User talk:Rosguill/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41

MCU Pages

Hello, I'm writing because we've got a really awkward situation with a lot of MCU pages, particularly as some members of the taskforce will refuse any edits made, even those not under current discussion unless consensus is reached. Now, if you look at the talkpage on some of these articles, you'll realize there is a lot there. We have been completely unable to proceed with some matters, even those with consensus, and while I do intend to open an RFC for that, I've found myself struggling to make any edit at all because some members of the taskforce are exhibiting acts of Ownership. This in particular is an example, as my edit (which was not really related to a matter of discussion on the talk page) was reverted and I was sent a message on my talkpage informing me I can't make any edit (and accusing me of edit-warring) until the conversation is done. Could you take a closer look at the situation and let me know what you think? The relevant pages are as follows (including their talk pages!):


1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helstrom_(TV_series) NOTE: There is no current dispute on this page, however the talk page provides a lot of context for what we are dealing with now.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_into_Fear_(franchise)

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel%27s_Netflix_television_series

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_television_series

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe

Thank you, ChimaFan12 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

While you may have a point about underlying ownership issues, the presence of recent edit warring from you is enough to muddy the case and I would not expect pressing the issue to be worth your time. I think the best path forward is to try to move towards the RfC; if you run into cases of potential OWN violations in the future, I would recommend that you disengage and consider reporting it to ANI only if repeated on multiple further occasions, as that is likely the level of evidence needed to persuasively make your case. signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you and I understand. I will take this approach. I sometimes struggle when it comes to edit warring on these particular pages because, and this is what's happened with my most recent edits, either we have reached consensus, or people perform ownership such as the edit I showed you earlier where a good-faith edit was blocked, with it being falsely stated that the phrasing was being discussed on the talk page. As you can surmise from the conversation itself, it wasn't. Would you say that the other people who are blocking edits under OWN are also edit warring, or am I uniquely accountable for that? ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
It takes two to edit war, typically, and the degree of fault is murky due to all the background that you've identified. Ultimately it seems like everyone involved is here in good faith, and that the amount of work it would take for uninvolved editors to get to the bottom of this is far greater than the severity of any of the crimes, so to speak, which is why I'm against bringing this to ANI and declining to investigate thoroughly myself. signed, Rosguill talk 04:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Danielle Vasinova

I feel this AFD should have at minimum closed as No Consensus. We had 4 deletes and 4 keeps. One Delete was very suspicious from an IP. The subject has many citations, some are in depth and also even if not she meets WP:BASIC which states that if not enough in depth articles, they can be combined to meet notability. In addition, the subject was on cover 3-4 magazines with coverage within the magazines as well. What would be the process to have another admin look at this? Naomijeans (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Naomijeans, you can take it to WP:DRV, although I think the argument you make here is overly focused on vote-counting rather than the strength of arguments and their basis in existing policy and guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 03:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I was not aware of that process. I will post a message there. I am aware that the decision is not just based on vote counting, but still feel the subject met notability. Naomijeans (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Danielle Vasinova

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Danielle Vasinova. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naomijeans (talk • contribs) 03:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

NPPSCHOOL inquiry

Hi Rosguill, I'm aware that you have had to decline several editors who have recently asked about participating in NPP school. I just wanted to express my interest as well so that if and when you have availability, I might be considered. (I see that a few new trainers have been newly added, but I think I would prefer the long-form curriculum that some of them don't use, so asking here first.) Thanks, —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 03:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi PlanetJuice, unfortunately I don't foresee being able to take on any students this year at this point. signed, Rosguill talk 05:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. No worries. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Please have a look at this anon user

Special:Contributions/38.124.33.141 - he (or she) slowly goes through (mostly) Afro-related articles and removes information he (or she) doesn't seem to like. He caught my attention yesterday, when I was investigating who removed information from Electro (music) infobox. Turned out it was him: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electro_(music)&diff=prev&oldid=1159538050 (without explanation and contrary to what article says itself). So I decided to keep an eye on him, as many of his recent edits are unexplained removal of text and images, and were reverted, but, surprisingly, he seems to fly under radar perfectly well. Today I saw that he again removed some text from yet another article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afro-Venezuelans&diff=prev&oldid=1168456354, and again hasn't explained anything. 178.121.7.236 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

At this point I think that your warnings are an adequate intervention. If the problematic editing continues without engaging the criticism then there will be a clear-cut case for a communication is required block. signed, Rosguill talk 02:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Purdue University Global 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 21:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program 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 07:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for admin action

Per Extraordinary Writ's talk page header announcing a few weeks off-project, I randomly selected you as an active admin who might be able to take action on editing restriction violations. EW was the notifying admin on the restriction, so I posted the matter to ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Achar Sva editing restriction violation but did not receive any admin action in a day and some change. I previously tried two other active admins, but received no prompt response. If you are not able to or do not wish to respond to this discussion, please let me know and I'll pick another name out of the admin hat. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at this in the next 24 hours. signed, Rosguill talk 05:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Excellent. No hurry; I only wanted to ensure someone saw it while the actions involved were still vaguely relevant. I will be generally available again in 8ish hours. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Having looked at it quickly, these seem like pretty clear-cut violations of the topic ban. My guess is that admins may have avoided the ANI thread in order to give Achar Sva time to respond; in the absence of other Wikipedia editing since the thread was opened, I'd consider giving nearly a week of grace period before taking action in absentia. signed, Rosguill talk 05:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your discretion. Achar Sva has made many good-faith edits that don't violate the restriction, so the grace period is appreciated. I'll ping you if nothing is said in the next five and a half days. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey! The ANI for this topic has been archived with no actions taken. Should I add another notice to Achar Sva's talk page to give them another notice that they need to comment in the next few days to avoid sanction? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at their edit history, almost all of their work has been on weekends, so I'm inclined to wait until Monday. I don't think a further notification would be useful or necessary. signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that sounds great; I again appreciate the discretionary hold on sanctions. I'm helping a family member move so I may be on-project only briefly through the next three to four days, so I apologize if I don't immediately respond should I be asked to comment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Sadly, no response (nor edits) from AS since 27 July. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Redirect Wrong person

I intend to reach out to Wikipedia to clarify the usage of my artist name "ADOM." It appears to be linked in a manner that suggests an affiliation with "BOSTON" or Anton Cosmo, which is inaccurate.False information. If this matter is not promptly addressed, we may need to initiate an internal inquiry. This situation is directly impacting my visibility on Google search results and my current career. ACmuisc (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

ACmuisc You are allowed to request a review of the redirect outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adom (artist) at WP:DRV, although you are unlikely to get much headway there as the discussion is very one-sided. You can also request that the redirect be deleted entirely by nominating it for WP:RFD. I've left a conflict of interest notice on your talk page, which you should review carefully before making further edits or inquiries related to yourself. Further, generally speaking, hostile legalese like If this matter is not promptly addressed, we may need to initiate an internal inquiry, especially when coming from an editor with a clear COI, will result in most of the Wikipedia community slamming the metaphorical door in your face, so I'd recommend striking a more appropriate tone when making further inquiries. signed, Rosguill talk 14:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer tool bar

Greetings,

I have recently been granted the role of a New Page Reviewer. However, after a few days, the page curation toolbar, which I have been utilizing to review articles, suddenly disappeared. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to reinstate the toolbar. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated, as the absence of this toolbar hinders my ability to effectively review pages.

Thank you for your attention to this concern.

Sincerely, ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

TheChunky, Wikipedia tool bugs aren't really my wheelhouse, unfortunately. On the permissions end you still have the +npr flag and it's set to not expire. If you can reproduce the bug in another browser as well (which would suggest it's a problem with Wikipedia rather than your browser/computer), I'd post about it at WT:NPR so that editors more involved with the software end of things can help out. signed, Rosguill talk 13:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok will check on another browser and let you know. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 15:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Not Sure

Hi, I have seen a newbie admin Ingenuity granted NPP rights to Oaktree b with such a poor Afd match rate of 69%, I am not sure that this decision was appropriate. You can check the AFD log of the concerned user for poor match rate, where many of his/ her nominated article got kept. Need your attention here. Okoslavia (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Okoslavia, how are you arriving at the 69% match rate figure? Looking at the first three pages of their AfD stats report, I see 80.3%, 82.1%, and 83.6%. signed, Rosguill talk 01:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
It is 68.6 https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Oaktree+b&max=&startdate=&altname=&nomsonly=true Okoslavia (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
That's a nomination match rate, not a participation match rate, and is always going to be lower. This is the page I was looking at. Typically the cutoff for AfD participation match rates is low 70s. You're also looking at the number without discounting no consensus results, instead of excluding them (a more meaningful number), which results in 71.2% for your search. At any rate, the bigger issue is always going to be: are their arguments reasonable? Do they engage with evidence? Rather than their straw poll statistic. signed, Rosguill talk 01:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
It's also really weird to accuse Ingenuity of being a rookie admin when they've been an admin for nearly as long as you've been editing... signed, Rosguill talk 01:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@Okoslavia: You said your peace on the perm application, which was unnecessary, and you should leave it at that. There's no need to try to get the permission removed when it won't affect you. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh It is matter of the community trust. NPP is not a joke. We need admin like competency for it as far as I have learnt in this few days. I am really concerned about the match rate of his/her nomination. In many cases he/she clearly do not understand what notability is. Okoslavia (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Rosguill requesting you to relook on some of their afd nominations where there was clear keep, which is making me unsure that they don't understand what notability is. I will really respect your opinion and if everything is fine I am happy to drop the stick. Okoslavia (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Looking at several most recent AfDs started by Oaktree b that ended in keep, I mostly saw cases where more sources were found in the course of discussion, or where they presented plausible arguments against the reliability of borderline sources. To make a persuasive case for your point, I'd want to see either an AfD where they reiterated a delete !vote after sources that clearly established notability were presented, argued a clearly incorrect interpretation of policy, or a much lower overall AfD match rate. My guess is that there's more valuable uses for your time editing something. signed, Rosguill talk 02:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@Okoslavia: Provide a clear example instead of being vague. Your only example thus far has been to point to their percentage of nominations that matched the outcome. What is it that you think Ingenuity missed when doing their assessment? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello. I wanted to upload image of Nureddin Akhriev from this article under fair use, similarly how this file was uploaded. But I don't know how to do this, could you please help me out? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123 so, this isn't really my area of expertise, but I can share my understanding of the situation. N.b. File:Rashid-bek Chakhovich Akhriev.jpg is actually not uploaded with the correct permissions: as written, it claims a case of valid non-free use for identification purposes in his biography. However, as an image of a deceased individual created more than 70 years ago, it should now be fully in the public domain (in both the US and elsewhere).
Now, for Nureddin Akhriev, he died less than 70 years ago, so the image is not in the public domain in the US yet (although it is public domain under Russian and former Soviet law, which specifies death of creator + 25 years). Note as well that it's actually the death of the photographer that we are supposed to be following, not the death of the subject, but regardless the image appears to be less than 70 years old. Consequently, for this one you should be able to claim valid non-free fair use. You can proceed to Wikipedia:File upload wizard, select "Upload a non-free file", and select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." From there on out, it should be fairly straightforward. signed, Rosguill talk 15:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for helping! WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Zepotha

Is it worth posting on one of the boards (I'm not sure which) that this hoax is currently doing the rounds on tictok. It's up for deletion but has been created a couple to times today. As you can see on the history, there are a few newly registered editors involved. Knitsey (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted and salted that page, but I'm not sure I follow the full extent of the pages involved. I take it this is a poor imitation of Goncharov (1973)? signed, Rosguill talk 22:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
It's been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zepotha3 which I think is all the centralized attention it needs. If you see any new copies pop up, tag for deletion as hoaxes WP:G3. signed, Rosguill talk 22:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
That's great, and yes it's been mentioned in connection to Goncharov (1973). Thanks for your quick action. Knitsey (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
yeah. there should be a page for it that says that it's a hoax like goncharov -jakeyounglol (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I think Rosguill is right, maybe not giving it the attention hoaxers want means people will eventually move on and forget about it. I've been reporting via CSD when I see it. Knitsey (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
If it becomes notable by getting coverage in independent, reliable sources it'll get an article. Until then, it's just a hoax. signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Clarion Fracture Zone 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 17:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Terrorism 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 07:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Review of EMY Africa Awards Page

Currently, the article with name EMY Awards Africa has been soft deleted and after reviewing, the reasons given are lack of significant coverage to establish its notability. Due to the information gathered during my research both internal and external, I went ahead to create subpages as seen for several notable awards scheme and still working on the page even though a deletion discussion is ongoing. I would like to have access to the article to furnish the page with the requisite sources and evidence that establishes his notability. Siagoddess (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that this actually wasn't a soft deletion and the verifiability, neutrality, and promotionalism issues for most of the text in the deleted article, I'm going to meet you halfway and bring back the sources from the article here. You should be aware that this set of sources was not enough to sway people at this past AfD, so a case for notability purely based on these sources is unlikely to be well-received; I would encourage you to review WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, and critically examine the extent to which these sources are reliable and independent of EMY Awards. Other editors will expect coverage that discusses the history and significance of the awards in a sober manner, that provides more analysis and detail than a simple list of winners but which also steers clear of empty, ebullient praise like [EMY] is dedicated to honouring remarkable African men and personalities for their exceptional accomplishments, substantial contributions, and inspirational endeavours that foster positive change across the continent and beyond. Other editors will also be highly suspicious of pieces that are published without bylines, or with collective bylines like "Pulse Mix", "Staff", etc. as these are typically signs of a syndicated press release, rather than independent coverage.
[1][2][3]
[4][5][6][7][8][9]
signed, Rosguill talk 12:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Full list of 2020 EMY Africa Awards winners". The Ghana Report. 2020-07-05. Retrieved 2020-10-03.
  2. ^ "Red carpet looks from Emy Africa Awards 2020". MyJoyOnline.com. 2020-07-08. Retrieved 2020-10-03.
  3. ^ "Emy Africa 2020: Full list of winners – Glitz Africa Magazine". Retrieved 2021-01-28.
  4. ^ "EMY Africa Awards soiree, an enchanting evening celebrating excellence, inspiring greatness". Pulse Nigeria. 2023-08-15. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  5. ^ "Everything You Need to Know About EMY Africa Awards' Soiree in Lagos". BN Style. 2023-08-15. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  6. ^ Eze, Chinelo (2023-08-14). "Richard Mofe Damijo Honoured By Caveman At EMY Soiree". The Guardian Nigeria News - Nigeria and World News. Retrieved 2023-08-15.
  7. ^ "Award Categories | EMY Africa". 2020-08-28. Retrieved 2023-07-13.
  8. ^ Donkoh, Ebenezer (2021-10-18). "Ghana Event Awards 2021: List Of All The Winners". NY DJ Live. Retrieved 2023-08-11.
  9. ^ crackerslab (2023-02-03). "Eventguide Africa Announces 2022 Top 50 Events In Ghana". Chilling In Ghana. Retrieved 2023-08-11.

I finally finished the section on my NPP school page

Hey! I know it's been almost a year since I started and you're no longer taking new students. I'm sorry for taking so long, and I understand if you don't want to finish. Happy editing! Asparagusus (interaction) 13:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I forgot a section and need a bit to finish, sorry! Asparagusus (interaction) 19:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I have now finished, really sorry about that! Asparagusus (interaction) 20:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User

Hello. Can you take a look at this? A non-extended confirmed user keeps making edits to Armenia-Azerbaijan topics after being notified of the extended-confirmed requirement by two different people. It looks like he is currently making random edits to reach 500 edits. NMW03 (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This user is now asking other editors in the topic if they have Discord to message. Google translation of what he said: "Do you have Discord or something like that, can I run with you? I have many hearts to give you" NMW03 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely, as not only is there the apparent gaming behavior that you pointed out, it's almost all to pages still covered by GS/AA so it's ALSO a violation of that. I'd be open to them being unblocked on the condition of a topic ban, but given that they clearly don't understand how topic bans work I think that this step should come only after they've explained themselves. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! NMW03 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello again. This and this user are creating articles and making edits about Armenia after being warned ([1]) about extended-confirmed restriction. NMW03 (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Neither of these two editors had been given a {{alert/first}} warning, so I'm not jumping to a block just yet. I've placed CTOPs warnings for both editors; in the case of Samvel Khuspov, it's a final warning regarding GS/AA compliance before blocks. For LewonK, I don't see any GS/AA violations (or edits at all) since your warning, and their focus seems a bit broader topically, so they have a bit more rope left. signed, Rosguill talk 13:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
LewonK has made 17 edits since my warning, all to the Tigranes Invasion of Sophene (94 BC) (article about Armenian history) and Fight for Karabakh (1918-1919) (article about an Armenian-Azerbaijani battle) articles. How are they not violations? Also, it's weird that three new users all made edits to this new article that only has one article linking to it. I'm suspecting sock or meatpuppetry going on here. View on Interaction Timeline. NMW03 (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah, you're right about that. I think I may have pulled up the wrong contribs page by accident. And they've now continued past my warning. I'm tied up in a meeting at the moment but once I'm free I'll address this again, and it's looking like it's time for a short block. signed, Rosguill talk 13:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Samvel continues editing Azerbaijan/Armenia-related articles even after receiving a warning. Also, one of the three new users who edited the newly created article Tigranes Invasion of Sophene (94 BC) by Samvel, (Georgian person) blanked the article in the same way as Samvel did. I think this provides sufficient evidence of potential meatpuppetry. NMW03 (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Yikes, Special:Diff/1170080542 by Samvel is obviously inappropriate battleground behavior, on top of all of the more mundane rule-breaking. signed, Rosguill talk 15:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Another one. This user has made 3 edits to this topic after my warning. For example: [2] NMW03 (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 week. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Another and another NMW03 (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The former's violation is less egregious so I left a second warning there. signed, Rosguill talk 22:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
[3] NMW03 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. LewonK on YT is active again on Armenia-Azerbaijan topic after warnings and week-long block from you. NMW03 (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Serious issues

Hello Rosguill,

User NMW03 removed the neutral WP:POV of several articles by removing scare quotes and other expressions of doubt,[4][5][6] when the cited sources themselves use quotes and expressions of doubt.[7][8] Even after the due weight was explained to NMW03, they began edit warring to continuing pushing this false weight[9][10] and never replied to the talk page discussion about removing sourced quotes. Not only has NMW03 previously removed scare quotes to push an undue pro-Azerbaijan narrative, they are now hypocritically adding scare quotes to push an undue pro-Azerbaijan narrative. The existence of a humanitarian crisis is well sourced, yet NMW03 removed most of this part and reduced it to: what has been described as a "humanitarian crisis", and completely removed that "imports of essential goods have been blocked". NMW03 also added original research by writing "Azerbaijan relaxed the blockade" for a source that only mentioned "signs of possible easing; the blockade is still very much ongoing but a reader would be left with the impression this isn't the case.

Isn't this type of explicit soapboxing and battleground mentality what stricter AA3 sanctions were allowed for? - Kevo327 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill, please note that almost all of these points were already discussed in a recent AE report where Kevo327 brought them up. Two admins agreed that there was nothing sanctionable and closed the report with no action taken. Actually, he was warned for very similar behavior less than a week ago as a result of another report. @Callanecc: you may want to take a look. And for the record, the quotes around humanitarian crisis were not scare quotes, but actual quotes that were grammatically required because before it, I say "has been described as". NMW03 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The diffs of you removing the scare quotes are before the AE report, after which you proceeded to hypocritically add scare quotes when no recent sources used them. And the article previously had no expressions of doubt for the humanitarian crisis, being called such by multiple sources. You adding expressions of doubt like “has been described as” was POV pushing. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but as can probably be guessed by my recent editing history, I do not have the time to even begin to address the above. Please direct concerns to AE. I might end up addressing it there, but I can't focus on editing with this unresolved on my talk page and I do not wish to give it such high priority at this time. I expect my workload to be back to normal in two months or so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @Kevo327: if you have concerns about NMW03's editing you need to create an AE request. That AE request needs to have very recent examples, not repeat what has already been raised at AE and dismissed, and be clearly explained with reference to the policies (etc) being breached. Posting in other places (obviously with exemptions) about editor conduct within this contentious topic is not helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
    Hello @Callanecc. Thank you for the suggestion. NMW03 himself reports many users in this same page User_talk:Rosguill#User so I assumed it was alright to report a recent problematic diff of NMW, from after the previous AE discussion. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Rita Payés

Hello Rosguill, I noticed that you are included in Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers with language specialties, so I thought it might be okay to ask you to have a look at the German and Spanish sources in Draft:Rita Payés (d:Q72264919). I'd be inclined to clean-up a few odds and sods myself and accept the draft (it seems that a lot has been improved since it was declined back in April), but my understanding of German and Spanish (or Catalan, for that matter) is not good enough to verify the refs. [NB: The stated reason for initially declining the article was lack of notability, but that seems not to be the case as both Payés and her mother Elisabeth Roma (d:Q113500408) appear to be quite famous in music circles (see this and this). Apologies if my request is outside of the intent of the "Reviewers with language specialties" list. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Cl3phact0, I think the article is ready to promote: about a third of the sources lack clear bylines and/or seem to be routine announcements of concerts rather than SIGCOV, but the rest of the coverage (especially in Spanish and Catalan) has more heft and gets us to GNG I think. signed, Rosguill talk 15:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Great! Thank you for having a look. I might try to pare back some of the most egregious non-SIGCOV overcite and then take care of the AFC review later today or tomorrow. (I was initially served the draft by the "random AFC" algorithm, but was knocked-out by the music – I must say.) I'll probably do a quick stub on the mother too at some point, if somebody doesn't get there first.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 Done (Thanks again for your help!) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Notability tag

I saw you tagged TBS (Latin American TV channel) after reviewing it. Could you review TNT Novelas? It’s even less notable as it only has a few months from its first air date and was created upon the TBS article since it was its replacement after that version of TBS was terminated. MexTDT (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If you're arguing that the topic isn't notable, you should consider nominating it for WP:AFD yourself. If appropriate, you could alternatively blank-and-redirect it somewhere relevant, although it seems like the old target is only spuriously related so this may not be viable. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Your recent Prod

Hello, Just letting you know I deproDed Senti Aur Mental, which you have proDed. The film is unreleased but production has received some coverage. I'm suggesting a redirect to the page about the director. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I had considered a redirect but don't think it is appropriate as there is no information at Yasra Rizvi about it, and a redirect had already been contested by another editor. signed, Rosguill talk 14:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Johnny Depp fan is back

I'm about to block the new sock. They've once again re-created the awful fan page as: Draft:Cultural influence of Johnny Depp. The other one, Cultural impact of Johnny Depp was deleted, recreated, then turned into a redirect. This pattern of socks recreating deleted articles as drafts seems to be a bit of a problem lately. Not everyone seems to agree on how to handle it. Thoughts? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that these should be G5-able as block evasion. What were your thoughts? signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
That was my conclusion after looking it over. Deleted. The only edits by named accounts were minor - typos pretty much. There are several IPs that need proxy checks. Two main locations. I blocked the one I'm sure is the same as one sock. The other two I'm still looking at. They are static and at least one is on the blacklist. Thoughts on the IPs? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
This IP did some really Quacky and substantial edits, like this huge text dump.[11] - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the IPs that edited the draft page linked here, despite the difference in IP numbers, they almost all geolocate to the Cayman Islands (with one US IP)--that seems highly unlikely to be a coincidence. None of the IPs seem particularly active, although there is history from ~4 years ago that seems to be unrelated to Johnny Depp. signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Bushra al-Tawil for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bushra al-Tawil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushra al-Tawil (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dazzling4 (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Al-Shifa Hospital 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 20:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

all set now

article protection

Hello Rosguill. Could you protect the newly created 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes article per WP:GS/AA? There have been some non EC user edits and IP vandalism already, the article is under GS/AA scope. Thanks. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done signed, Rosguill talk 16:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Earlier today I notified a user [12] of GS/AA. They just violated it [13].
And I tried to open a Move discussion since users commented agreeing with me in here, but it was collapsed [14], [15] by another user since there can't be two Moves at the same time apparently. I tried to verify this but couldn't find in the policy, is this true and what can I do now? The current Move doesn't take into account any policy - sources don't report as such either, yet the Move I've opened was the one being collapsed which is supported by majority RS. - Kevo327 (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
That squares with typical practice even if it's not a chapter-and-verse rule. Sometimes when people start a bad RM proposal, a more appropriate alternate suggestion can be made "from the floor" as it were and the question can be resolved that way. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I believe this also needs protection per GS/AA, could you add the protection? - Kevo327 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please remove the personal attack comments from the article talk page? I gave a standard notice to a gs/aa user, after which they have started personally attacking in their page [16] and on article talk [17] - what's the purpose of that discussion on an article talk page where content is ought to be discussed, and why a EC user keeps suggesting ANI report me, twice, to a non-EC user who can't even edit this topic area and started off by making personal attacks? How all of this is appropriate let alone for an article talk page where we discuss content? - Kevo327 (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

This isn't about GS/AA, but I hoped you could take a look: A user added "both sides" ceasefire violation supposedly by Artsakh [18]. Not only they're inserting the text in a sentence cited completely different time period, they're violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in process as their cited source quotes the Russian peacekeepers which actually don't blame any side for violation, just that it happened - unlike the sources in lead which blame Azerbaijan. I looked up the official Ru Defense ministry peacekeepers reports, and they said the same without blaming side for violation, so I expanded the article accordingly and removed the synth OR [19]. They proceed to not only edit war without addressing any synth OR concerns, but also remove the images in the article for no reason whatsoever (the images are sourced by Russian peacekeepers stationed as both sides' agreed 3 years ago) [20], [21], [22]. They're now adding an "unbalanced" tag to the images [23] and article [24] – what else the images are supposed to be if they're sourced by third party (Russian peacekeepers that both sides agreed to be in Artsakh) and that Artsakh didn't start the attacks, it's barely defending itself and already agreed to talks just to have a ceasefire. The user has gone beyond POV editing, an admin should take a look if possible. Could you take a look? This user should be at least p-blocked from the article, they don't have enough competence to edit it and are extremely POV. They also have several warnings in their talk already.

They're also assuming the ethnicity of a user [25] - I looked up at the page of user Vanezi Astghik, nowhere it says they're Armenian. Ecrusized is clearly a battleground POV editor. - Kevo327 (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Kevo327, I can't commit to giving this a thorough investigation today, but the main points you've identified here are concerning. My sense is that you can challenge the POV edits you disagree with on the article's talk page, and that if the matter can't be resolved there an AE case is likely appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 16:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
ok. I'll comment on talk, but you might want to look at this [26] when possible to you - how am I suppose to engage with a battleground user like this? It's their second comment and they're already making personal attacks, after assuming the ethnic background of a user earlier. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
In the context of the article talk page, ignore the barbs and make succinct arguments regarding the content. signed, Rosguill talk 16:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I just don't think the user should be given so much leeway given their conduct on the article and its talk, I think an admin intervention is necessary. apologies for bothering, hope you can take a look when you have time. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
If you think it already rises to that level, feel free to go to AE or ANI. Based on the diffs here alone, I would want to investigate the editors' history more thoroughly before intervening, and I don't think I can promise that I'll have time to do that this week. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:G4 and WP:AFD

Hi,

I noticed you recently relisted] an AFD discussion that was previously deleted as part of a past AFD discussion. As this particular AFD (and there's another similar one I recently identified) are currently at AFD, would they still qualify for the Speedy Deletion tag?

Regards. Coastie43 (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you link the prior AfD here? signed, Rosguill talk 03:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Sure, it was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian Air destinations as part of a multi-article nomination. Coastie43 (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Given that that discussion was a multi-AFD with several pages and that an AfD is already open, I think letting the current discussion run to its conclusion is the most efficient way to move forward here. signed, Rosguill talk 13:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Palestinian political violence 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 11:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign 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 06:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:United States presidential eligibility legislation 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 21:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_38&oldid=1187240604"