User talk:Rosguill

Adoption

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)

@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)

Ok. Made a start and nominated Francis Glennie for deletion. Was that the right move? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Protecting WP:ARBPIA Articles

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Unban appeal

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Stalking my edits Moribundum (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

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)

NPR Trial

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)

That seems reasonable, will do. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

User:ArbComUser

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)

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)

User:Drmapspetrova

Hello Rossguill, hope you are well, on January 18th, you``ve blocked this account for edit warring [[1]]. As soon as their block expired they just continued with their edit warring this time on Battle of Košare page [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], even after they were warned on their tp [[5]] also presenting false information that are not supported by sources. There was a discussion on tp [[6]] 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)

WP:ANEW

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)

ANI-Ponnar Shankar

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)

Block settings change

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)

 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)

Elmarzh7

@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)

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)

@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)

I've indefinitely p-blocked Elmarzh7 from the page and added it to my watchlist. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Goddard2000 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Closure

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)

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)

Certainly, I went through the closure [7]. 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)

Topic ban appeal

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)

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)

Big Thumpus

Hi Rosguill! Not to be pedantic, but I do think it's an important distinction: Regarding [8], 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)

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)

Conduct question

Hello Rosguill.

Is this not a breach of the extended confirmed WP:GS/AA condition [9]? 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 [10] (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)

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)

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)

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 [11] [12] on talk that contravene the first condition of the sanction. Additionally, he made two edits to the lead section of the North Caucasus, [13] and [14], 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)

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)

Are these not [15], [16]?

I also find it interesting that Erudite asked questions about policies/guidelines in this discussion like a newcomer might, yet when commenting on my talk page earlier, they appeared quite confident in their knowledge [17]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I included the Armenian Apostolic Church alongside the Eastern Orthodox Church since the original text did not mention followers of the Oriental Orthodox tradition. However, given that the context pertains to pre-schism and post-schism times, I opted to refer to Christianity as a whole rather than specifying particular denominations to avoid any inaccuracies or overload of the infobox.

To me it seems like, you are trying to Game the system at the expense of my rights, i am not sure for what reason. Erudite Veteran (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from harassment. I've noticed that you have specifically targeted me, frequently monitoring my contributions and repeatedly notifying admins in an apparent attempt to get me banned. Despite my multiple attempts to de-escalate the situation. Erudite Veteran (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

KhndzorUtogh, I don't think this evidence demonstrates ulterior motives beyond reasonable doubt. And as I've told others in the past, I'm disinclined to act on reports to my talk page unless they are clear cut, obvious violations of something. Anything that has gray area or room for doubt should be brought to ANI/AE so that it can be more fairly assessed. That having been said, I hope you'll refrain from bringing further case against Erudite Veteran unless you have evidence of actual disruptive editing that affects others' ability to work on an article or otherwise demonstrates bad faith. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Appeal

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".[18] 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[19]
• The Mehendale source is unreliable, as already stated by multiple other editors.[20][21]
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Big Thumpus

Are these comments also violations? [22]. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

AE

Hello, Rosguill,

Thank you for your very thorough work at AE when you choose a case to comment on, examining all of the diffs and evaluating them takes time and is invaluable for other admins who might not know the subject area as well as you. Your work is appreciated and I thought I'd let you know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what to put just read bellow

Hey i remember you had warned me once for using bad language against another editor so another editor Katify had used bad language against me he said "Shut the Fuck up you Autistic Retard change it again i will hunt you down" in his talk page he said that cause in a page the persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union he was putting a unsourced number of deaths of 20m-40m and i kept removing those fake numbers cause they were unsourced do you think you could be able to do something about the bad language? Sigma.212 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty clearly beyond the pale. Blocked 72 hours, and any further personal attacks will result in more severe sanctions. Separately, both of you have gone waaaay past WP:3RR at Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. Please refrain from making further reverts on that page, and take any further disputes to the talk page to resolve if/when Katify comes back. If they ignore your talk page comments and continue reinstating their edits, file a report at WP:ANEW. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

user talk:Katify

not sure if you're still active for the night, but user talk:Katify could use some more attention if you have the time - they're still going. thanks! ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Mrow?

Bored kittycat has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}.

Thanks for clearing that up, still need to get the hang of things here (no reference to a kitten hanging on a tree branch intended). Bored kittycat (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

No problem. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Content provided is not properly deflated

Hi Rosguill,

I just responded to you but it seems I can't even edit pages that exist anymore. I was wondering if this was tied to your last request? I would appreicate help getting back on track as I'm not sure what to do when it says : "Content provided is not properly deflated" - also I'm they/them too! Hope you can lead me in the right direction thank you!!

Thank you!

DLA DustyLosAngeles (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

DustyLosAngeles, I haven't imposed any blocks or other restrictions on your account, and there's nothing in your block log. I've never heard of an error message like "Content provided is not properly deflated" on Wikipedia; honestly it sounds like it might be a problem with your browser or a plugin, as opposed to your Wikipedia account. Which were the pages you were trying to edit? You may be able to get help faster at the teahouse _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Roguill,

Thank you so much for your help. I'm still figuring it out but I appreicate the Teahouse link. Hope you are having a goody.

Thank you

DLA DustyLosAngeles (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Byzantine Greeks

Hi Rosguill. There is an ongoing, rather messy dispute (or set of disputes) on Talk:Byzantine Greeks. I am not interested in the dispute itself. I noticed that 2 Greece-focused editors, who had been inactive on enwiki for many months, suddenly returned yesterday (March 22) to comment there. The fact that they had been inactive for a relatively long time, both returned the same day, have not edited since returning any other article, and both are defending basically the same POV, suggests that an admin might need to keep an eye on that talk page in general. I don't want to assume bad faith on anyone, but, if you are interested, it could be a good idea. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Ktrimi991, that looks like a lot more discussion than I can easily jump into, but I've watchlisted the page and will try to keep an eye on it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Indeed, the discussion there has become long and messy, and apparently spread into several threads. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Adopt me and pet me behind the ears

Dear them Rosguill,

I am kindly asking you to adopt me as your patrolee.

I only recently started editing Wikipedia, and I want my edits to be of higher quality. I edit whatever I stumble upon, but I would like to do more regional things, for I can directly check and see if something is there, or is not there. My interests otherwise are political disasters, companies/corporations, flora and fauna, arts and history.

I obviously can't math, many 0s confuse me and I checked this with chatGPT: Math is no fun.

I very much like your To-Do list, especially that there are no small things to do. All things to do are at least medium. Since you speak German and English, I think you would be my perfect adopter.

Sänk you.

±±±± Qdajet22 (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Qdajet22, unfortunately I don't think I have the time to provide mentorship at the moment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Well maybe, if you were to buy a faster car, for example a very fast Italian car like the Lamborghini Revuelto, you can go places faster, then have more time for me.? Qdajet22 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

You ain't got a fast car, I want a wiki to anywhere, maybe we can make a deal, maybe together we can get somewhere, Any's place is better, starting from zero, got smthn' to lose Qdajet22 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

AE close

Your logged warnings here are misleading.[23] Where was the consensus to warn me? The last comment I posted was more than 35 days ago, and it only established the long-term misconduct of the reported editor. It was all your sole decision, and it is flawed. Also, why would you warn Akshaypatil for "edit warring" when he was reported (37 days ago) for edit warring, personal attacks and more, and continued edit warring while also restoring copyright violations even until 6 days ago?[24] That alone proves the importance of the report that you are unnecessarily degrading as "frivolous". Given so many problems with your closure, you should undo it. Capitals00 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Valereee, any thoughts? My understanding was that you were in agreement that the warnings I laid out were appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill, I totally agree on Akshay for edit warring and Abhishek for frivolous complaints at AE. Capitals, we had an exchange at that case where I said I didn't see the infobox removal as behavioral, and you asked me to check again, and I did, and as I responded it still looked to me like a content dispute you were arguing at AE was behavioral, which was symptomatic throughout the discussion: the entire thing seemed like throwing as many complaints as possible at the wall to see what would stick, and it made that discussion impenetrable. I might have closed with informal warnings for you and KS, and I wouldn't object to making those unlogged, but I am also not going to object to leaving them logged. Valereee (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I had conclusively proven that removing "fake news" from OpIndia infobox was a behavioral issue, not a content issue because Akshaypatill never brought the discussion on talk page and he made reverts until he reached close to making 3 of them.[25] This was all against the warning he already recieved in during the end of 2021 that repetition of such a behaviour will lead to sanctions.[26]

What we saw in this report was all about the rampant repetition of that behavior. Again, how one can warn someone for edit warring when you were informed that the concerning editor is edit warring even after 30 days of the proposed page blocks?[27][28]

Finally, you agree that you never opted for any warnings against me and Koshuri Sultan, which means that Rosguill is indeed wrong by citing the "consensus" for the warnings. It never existed. Capitals00 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I am not sure whether me commenting here is appropriate, but Capitals00, bringing up 3-4 years old warnings, when I was totally new to the CTOP and trying to get me blocked based on it, wasn't a good idea. Everyone makes mistakes when they start here. It is part of the evolution as an editor. I see you had socked in your initial years with no less than 3 sockpuppet accounts. [29] It was a mistake, and it means nothing now.

I guess, we can't ignore the comment left by @Fowler&fowler, who is a very senior and experienced editor in CTOP area. His observation regarding editors keeping tabs on others, meatpuppetry and how these editor tries to get their perceived opponents banned cannot be ignored, especially when they don't shy away from taking names.

...I'm not saying that Abhishek* or Capital00 are in the wrong, but admins should perhaps consider how often these editors report others at AE or ANI.[30]

Akshaypatill (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are you using {{tpw}} template when you have never edited this talk page before?

You were simply not new when this warning was made against you. You were editing for more than 3 years.[31] Even in the recent times you are violating that warning.

Now by falsely accusing me of meatpuppetry and derailing this thread, you have simply proven that the report was correct about your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and other misconducts. Rosguill should review his decision. Capitals00 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Capitals00, it seems that you don't understand how consensus works at AE. If the admins responding to the case agree, that is a consensus. Valereee's response here confirms that we are in sufficient agreement and that she stands by my decision. While you are entitled to believe whatever you wish about the decision, insisting that there was a procedural error or that your concerns were not adequately considered is not correct. I read through every single diff and argument you provided and found them wanting. The buck stops here.

If you like, you can try to appeal the decision to other admins at AE, but I think there is a good chance that this will be seen as evidence of battleground attitude on your part and could lead to sanctions that actually limit your ability to edit. At this point, my advice to you would be to just focus on actually editing Wikipedia, and less on gamesmanship. If in the future you come across something that you think is behaviorally problematic, maybe run it by an uninvolved experienced editor first to confirm that this is worth the time, effort, and reputational risk of filing a report.

To Akshaypatill, I'd offer similar advice of focusing on editing, and not on needling Capitals00 here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)