be a good approach? As you say the AfD discussion should save it if it's worth saving. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at The 1989 World Tour Live and was just adding categories when I thought - this should be merged with The 1989 World Tour
Am I on the right track? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lukewarmbeer, this is a tricky one at a glance. Based on the Release and Critical Reception sections, I don't think GNG is quite met as-written (although some people would likely argue at AfD that the cited coverage is sufficiently substantial). It's also more than plausible that additional coverage exists, because major publications literally dedicate entire journalist beats' to covering Taylor Swift in recent years, so even this sort of usually-trivial related media ends up drawing lots of coverage. If I were to come across this in the queue, I would probably tag it with {{notability}} and an edit summary of Does not meet WP:GNG as written, coverage of the documentary itself is lacking in depth and give editors a week to make improvements before reconsidering it (I note that the editor who created the current article seems to still be actively working on it based on their edit history). signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt reply. I have (it seems rather prematurely) added a merge tag. Would it be ok to let that run and see what comes back? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that seems like an ok alternative. If you go that route, you should also start the merge discussion on a talk page if you haven't already. signed, Rosguill talk 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have requested renewal for reviewer permissions on the appropriate page but no one has taken me up on it.
Would you oblige please. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Lukewarmbeer, I'm going to try to work through the open requests soon. This weekend is a bit busy for me so I don't want to make promises. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. Sorry I didn't make the grade. I may come back to it one day as you suggest. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violation

[edit]

Hello Rosguill. You were the blocking admin of Viceskeeni2 before they were unbanned with a tban condition from Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. They're still under a tban but I believe that have violated it [1] and discussed about the article prior to violation [2]. I believe the article is covered by their tban as it mentions in this section: "According to oral tradition in Diyarbakır, the first kadayif vendor in the city was an Armenian shop owner named Agop."

I have brought the issues of tban violations by this user to another admin in past months as well, this isn't the first time [3], [4]. Vanezi (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was aware of that edit already, as I have been WP:INVOLVED at Kadayif (and related pages). I'm definitely not going to take action here due to involvement, but I also think that their editing at Kadayif was not a topic ban violation--while there is content on Kadayif that does fall within the sanctions regime, their edits to the page avoided changing or adding any of that content. Had they touched any of the text about Agop, I would have reported them to AE. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

[edit]

Raufabbasov0007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Rosguill. Sorry for bothering you. Unfortunately after one causing trouble a new one immediately arrives. Raufabbasov0007 is quickly turning Talk:Iskandar Beg Munshi into a WP:FORUM/WP:SOAPBOX-like WP:NPA WP:BATTLEGROUND place, despite being informed of WP:GS/AA, WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS.

İnsulting and exposing Hate to Azerbaijan is embarrassing. / This means you are not here to share information , this means you want to expose hatred for the people of Azerbaijan. / And also "İnsulting us" like that is not appropriate behaviour in Wikipedia community.

Again you are exposing hatred and trying falsify history. / Iran has always been aggresive to other countries such as USA and European countries and to Azerbaijan.

So dont try to Falsify history giving that links which all of them written by Persian "writers" which is not considered academic.

you exposed Hatred and Insulted my Country-Azerbaijan by writing that

...which also showes again your "Hatred for us". / Dont be a foe. / And you cant restrict me writing from his work to wikipedia. I will do write it again.

As you can see in the end, they are even threatening to engage in edit warring, despite WP:GS/AA. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted their most recent GS/AA violations without replies and issued a further warning. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Rosguill! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plaka

[edit]

Hey. We have a dispute on Plaka on whether some new additions are original research or not. Since you have experience with RfCs and content disputes, could you provide your opinion as an experienced editor and your reading of the OR policy? If you are not interested, sorry for taking time with this. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991, sure, I can take a look in a bit. signed, Rosguill talk 15:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you also look into these personal attacks by Ktrimi991 [5]. It is impossible to reach any kind of agreement with an editor who behaves like this. Khirurg (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, Rosguill, I have a question about Hasan Zyko Kamberi. Some time ago I reported it for copyright issues and, after its deletion, I recreated it. If time permits, I might work on it and also add some content. If the article becomes 6k or 7k bytes in size (there is little info available on the subject due to a lack of historical records), could the small size be an issue in a possible GA nomination? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ktrimi991, I honestly don't have all that much experience with GA review. Reviewing the relevant criteria, WP:GACR6 #3a it addresses the main aspects of the topic, (and that this is contrasted with the FA requirement that a featured article should be "comprehensive") would suggest to me that the article would be fine for GA provided that all the main pieces of the subject's biography are accounted for, even if they're brief. signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will improve the article as much as I can, and then will make the nomination. Based on the guideline you cite, a small article size for this subject seems to be acceptable. The small amount of available info should justify this, as far as the article is neutral and well-written. Thank you, Rosguill. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: Nice noises aside, he still hasn't struck his personal attack at Talk:Plaka despite your urging, and seems unlikely to do so without some gentle prodding. Khirurg (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ktrimi991, you shouldn't need this many reminders to strike aspersions. If either of you have anything further to say about each other, I expect it to be at AE, and for it to involve substantial enough evidence to justify being there. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, in my response I gave you right on everything you said on the article's tp, including the fact that it was not the right place for me to comment on the other side's intentions. What was said was said and time can't be turned back. That being said, after you rejected Khirurg's stance on the content dispute and agreed with me, they shifted their focus on that particular comment of mine. It is a dead horse, as I have already admitted I should not have made the comment in the first place. ANI/I is for complaints indeed, not the article's tp. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a way of saying, "No, I won't strike my personal attacks". And the problem is not that the article tp wasn't the "right place" for your comment, it's that it's not ok to comment on other users, period. "What was said" can be very easily "turned back" by striking your comments. Khirurg (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Agree with your opinion about PIA5 decision. Thank you for taking precious time to write out an opinion many of us had. Hope PIA5 decision works out regardless, but if we end up at PIA6, hope arbcom takes your suggestions to heart. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Thank you for channeling the voice of adminstrator rigour. It's a pity there weren't any Rosguills in the proceedings, which fell well short of intelligent scrutiny of the topic area. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, half of the reason I wrote a comment was so that I'd have something to point to in a year when it's time for everyone to appeal their tbans. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

New pages feed - reviewing tool

[edit]

Hi Rosguil, Good day. There is a tool used to pop up when I review new articles on the New page feed page; however, I don't see them anymore. Do I have to install different scripts to make them appear on the new pages? I can not review any new articles. Thanks in advance for your help. Be safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 03:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Not Rosguil), you've probably accidentally closed/minimized the toolbar, per the documentation, you should be able to get the toolbar back, you need to click "Open Page Curation" in the left menu, in the "Tools" section. Sohom (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sohom Datta Thank you. Yes, I found it. Thank you! Cassiopeia talk 06:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural improvements

[edit]

Further to your observations on the arbitrariness that can occur at several points along the ARBCOM process, I've been musing on where the best place might be for discussing procedural improvements. I was thinking one of the community forums, where editors could brainstorm ideas ahead of a possible community RFC that could then be submitted to ARBCOM with the full weight of community consensus. I feel like this would be more effective than merely making unsupported casual suggestions directly to ARBCOM. What would be the right forum for this? Village pump? AN? Sth else? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 honestly not sure. Village pump idea lab makes sense as a place to start signed, Rosguill talk 14:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

[edit]

Not sure if this is the right forum or whatever to say this - diff 62 in your post wasn’t used to prove Warrenmck has denied a consensus. It’s used to prove another editor (BootsED) corroborated said consensus existed to them. The reason it doesn’t clarify Warrenmck doing anything is because it doesn’t relate to them doing anything. I just wanted to clarify this. Apologies if this is an overstep. Toa Nidhiki05 16:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in order for your claims prior to [62] regarding Warrenmck’s actions to be kosher you would need to have a diff or discussion demonstrating a clear prior consensus contrary to what Warrenmck has asserted and a diff of their assertion. The comments by an involved editor regarding their vague recollection of the prior discussion don’t in themselves serve as a useful piece of evidence here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided this, multiple times. As I've told before: this happened over multiple discussions, not one, and settled as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I understand if this is unsatisfactory, but when multiple other editors are corroborating, I feel it's worth mentioning. Unfortunately, discussions at the talk page are frequently fragmented, as political positions/faction discussions pop up... almost daily, or weekly, at least.
I also object to not having provided any sources. If it's a matter of not having provided them in the current discussion, that I agree with - I've been relying mostly on existing sourcing, which was introduced in June 2024. However, the sources that I presented were mostly gathered by me. You can find them in the June edit history for the main article itself; this is why they don't appear on the talk page; BootsED acknowledged as such in this discussion. The sources for center-right were provided by me, generally, and deemed to be acceptable by other editors. I just wanted to clarify this, as I think it's unfair to say I haven't provided sourcing at all.
I apologize for taking up so much of your time, and for going over the character limit - it completely slipped my mind in my desire to respond to things. I just wanted to clarify this to you personally, because I feel like what I was saying might not have been entirely clear. Toa Nidhiki05 18:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May as well just drop this here privately as well, but I did actually provide an academic source when pressed. Link. I wasn't sure if, or how, to bring this up in the AE thread and I think it's clear I should respond less, though since you mentioned that I never did it felt slightly pertinent, if not probably mostly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting WP:ARBPIA Articles

[edit]

Hey @Rosguill, here's a list of articles I'm going over right now and protecting. I'm a little over halfway through right now. If you have any insight or opinions that you think would be helpful I would welcome it. My kind of vague process has been to protect pages that clearly qualify under WP:ARBPIA, and articles that are short and are only/mostly notable because of WP:ARBPIA. I plan to go back over the list after I get though the first pass and do a deeper review/get feedback on the remaining articles. Thanks for pointing out my mistake on WP:RFPP, I think my brain gets a little numb at times to WP:ARBPIA content. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dr vulpes thanks for all of this work and I'd be happy to help out. To be honest I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking at in the link. Right now I see a sheet of with a bunch of articles, all of which are marked Protected-Done and Logged-Not done. signed, Rosguill talk 00:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opss sorry I was filtering the spreadsheet so I could copy them into WP:AELOG/2025#A-I. Should be working now. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dr vulpes Working through the list, I think 1948 War (disambiguation) is within scope but will not take action because I did some MOS and neutrality/consistency cleanup so could be considered WP:INVOLVED. signed, Rosguill talk 00:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not sure how to mark an article as checked when I don't protect it (e.g. Abby Martin, Airbnb, Alberto Nisman, Animal-borne bomb attacks, Anti-Jewish boycotts, Arab salad, Arab speculative fiction, Barkan Mounts, Bat Ye'or, Ben Wedeman, Christian Broadcasting Network, Chuck Fleischmann, Chuck Hagel, Civilian casualty ratio, Clarion Project, Clementine Ford (writer), Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics, David Cesarani). signed, Rosguill talk 01:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unban appeal

[edit]

Hello sorry to post msg here but thread was closed

Is this appeal what you had in mind? I tried to keep it as short as possible

  • No repeat copy vio. 1 copy vio from 2022 which was before I knew of that guideline. No repeat since.
  • High quality sources used (see for example list of articles I worked on a lot, pasted in previous appeal). MEDRS applied wherever medical claims are made (note: does not necessarily apply in "history" section of medical articles). I also responded to specific concerns regarding sourcing on articles psyllium and pudendal nerve entrapment in previous appeal.
  • Edit warring - check talk page before revert. It may be that my talk page did not show the notification or I had a cached version of the page which didn't show latest version. That is the honest truth, whenever I wrote "no response on talk" and reverted I did it only after several hours of not seeing any reply (I think it happened twice). I am willing to acknowledge that maybe there was a reply but I didn't see it. Approach should be to allow discussion to reach wider consensus before revert
  • Raising concern about non neutral point of view should not be done on talk page but instead on notice board with evidence / diffs
  • Attempting constructive interaction here Talk:Fecal_incontinence#Anal_sex_section and here Talk:Fecal_incontinence#Kumar_2017_review

Moribundum (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moribundum this looks about right, although some of the syntax leaves it a bit unclear when you’re referring to past events and when you’re referring to what you will do going forward. signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for reasonable approach and advice. I added more clear syntax with regards to past / future.
Here is 2nd unban request: User_talk:Moribundum#Unban_request Moribundum (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again I see you are very busy on wiki. If you have a spare moment, please could you review my ban?
Or if you think the appeal is still not suitable, please let me know what I could change. Thanks Moribundum (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moribundum, given the amount of coaching I have provided you on the unblock request, I'd rather have an uninvolved admin take a look. Unblock requests are automatically added to a centralized list, so it should just be a matter of time. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would not say you "coached me" exactly. Are you sure you cannot review my appeal? No-one is looking at it, and soon it will likely be closed because no other admin looked at it.
I have been banned for a long time already. I'm looking at other cases on that noticeboard and they all seem to involve editors with much worse behavior than me. It's strange... several of the editors and admins involved all seem to show the same ideology on user page and edit history. Moribundum (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moribundum you've been advised not to admin shop (cc @Beeblebrox). It's your choice not to see it as such, but casting aspersions as to the ideologies of editors isn't going to help you get unblocked nor encourage anyone to want to take action. NB: you have not been "banned". You're welcome to edit draft space or other Wikipedia projects while awaiting the review process. Star Mississippi 14:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking my edits Moribundum (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very unhappy with your behavior - you have ignored my request for specific info instead of vague comments 5 times. You also failed to acknowledge that I never had repeat copy vio. Such an acknowledgement would show humility and responsible use of admin "powers". You felt the need to tell me that you never had any previous contact with either myself or the editor who had initiated the campaign of harassment. Why did you need to make such a statement? No-one accused you of having prior contact, on wiki or off wiki. Moribundum (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to be unhappy with my behavior. But casting aspersions such as I'm stalking your edits is not appropriate. (I'm not-it's not uncommon for editors to watch one another's Talks or specific sections thereof and I'm decidedly not following yours as that would feel as if you were being watched.)
It's common practice to say whether you've had a past history or not with an editor so anyone is aware. For example if I'd blocked you and you found the reporting editor and I had collaborated on an article, or if I had unblocked you and the reporter found we'd worked together. Neither of those were true, which is why I said it.
I don't intend to respond further and only did here since you asked me a question, but I'll give you one further piece of advise. Many admins saw both threads and have seen your posts here, at Liz's talk and in the unblock queue. If yours was one that could be quickly resolved, it would have. Forum shopping is considered rude because there's no reason your unblock request is more important than anyone else's. Star Mississippi 16:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ban was inappropriate in the first instance, as other admin remarked. No repeat copy vio. In this respect my appeal is indeed more important. I've looked at some of the other cases on that noticeboard, and my behavior was quite tame in comparison, and my edits are much more constructive. Moribundum (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

[edit]
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to Rosguill for accumulating at least 10 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Trial

[edit]

Hey @Rosguill, Thanks for responding to my request for NPR. I have a small request if you would be willing to respond to. I see you have extended my trial to 13 may, but there is a month long NPP drive till 31 may. I would appreciate if you could extend this trial till the end of May for completing that drive. Thanks for your time! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 03:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable, will do. signed, Rosguill talk 19:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ArbComUser

[edit]

Hi Rosguill -- I've revoked their talk page access -- I assume you don't object? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, saw it coming from the start but felt it would be best practice for another admin to take that action. Thanks! signed, Rosguill talk 06:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmapspetrova

[edit]

Hello Rossguill, hope you are well, on January 18th, you``ve blocked this account for edit warring [[6]]. As soon as their block expired they just continued with their edit warring this time on Battle of Košare page [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], even after they were warned on their tp [[10]] also presenting false information that are not supported by sources. There was a discussion on tp [[11]] in which this editor did not contribute which again suggests edit warring from their side. Can you please do something about it? Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANEW

[edit]

Hey, Rosguill,

It looks like you blocked User:ProKMT and User:Guotaian earlier today. I don't mean to be bureaucratic about this but could you make a response to the reports they filed at WP:ANEW? The reports look incomplete and should get an admin's sign off but I don't know if you were even aware of them. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-Ponnar Shankar

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block settings change

[edit]

Should the block settings at Sambhaji's addiction to sensual pleasures (talk · contribs) be changed considering the fairly obvious sockpuppetry or would an SPI be needed? TornadoLGS (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, although fwiw it's within admin discretion to not block sockpuppet masters if there's reason to believe they may have learned their lesson signed, Rosguill talk 04:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elmarzh7

[edit]

@Rosguill Hello, could you please block @Elmarzh7 since all he does is remove "Chechen" from articles. Could you please lock those articles too since i assume he'll just make another account and keep doing this. It's pretty annoying to clean up his mess and i doubt me warning him would help since it seems all he wants to do is troll. Goddard2000 (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goddard2000, I've p-blocked them from the page for a day, please report them again if disruption continues afterward. In general, I'd appreciate it if you also issued {{alert/first}} notifications when you engage with new editors in CTOPs areas, as this better ensures that people understand the expectations that the community has of them. signed, Rosguill talk 14:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill Hello, he's back again with the edits and i get your point about alert since he's a new user but he is obviously a troll. He is just removing "Chechen" from every sentence. Could you please block him and lock the article? Goddard2000 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've indefinitely p-blocked Elmarzh7 from the page and added it to my watchlist. signed, Rosguill talk 15:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Goddard2000 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

[edit]

This closure feels like it was done immaturely. I'm not asking for an overturn, but could you please tell me what should be done to contest it? Should one go to ANI? Start a new RfC? – Garuda Talk! 09:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garudam, step one is to talk to the closer about it on their user talk page. If you're not satisfied by their replies and wish to challenge the close, you should then open a discussion at WP:AN. Alternatively, if you think there's additional arguments not raised in the last discussion, or some other change of circumstances that could motivate a different RfC result, you could start a new discussion, but please don't start a new RfC on the sole basis that the prior close evaluated the discussion wrong--if that's the case, it should be challenged. signed, Rosguill talk 14:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, I went through the closure [12]. Honestly, I also think starting a new RfC would be unusual, but considering it was the editor's first-ever closure and their lack of experience, I wouldn't be surprised if someone took it to AN or started a new RfC. Best, – Garuda Talk! 14:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban appeal

[edit]

Just informing you I have appealed your decision to topic ban to AN per the appeal process. Toa Nidhiki05

Toa Nidhiki05, pretty sure that appeal is supposed to go to WP:AE, not WP:AN. signed, Rosguill talk 00:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, the AE page only mentions AE, but the decision it cites also notes AN as an alternative without expressing preference. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Thumpus

[edit]

Hi Rosguill! Not to be pedantic, but I do think it's an important distinction: Regarding [13], is Big Thumpus' TBAN, as imposed by Femke per community consensus, actually a CTOP action? My reading is that it's a community sanction that happens to duplicate a CTOP scope. That said, they are aware, so if you wanted to duplicate the sanction with an AE one, you could... Which is actually why I'm asking, because if that isn't what you wanted to do, it's now become ambiguous which procedure(s) they would follow to appeal the sanction(s). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin that's a good point that I hadn't realized. I'll amend the notes so that only my logged warning is listed, albeit with context regarding the prior tban. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct question

[edit]

Hello Rosguill.

Is this not a breach of the extended confirmed WP:GS/AA condition [14]? The revert occurred after a warning was issued, yet the user denies any wrongdoing including canvassing, however it's clear they wouldn't have engaged with the article if not for the troll IP WP:PA message directed at me [15] (which Erudite refers to as a “friendly notice”).

Interestingly, Erudite proceeded to make a series of minor edits in Chechens and also made various edits to their user page, which I perceived as potential gaming of the extended confirmed status—I'm not entirely sure. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed in the talk page discussion. Their misunderstanding of GS/AA is plausibly in good faith based on what they've said so far. signed, Rosguill talk 03:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the default canvassing template didn't do you any favors, as it accuses Erudite of canvassing others, not of having been canvassed. This seems to have caused some confusion and probably hasn't improved Erudite's opinion of you. signed, Rosguill talk 03:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your article talk comment Rosguill. The issue is that Erudite Veteran is violating extended confirmed sanctions. He has once again breached WP:GS/AA following your warning, by posting two disruptive comments [16] [17] on talk that contravene the first condition of the sanction. Additionally, he made two edits to the lead section of the North Caucasus, [18] and [19], that reference Azerbaijan in the same paragraph. While these two edits are minor and may not be clear-cut violations but could be as broadly construed, one thing that's readily apparent is Erudite skirting the edges of the general sanction even after having received two warnings.
Then there is the recent continuous implementation of minor incremental edits within various articles, including but not limited to Chechens, North Caucasus, Alanic language, Digor Ossetian, Digor people, Armazi. Does this not constitute WP:GAMING in terms of trying to achieve extended confirmed unnaturally? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KhndzorUtogh -- I already admonished them for the continued GS/AA violation of accusing you on the talk page yesterday. I don't see an issue with their edits to North Caucasus, as their changes do not touch Armenian or Azerbaijani content and are also trivial grammar fixes. Having reviewed their other edits, their recent small edits don't look all that different from edits made in early February and elsewhere in their history, so I don't think it's fair to accuse them of GAMING at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 14:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KhndzorUtogh Sorry to interrupt—I was about to ask @Rosguill a question when I came across this. I have no intention of arguing with you or anyone else, and as I’ve mentioned before, I have nothing but respect and goodwill for your nation. We come from the same region, so let’s focus on spreading positivity and mutual support to celebrate the shared history our nations have had.
If you'd like, we can connect outside of Wikipedia to clear up any misunderstandings we’ve had towards each other. With God’s will, we might even have the chance to meet one day! This is an offer of friendship, not animosity
While I’m here, Rosguill, I wanted to ask—whenever I search for "Wikipedia: General Sanctions," nothing seems to come up. Could you direct me to the list if possible? I want to make sure I don’t accidentally violate any Wikipedia policies.
King regards, Erudite Veteran (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Erudite Veteran, you can find details at WP:General sanctions without the capital letter. If you're looking into reading up on project-wide sanctions regimes, I would also check Wikipedia:Contentious topics, as this is the more frequently-used system for addressing pervasive POV editing in topics (these systems have evolved gradually based on community need and experience over the past two decades). Insofar as they directly affect topics which you've edited reccently, there is also an Armenia and Azerbaijan CTOP designation beyond GS/AA (GS/AA gets focused on at first because that's where the instruction that only XC editors can substantially participate is most clearly stated), as well as a Balkans and Eastern Europe CTOP designation, which includes the Northern Caucasus, Georgia, and all of Russia including portions that are geographically not in Europe. signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify one point. Based on the policies I have reviewed, including Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, Conflict of Interest and maybe even Advertising, my understanding is that I am not permitted to cite my own research. Is this correct, or are there any exceptions for this rule?
Thank you for your time and guidance—I truly appreciate it. Erudite Veteran (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good conclusion to draw. The only exception would be if your work has been directly highlighted by RS as an authoritative perspective on a topic (and even then, best practice would be to point that out on a talk page and make the case for it to other editors rather than making the edits yourself. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

[edit]

I am formally appealing the sanction here.

You said that after 2022, there is no need of yearly alerts. But that indeed changed in 2022 while the last time when I did any activity in this IPA enforcement area is from January 2019. Don't you think the period of 6 years is already too long? Even then, I used to consider that by "India", it means the country created in 1947 as already visible from my present thoughts here. I never knew that it also involved the past histories even before India was itself created. Valeeree has also agreed here that my explanation about awareness is reasonable.

That said, would you describe "the extent of your problematic engagement" on my part? You are incorrect here with saying that I "doubled down" when I clearly said "I was wrong with thinking Oxford had initially published the book".[20] You are saying here that I "continued inability to admit fault or drop the stick of attacking their perceived opponents", but right above, I have nowhere "attacked" any "perceived opponents". My comments here are complying with WP:NOTTHEM. I have already described above that:

  • I already admitted on article's talk page that I did a mistake by saying that Oxford had published the book of Mehendale[21]
  • The Mehendale source is unreliable, as already stated by multiple other editors.[22][23]
  • TOI (see WP:TIMESOFINDIA) can be used with "additional considerations" for news, but it cannot be used for assessing credibility of an author on Wikipedia. I used it only for highlighting a news from years ago, but I rejected the use of TOI to establish credibility of an author. TOI is used on thousands of articles but with "additional considerations". On this subject, the assessment of a source's reliability is done as per WP:HISTRS. It cannot be done by relying on TOI.

Can you tell where I am wrong with my explanations? Yes, I was wrong with my mistaken reading of the publication, and I had already admitted that on the talk page. That does not deserve a topic ban. None of my edits harmed the main page article. I would add another point which I haven't until now:

  • I would avoid targeting another editor like I did here, as per WP:FOC. I was largely agitated because my comments were called "blatant lies" by another editor and he was engaging in edit war. However, I understand that does not justify my actions, and I would ensure not to repeat that.

I promise to be more careful, and avoid such a mistake. GenuineArt (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GenuineArt, my main concern is as follows: you introduced a TOI source into the discussion to make an argument. It was pointed out that the source did not support your argument. When I requested that you comment on this issue, you attempted to pivot and blame Akshaypatill for citing TOI, saying I think Akshaypatil is misleading the editors here by attempting to rely on a 22-year-old flattery description from TOI, which is itself an unreliable source per WP:TOI. It's all the more egregious considering the fact that Akshaypatill had already identified their comment as frivolous and withdrawn it following discussion with Valereee. This behavior is extremely tendentious and I don't see a good faith way to interpret it. Here you try to claim that you've already acknowledged your faults by recognizing that you did a mistake by saying that Oxford had published the book of Mehendale, but that wasn't even the main issue with your TOI-based argument--the initial issue was that the relationship between the events of the article, the 2011 book, and the 2018 bibliography commenting on the 2011 was entirely unclear (read: not a basis for a coherent argument about the Mehendale source), and then the much more serious issue of trying to accuse Akshaypatill of engaging in misleading behavior for having made an argument based on the source you brought to the table, which at that point you denounced as unreliable.
Particularly considering that you were actively trying to get another editor sanctioned, I do not think it would be appropriate to consider you unaware of the general expectations of behavior in contentious topics, taking into account as well that you had previously engaged with them. The fact that you proceeded to immediately attempt to wikilawyer on the basis of this perceived loophole makes me further disinclined to believe that you were actually insufficiently aware of the behavioral expectations. If you hadn't been fishing for sanctions for other editors, or if someone else had made the awareness argument on your behalf, I'd be more inclined to revise the sanction. But given what I've seen thus far, I don't find your current explanation compelling. Pinging Valereee for further opinions. signed, Rosguill talk 14:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on this. As I've mentioned, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that GA truly did forget. I do notice that GA apparently has never received a CTOP alert or warning, which maybe would have been a good intermediate step even though they'd filed the earlier case. I note that both editors were calling one another liars and accusing one another of intentional misrepresentation.
OTOH, a topic ban from Indian politics and history is a pretty narrow tban, and if someone fairly inexperienced is having a difficult time navigating a CTOP, I tend to think they'd actually be better served by editing elsewhere while they figure out our behavioral policies, because CTOPs are a really, really bad place to learn those lessons. And this editor does seem to have other editing interests.
But I'm always willing to discuss with editors why edits were problematic. GA, maybe start with this: You say above I would avoid targeting another editor like I did here. Two problematic things you said there were
  1. I think Akshaypatil is misleading the editors here by attempting to rely
  2. The question is, why is Akshaypatil aggressively defending an unreliable source to remove a sufficiently sourced sentence which has irked the audience of Mehendale?
Can you discuss why these are problematic and how you would deal with such issues in future? Valereee (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill: I am not standing by my comment. I have mentioned that I would "avoid targeting another editor like I did here". While I had admitted my mistake over the misreading of TOI, I think there would have been no problems if I had instead: 1) responded to Akshaypatill by reminding him of WP:AGF, and 2) discussed the cited book on its merit. Having been alerted of the IPA enforcement area now, I would be more careful.
I treated the IPA enforcement area to have concerned India and Pakistan per se, i.e. they were created in 1947 and the times after that. The 2019 report you are talking about cited edits related to only post-1947 events. Upon further reading of IPA enforcement area, I found a clarification request which concerned the same confusion.
@Valereee: Yes, I shouldn't have said, "I think Akshaypatil is misleading the editors here by attempting to rely," I should have said: "Above, Akshaypatil writes that "I am inclined to say that @GenuineArt is trying to mislead here," and "these are blatant lies told by GenuineArt in the above comment". While it is correct that I made a mistake in reading the TOI article regarding the publisher of the book, I did not intend to mislead. I would remind Akshaypatill of WP:AGF." I shouldn't have said: "The question is, why is Akshaypatil aggressively defending an unreliable source to remove a sufficiently sourced sentence which has irked the audience of Mehendale?" It did not belong there because article talk pages are not for discussing conduct issues, but only for discussing the article issues. Next time, if a similar situation happens, I would rather keep my hands clean and raise the issue on the appropriate noticeboard if the problem continues to persist. GenuineArt (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this doesn't allay my concerns given how blatantly tendentious it was to attempt to ask for sanctions for Akshaypatill for using your TOI citation. You hint at recognition of this, but then skirt past it and move on to other less significant issues. Frankly, even a full and direct apology for that argument may not be sufficient at this time given how egregious and recent it was. You've shown your hand; you now face the difficult challenge of rebuilding other editors' trust in you, and I don't think an iteratively-improved apology and appeal in the immediate aftermath of being sanctioned is persuasive. signed, Rosguill talk 14:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Thumpus

[edit]

Are these comments also violations? [24]. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, meh, none of Big Thumpus's comments directly touch on American politics, and it's in the user space of an editor who clearly does not mind the conversation, so my view is that a blind eye makes most sense here. It would obviously count against them if they try to appeal in short order and this is the main thing that they have spent their time on Wikipedia doing. signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. The other editor, by the way, is about to get a topic ban, maybe even a site ban, at ANI. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hamas 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 10:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill&oldid=1278451339"