User talk:Rosguill - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is a polyglot and likes languages a bit too much for their own good. They're happy to try to speak to you here in Spanish, German, French, Portuguese, Italian, Hebrew, Yiddish, or Russian, although they may need to switch back to English depending on the subject matter. For a full list of proficiencies, see their User page.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rosguill,

Merry Christmas.

I am writing to respectfully appeal the topic ban you imposed on me. I understand that i have made mistakes, and I take full responsibility for them.

Upon reflection and further educating myself on the policies of Wikipedia, I realize where I went wrong, and I now better understand the importance of following to Wikipedia's guidelines.

I am genuinely passionate about contributing to wikipedia in a constructive and collaborative manner. Moving forward, I am committed to ensuring that my edits align with community standards and that I have respectful yet informative discussions with other wikipedia editors.

I kindly ask you to reconsider my topic ban, or at least provide guidance on steps I can take to rebuild trust within the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Lemabeta Lemabeta (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lemabeta, I appreciate your reflections. Generally speaking, topic bans like this are only lifted following demonstrated constructive editing to other topics. I would recommend working on editing topics not affected by the ban for a few months (if you're not sure where to look, WP:TASK has a long list of different things to do). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rosguill, I was going over the AfC for wikiproject Christianity when I stumbled on the aforementioned draft. I was about to pass it because it met the minimum notability standards, but I saw that you draftified it due to the creator's COI. Before I do anything to the draft submission, I want to check with you first to make sure it is alright to pass first. The picture might need to go and further edits to ensure neutrality in tone might be needed, but in my opinion, I think it can go back to the mainspace. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryTheorist, the COI concern was reason for it to be sent to AfC, but now that you're reviewing it there it's fine for you to accept the submission. Taking into account my conversation with the initial editor a few months ago, I think it's clear that while there is a personal connection to the subject, it's not UPE (even if their acknowledgment of this isn't quite by-the-book), so if it meets notability guidelines and other relevant policy then it's ok to publish. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I don't know what to do about the picture though. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine--he's claimed it as own work, and all indications suggest that's true. Photos provided by someone close to the subject aren't in themselves a problem--they're usually just an obvious giveaway that someone has a COI. But it's been disclosed, so that's water under the bridge. If there were something egregiously non-neutral about the photo it would be a different story, but that's not a problem here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 21:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not undelte that article because i am a sock my reason for undeleteting the artcile is the blatant agenda of the editors who delted it 6 years ago if you check the WP longevity page youll see there was a mass deletion if artfiles such as this one with the basis being "being old isnt notable" which is a inherently subjective article i would also like to point out that the first afd result was overturned as there was a clear majority to keep the article so what happens? The exact same group of editors wait a couple months then rush it into afd again while most people have left the area i dont think this is sufficient critea to keep an article deleted and such an argument as "being old isnt notable" isnt generally accepcted anymore hence i have undeleted an article because the reason for delelting it in the first llace was extremely flimsy and doene witn pseudo shady tactics Wwew345t (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you can also see that i havent undeleted EVERY article like that Wwew345t (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how you became familiar with the positions of editors from 6 years ago prior to making your first edit on this website? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well I may not have been an editor for very long but I have been a reader for much longer I used to edit all the time on "the gerntolgy wiki" before the grg staged a hostile takeover of the site and eliminated any reference to lq or any other longevity organization so I migrated here and while my main focus is longeivey article (which lead me to researching how hundreds of articles somehow all got deleted in a 2 month span) I do try to edit other pages basically what I'm trying to say is I'm trying to reform that article topic as many pages that were arguably better written articles then other were deleted for seeming trivial and subjective reasons Wwew345t (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this mwssage seems hostile admittly i an not rhe best with words im just tryitng to explain my reasoning for undeleting this page Wwew345t (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mk. I still get the overall impression that you're an old hand coming back with long-held grudges regarding disputes on this site, but I personally am not invested in the Chiyo Miyako article and don't intend to dispute further. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Blasters (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

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

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

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]

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]

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]

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]

	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]

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.

• 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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]