User talk:Rosguill/Archive 39

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

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions

Hello Rosguill,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages .

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

-- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"Pay for play" and unreliable sources?

Hello. Where did you infer "The three reviews listed all appear to be from sites that engage in pay-for-play" from? All three of those outlets review plenty of albums, they cannot be being paid to review and each every one of them—Sundara Karma are not some unknown band. Their last album Ulfilas' Alphabet got reviewed fairly widely in the British press and charted in the top 40 of the UK chart. In the absence of solid proof that those outlets "engage in pay for play", it's not unreasonable to expect those three outlets would review a rock band's new release of their own accord. Also, one of the reviews used is from DIY, which is listed at WP:ALBUMS#SOURCES, and two other sources used on the article, Clash and NME, are also listed there, which indicates there has never been any major question of their reliability. Gigwise is also a widely used website which to my knowledge has never been called into question (it also has an editorial team), and Dork, a print magazine with an editorial team, is also reliable. I don't know why you tagged an article with 10 sources as being of questionable notability, especially when none of those sources are unreliable. Ss112 10:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed that article over a year ago, so I do not remember and cannot speak to precisely what my reasoning was at the time. From looking at it now, while I don't remember how I arrived at the conclusion that DIY, Dork and Gigwise are unreliable, the Clash and NME sources don't appear to provide any significant coverage of the album Oblivion!not attributed to the artist, so those are beside the point. signed, Rosguill talk 10:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I disagree—the Clash source used is a feature on the artist prompted by the then-upcoming release of the EP (even if it's not in-depth about the EP per se) and the NME source is an announcement, which hardly ever proivde "significant coverage" in and of themselves. But regardless, without those it still passes WP:NALBUMS. Ss112 11:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
No objection to the tag removal, as I said I don't recall how I arrived at that conclusion and your reasoning here seems sound. signed, Rosguill talk 11:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Jersey Tigers

Rosguill, Do you have any opinions on this article you tagged a while ago? Jersey Tigers. I have reviewed it based on WP:NTEMP but I wanted to ask you since you placed the template a while ago. Lightburst (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

No strong feelings personally, IIRC this was part of a slew of articles created together that all used the same sources despite the individual topics not being mentioned in great depth, but for which it was eventually determined that additional coverage likely exists. signed, Rosguill talk 21:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. Lightburst (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Hello @Rosguill. As a Russian-speaking experienced user, could you please check out this deletion request "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maida of Aukh" and give your insight on the topic? Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added the discussion to my watchlist and I'll try to take a look when I get a chance. signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

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

Administrator changes

added
removed
renamed Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Prometheus (moth)

Debajo de un artículo que acabo de agregar, escribiste "iNaturalist provides links to useful RS, but it itself includes a Wikipedia mirror and should not be used as an article's sol reference". Aunque iNaturalist ofrece un espejo de la presentación wiki, eso no significa que las especies enumeradas allí provienen de wiki, no lo es. Simplemente agregué las especies allí, y luego también wiki y wikispecies, todo desde la fuente. Tienes razón en que fue útil agregar una fuente (de publicación) en la wiki, pero no es que la fuente de iNaturalists por sí sola no sea confiable ya que no existe circularidad. iNaturalist puede tener sus propios aportes de múltiples fuentes externas y, por lo tanto, ser una fuente confiable para que la wiki refleje. Sjl197 (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sí, pero la manera por cual se presenta la información en iNaturalist me parece menos que ideal como referencia en wikipedia, tanto por incluir el espejo como por incluir a otros detallles que vienen crowdsourced como las estadisticas de avistamientos. signed, Rosguill talk 22:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

NPP School current section example 2

WP:NCORP seems to mostly talk about the quality of the sources, but the example does not mention any sources. How should I do this one? —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 23:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

In that case, the answer is that the SNG does not confer notability. signed, Rosguill talk 01:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 13:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Finished NPP school current section

I didn't take more than a month this time haha. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 16:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

GS/AA

Hello. I've noticed you've enforced GS/AA in here [1] and notified the user. I've been trying to enforce in other articles + nominating pages for deletion that were created in violation of WP:GS/AA among other things such as mostly lack of WP:RS. The non-ECP user ignored the notice I left on their user page and reverted me [2]. Could you take a look as an admin who has enforced GS/AA? - Kevo327 (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Kevo327, it's rare that I tell editors that they should have brought something to my attention sooner, but I think this is the case here. New editors engaging in GS/CTOP noncompliance are rarely going to listen to anyone until they are blocked because it's very easy to gloss past the GS/CTOP warnings and interpret other editors' objections as bad faith obstruction. signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I've tried to AfD the articles created in the restricted area by the non-EC user, I even tried to cross some of the articles that could be merged, yet still fall under GS. While it all could've been just blanked I assume. But I don't think the 2 users participating in the AfD so far are aware of the sanctions in AA (even though I mention it in the nomination). Do you think withdrawing the AfD and just blanking instead would be an option now? - Kevo327 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
At this point since it's at AfD I think it's better to let it run. The articles are now in a procedural gray area where there really isn't an obvious path forward. signed, Rosguill talk 21:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Now that the AfD has run its course, would the GS blanking option still be viable? It seems both excessive and unfair to everyone else’s time to create 12 individual AFD nominations, when the user whom the WP:BURDEN is on is currently blocked for violating GS/AA twice. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that a bold WP:BLAR would be appropriate for articles where there's a valid redirect option (it can always be contested by any editor), otherwise AfD is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Wanted to let you know that after their 2nd block, the user violated GS/AA again by creating this AfD [3]. - Kevo327 (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
What in the world were they thinking? I also can't shake the feeling that there's a weird amount of behavioral overlap with AmanAmanAmaTurq, although at a glance they would appear to be on opposite sides of the conflict. signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Another user warned twice actively edits GS/AA articles [4], thought to let you know. - Kevo327 (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
An IP violated GS/AA twice after being warned, could you take a look [5], [6] ? - Kevo327 (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Another user violating the restriction after being warned [7]. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The ban on participation in move discussions is a relatively counterintuitive aspect of GS/AA so I opted for a renewed warning. signed, Rosguill talk 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
A warned IP also violated gs/aa [8]. - Kevo327 (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The user that got renewed warning violated gs/aa afterwards [9]. - Kevo327 (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
IP blocked, I'm inclined to ignore the violation at Musa Dagh given the edit's context (following up on a criticism previously posted on the talkpage, solely removing unsourced content). signed, Rosguill talk 16:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Several other users have violated GS/AA after being informed about it, [10], [11], [12], [13]. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
See User_talk:AntonSamuel#Notifying_editors_regarding_GS/AA, I feel that the initial notices about GS/AA were not clear enough here, and there hasn't been further editing by editors who have since received clarification about the matter (e.g. Eloquent Editor). signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Updating since the above-mentioned users violated GS/AA and some were reported. Another user also violated the restriction after being warned [14]. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Also an IP that was blocked already for GS/AA violation has violated it again [15]. - Kevo327 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
This is about one of the users you've re-warned of GS/AA: they've commented on a gs/aa covered article talk, trying to somehow justify and whitewash the recent renaming of a street in Stepanakert after Enver Pasha, one of the perpetrators of Armenian genocide. This was reported by RS following Azeri takeover of the city. The user doesn't take into account what the cited sources in the article reported [16], [17], user just makes an OR speculative comment that adds no value to the discussion.
After basically being asked by three different users [18], [19], [20] to be more competent in such a topic area and discussion, they left this comment afterwards.
My question is: don't the recent OR, incompetent, and borderline whitewashing comments by this user violate the WP:GS/AA, specifically "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below."
I think the comments by this user are disruptive, OR and extremely incentive bordering on whitewashing, justifying the renaming of a street after a genocide perpetrator - trying to paint it in a different narrative using OR speculative comments, ignoring sources cited in the article. - Kevo327 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you raise valid points. I'm not going to take action at this time because I think their comments there are ultimately inconsequential and the level of disruption is low, and because there are other editors engaging them with charged language themselves. I would have felt a bit differently had I come across this as an AE report, rather than a personal one, you may want to consider filing there, especially if they continue in the same vein. signed, Rosguill talk 22:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Looks like the IP you've blocked has been circumventing their block, making similar to the above forum like comments in Talk:Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. Perhaps a range block is needed. - Kevo327 (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The IP circumvented their block and violated GS/AA again using more dynamic IPs [21], looks like they're hounding me. Is a range block due at this point? I'm not sure which one of these is their range [22], [23].
More violation by other users warned of GS/AA [24], [25]. Could you take a look? - Kevo327 (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Re the IP, I would make a request at ANI--I'm not super experienced with IP math, but looking at the range that has been used thus far, I'm concerned that we'd include a lot of uninvolved IPs if a range block was atteempted. Best for the experts to tatke a look at. signed, Rosguill talk 16:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the correct range was blocked today by Guerlillero [26]. - Kevo327 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

A new user with 8 edits in continuing to WP:BLUDGEON after posting a 15K+ wall of text [27] and replying to virtually everybody who disagrees with them. I've warned the user of GS/AA and explicitly asked to stop this behavior [28], [29], but they still continued to bludgeon [30], [31], [32]. I believe these are disruptive use of talk page under GS/AA. - Kevo327 (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Now using the talk page to make accusations of non-neutrality despite several editors "unrelated to both sided" already disagreeing with them on talk [33]. - Kevo327 (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

My view on this one is basically the same as the last one: posting walls of text on a talk page that are related to edit suggestions is lower than the level of disruption that I am willing to take action on from a report to my talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
And do personal attacks raise the bar? This user keeps bludgeoning the discussion and disagreeing with multiple editors opposing his unfounded comments, ignoring RS and wall of text. Now they resort to asking if someone's a "child" for disagreeing with their pov. This looks to be more than disruptive usage of talk space which is covered by gs/aa, and the user is pretty much an WP:SPA. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that crosses a line (although just barely). signed, Rosguill talk 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This user has been warned of GS/AA, and explicitly about requesting moves. Now they're opening a discussion about "renaming" and other non-EC users commenting in it too, 'agreeing' [34]. I think this is beyond warning stage and the user seems to be gaming gs/aa. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Something weird has been going: after this range was blocked for evasion (presumably of this), a gs/aa account a user left notices to made a similar request on the same editors' talk page [35], saying "I deleted these contents many times", even though their prior contributions don't show any edits in Persecution of Christians. This seems to be another block evasion, self admittedly, now using an account. Could you take a look? And I think the article the article might need protection.
And an IP I left notices to and that was blocked somehow circumvented violating the restriction again [36].
Also other ranges showing likely meatpuppet behavior to the blocked range [37], [38] (this one was blocked by UtherSRG), editing in same article removing same things and even commenting in same discussion on other user pages [39]. I thought this was interesting, looks like a troll farm or something. - Kevo327 (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Looked into these--addressed the renaming discussion, blocked a few accounts/IPs for personal attacks, protected Persecution of Christians since it seems that IPs haven't made much of a positive impact on thee page. I'm not sure I quite see clearcut block evasion by 212.174.24.2, there isn't an article overlap and it's not implausible that a Turkish IP would independently decide to make Constantinople-->Istanbul edits. signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I just thought these were the same person [40], [41], perhaps I'm wrong. - Kevo327 (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
As soon as you've blocked on of the IPs for personal attacks [42], they're circumventing and using personal attacks against another user [43]. Could UtherSRG make a range block if it's warranted now? Personally I think it is, this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. - Kevo327 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I can't find a good range to block on that one at this time. Rosguill has blocked the specific IP. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Rosguill. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

New NBI you might be able to help in

Hi! Seeing as you've been active recently and a part of WP:NPP, would you mind taking a look at the NBI incident I've posted? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Repeated COI OR page creation spam regarding Bradley/Bradlee family tree and descendants. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 15:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like other admins beat me to reviewing this one. signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Clan Watson

I oppose your moving Clan Watson to draft. I do not have a conflict of interest. Please move the article back to main space and explain. I did not create the article, the creator on the other hand did have a conflict of interest. I noticed the article as I edit clan articles. I made many corrections, addressed the issues (such as making the article more neutral). I am an editor since 2009 (user:Czar_Brodie) and recently have been specialising in heraldry, commons:User:Czar Brodie~commonswiki. I noticed the article as I follow clan articles. If you are referring to my summiting the article for review, I did this several times to get more input from other editors. Befor eventualy moving the article myself. Yours ever, Czar Brodie~commonswiki (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted, I wasn't aware of your previous account and was basing my assessment only having seen your recent editing history. I don't have any issues with your move back to mainspace. signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

IP harasser

He's back using 154.118.72.133 Now he's attacking the Loneliness article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked and protected. Unfortunately, the IPs seem to be all over the place so I'm not sure this is something that can be addressed with a range block. signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
He seems to use the same name in edit summaries. Is there a way to flag that? ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
ThaddeusSholto, that's a good idea, you can file a filter request at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. I would do it myself but this has caught me heading out the door at the moment. signed, Rosguill talk 16:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
He is back. Now using multiple IPs to attack Social connection. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Additional sources for The Clockwork Rocket

Hello! I saw your remark on "The Clockwork Rocket" on needing more sources. The one I have for the three receptions below indeed feature more, which I at first wanted to add, before Wikipedia notified me (probably automatically detected) that critics like the one by Liviu Suciu from fantasybookcritic.blogspot.com is not considered a reliable source. I have copied the text just in case, should I add it to the main article and also add some more of the receptions I left out? Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Samuel Adrian Antz, I wouldn't add any blog reviews, as blogs are a form of WP:SPS and are generally not reliable. I haven't fully vetted these sources, but a few sites that came up when I searched "Clockwork Rocket" "review" were [44], [45], [46] (that last one is a reference pointing to a review) signed, Rosguill talk 13:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi Rosgull, just a courtesy note that I have mentioned you in my comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 24. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I actually got the ping directly from your linking my name in the comment. signed, Rosguill talk 02:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. Wasn't sure if you had pings activated and didn't want to run the risk. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Deleted page: list of Star Citizen ships

List of Star Citizen Ships page that was deleted back in 2021

Just curious to know whether this page was deleted for being empty, or abandoned or some other reason. I think there's a lot of information out there about the various vehicles in this game and Wikipedia wouldn't be a bad place to have that represented for standardization, posterity, etc.

Pages with info on this which could be used as source material include, but are not limited to:

Thoughts? Alundil (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The page was a redirect, deleted due to the lack of any relevant information at the target article, Star Citizen. The links you provide here don't appear to be the kind reliable sources that could be used to establish notability for a standalone list. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. I've read the "Reliable Sources" link you posted and on the 3rd party references list I can understand that. But the first set of bulleted items are 1st party sources (i.e. produced and maintained by Cloud Imperium Games, the developer and publisher of Star Citizen). Those are not reliable sources? Alundil (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
To establish the notability of a standalone topic, we need independent secondary sources, not primary sources. Primary sources are used very sparingly on Wikipedia (see WP:PRIMARY), essentially only to provide further detail that has already been identified as significant by secondary sources. signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok I think I'm understanding the aim now and this may not be a good topic, overall, for WP as I don't know that there will be other secondary sources that would a) discuss/list each ship and b) reach the standard for reliability that WP is looking for given the nature of the subject matter.
Thank you. Alundil (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for SSSniperWolf

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SSSniperWolf. 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. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

AE warning

Hey. I am virtually inactive on Wikipedia due to a lack of time, so I thought I could bring this to your attention here rather than at the AE noticeboard or ANI/I which take more time as procedures. I took a look at the tp of the Balsic family article where there is an ongoing content dispute, and among comments I noticed that Khirurg accused a long-term editor of "using an obscure source to push ethno-nationalist POV" [47]. A few months ago you gave an AE-logged warning to Khirurg about "making accusations of tendentious nationalist editing without evidence of serious misbehavior" [48]. At the relevant ANI/I thread you said "I am going to log warnings for both Khirurg and AlexBachmann against accusing other editors of tendentious nationalistic editing without providing diffs of serious misconduct" [49]. Since this is an obvious breach of an AE-logged warning, maybe you might be interested in taking a look at it and probably at the general discussion on the tp. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I can see, while this was a risky comment from Khirurg and it would have been better to elide (and still would be best to strike) to push ethno-nationalist POV, their objections to Muhadri seem valid (or at least as-yet not effectively challenged), and on that basis I don't see this as being a claim made without evidence. signed, Rosguill talk 16:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I do not have an opinion on Muhadri and they might be right or wrong about him, but can you point out where is the evidence that user Bato is pushing an ethnonationalist POV? One thing is to use an unreliable source (one can do that without a bad intention, just due to not being aware of its unreliability) and another thing is to use an unreliable source to push an ethnonationalist POV. That together with apparently inflammatory or mocking edit summaries or comments like "rv attempt to hide "undesirable" info" [50], "Stop trying to use excuses to remove inconvenient information" [51],"Now, why don't you tell us the real reason you are so absoultely insistent" [52] do not look to me like good faith against other editors. Anyways, you are the admin and your judgement decides, not mine. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
A plethora of such examples of terseness could be enough to convince admins at AE, but I am only going to act on reports to my talk page if they meet a very high, unambiguous level of disruption, which these incidents don't rise to individually. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Taking this to AE is up to one of those editors who are the target of such comments. My time is limited and I prefer to use it for better things than preparing a large number of diffs and giving response after response as Balkan-related AE cases often demand. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you, Rosguill, for your measured approach. I do have a question though. If I think that someone is pushing ethno-nationalist POV (a far from uncommon situation in the Balkans), what am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to not call it out? Should I pretend it's not happening? As you saw, I did not call anyone names, I did not label anyone a POV-pusher. I was describing a behavior. Regarding the content dispute, what we have here is an obscure medieval noble family whose origins have been described as uncertain or unknown by multiple notable western authors such as Tim Judah and Elizabeth Roberts, yet we have sources like The Truth on Kosova (published in 1993 during the height of the Yugoslav Wars), being used repeatedly and uncritically to claim that this family was "Albanian throughout all the generations". On top of that I am being taunted in the talkpage that I haven't even read the bibliography. I am neither Serbian nor Albanian, I have no dog in this fight. What I'm seeing here though is damage to the encyclopedia. Could you keep an eye on the article while the situation is evolving? It would greatly help things and keep everything on an even keel if the various participants were aware that an admin was watching things. Khirurg (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Khirurg--you should call out the systematic use of weak/improper sources, your mistake here is the where and when of it. Bluntly accusing an editor in a 3 editor discussion of POV-pushing is not productive: it muddies the water by shifting the focus of the discussion from article content to more general behavior, and does not present a consensus view that what's happening is actually POV-pushing, it's just your word against theirs. What you should be doing is taking these concerns to AE and presenting a concise set of diffs demonstrating persistent or willful misuse of the sources, ideally having first secured a clear consensus among other editors that the sources are in fact inappropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 14:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Rosguill: On the same discussion I noted that the behavior of the editor who added Muhadri bordered on tendentious, so while it is less equivocal than my own, Khirurg's conclusion here isn't necessarily unique based on that editor's behavior in the article and TP. As for Muhadri, his name cropped up in a recent US State Department report as an example of the local media contributing to a hostile climate against ethnic minorities in Kosovo. [53] and the Serbian Orthodox diocese said his writings spread "ethnic and religious hatred" [54]. The "Ali Hadri" organization he is a senior member of has made it its mission to kick the Serbian Orthodox Church out of its medieval monasteries in Kosovo and pushes the fringe notion that they were built by medieval Albanians, going as far as sparring with the Kosovo Supreme Court and the US ambassador to Kosovo, who refuse to go along with their agenda. [55] [56] Although not addressing his writings directly, claims of the sort he makes about Serb history and cultural heritage have been debunked by this scholar, among others. [57] So while Khirurg may have worded their rebuke differently, they were right to call the user out. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Radio 3 Breakfast

Hi,

I see that this article, which I had created, has been removed via redirection and I was not aware of an AfD discussion with regard to this article and the history page tells me that it was yourself who did this. I thought that these decisions were only taken after an AfD discussion. Therefore I think it is fair to respectfully ask why you seem to have taken the unilateral decision to effectively delete my article. Rillington (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Rillington, per WP:BLAR, a discussion is not needed but you are allowed to revert the edit as if it were a bold edit. That having been said, I would encourage you to review the general notability guideline, as the article for Radio 3 Breakfast did not have the citations needed to meet that standard and I was unable to find any additional usable coverage in an internet search. signed, Rosguill talk 14:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I will admit that I prefer not to get bogged down with things like you mention. I just prefer to spend my time writing articles on subjects which I think are notable enough for an article and locate some references as per basic Wikipedia rules and hope that people see that my efforts are always in good faith and are part of all of our wishes to make Wikipedia better. I will look at a few places to add to the independent references and then revert the edit. Rillington (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Rosguill:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2400 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

Geneva mechanism Award

This award is given to Rosguill for collecting more than 25 points per week in the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. Thank you so much for your continuous contributions to the drive! Hey man im josh (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

October 2023 NPP backlog drive – Points award

Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar

This award is given to Rosguill for collecting more than 200 points during the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! Hey man im josh (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Misleading RfC wording

Hey. There is an RfC there. Its wording has 2 issues. One is that is not a neutrally-worded brief question/statement, and the second is that it is misleading because the "second view" does not reject the "first view". Can you take a look if time permits, and if necessary advise the editor who made the RfC on how to solve the issues I raised? I think that a single sentence like "Should Muzaka and Jonima be part of the infobox?" is what is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It has been reopened even though I don't see any ground to discuss this obvious matter. AlexBachmann (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Hello again my friend. I'm coming to you with this issue because in the past you informed me of the existence of The Wikipedia Library, which since then has been a very valuable resource for me when editing pages and finding sources. However, I have run into an issue. The site that I use the most is Newspapers.com. I was recently trying to find sourcing to help improve the Jeff Hartings article but ran into a paywall when I tried to click on one of the links to the newspaper article, saying that I need to "choose a subscription to view the page". In the past I've had no issues with the database. I was under the impression that the database was free to access. Is there some content that really isn't viewable without paying? If you know how to resolve this I appreciate the help. Mannytool (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Mannytool you should still be able to access Newspapers.com’s paywalled content with the Wikipedia Library; IIRC, a few months back they changed how our access is managed, however. It’s been a while since I’ve set it up, but I believe you should be able to get it by finding the Newspapers.com entry in the WL’s list of databases, and then creating a free account on Newspapers.com. At that point I think you should have access. signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Strangely, it's not allowing me to create an account. I had an account that I used before, but I believe I made it outside of the Wikipedia database so it was not necessarily connected to Wikipedia. I'm currently trying to make one through the link but it's giving me an error message, saying "unable to create new account." I may just have to revert back to my other account because it does allow me access to some newspaper articles, but not all of them. Mannytool (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Hm, I’m pretty sure there’s some Wikimedia staff that is responsible for making sure WL resources are accessible, I’d look through the related WP-space pages and see if you can find someone to contact for help. signed, Rosguill talk 22:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
After doing some looking, I've found that evidently this is not a new issue per T322916. In fact, this specific issue that I ran into has existed at least since early 2023. Why I'm only just now running into it, I'm not too sure. Hopefully it can be resolved here soon. Mannytool (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Elisa Jordana

Hi Rosguill. Researching Wiki articles created by the subjects of the article as a form of self-promotion were something of a hobby of mine for a little while, and I ran across Elisa Jordana, which seemed like an obvious example of the genre. I trimmed it down quite a bit and was going to nominate it for deletion, then found you already did that a while back (result was no consensus). I was wondering, now that almost 4 years have passed and there has been zero notability of this person in the interim, if you wanted to nominate it again. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to take a crack at it, but the given that the last AfD was the 4th such nomination, it may be a lost cause. You could try wikilawyering that because the first AfD resulted in redirect, and all subsequent AfDs resulted in no consensus, the page should stand as a redirect and not as an article. signed, Rosguill talk 01:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I look at it from the other side of the coin - the nominations were spammed by IP addresses and new accounts, and now that some time has passed, we may see only actually real editors weighing in, which will probably get a definitive result either way. Anyway, I nominated it. Let the community decide, hopefully without the actual subject of the article weighing in. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Page recreated

Hi, You AFD'ed a page in 2020 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raybak Abdesselem - Wikipedia it was created twice and deleted as well, 4 times deleted, and a sock-puppet made it to Raybak Melk Abdesselem all the references are same except 2, here's the request to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raybak Melk Abdesselem Wprep (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Compromised account?

BurtonReingold (talk · contribs), see this edit [58]? Knitsey (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure it's necessarily compromised given how few edits the account has made overall, but their editing since October is clearly NOTHERE material. Blocked indefinitely. signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks for checking. Knitsey (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Why do you say it's promotional? Draft:Nomination_(brand) The information is all taken from third-party sources and not direct ones. National newspapers like Repubblica and Il Sole 24 Ore are two important dailies in Italy. I've added new information from other sources and the international trend on TikTok and I delete some sentences. What do you think now? Kaspo (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The article still has a lot of phrases that read like PR filler, e.g. nearby Florence, a city with a centuries-old tradition of goldsmiths and jewelers. Working as an ice cream maker in youth, he realizes how jewels are a status symbol and decides to create a customizable bracelet just like the flavors of an ice cream that everyone can choose from to create something unique... In the 1990s, after the first big success in Italy, the brand got famous in the North European countries and straight after the United States. Cosi uno scrive annunci nelle riviste, ma non nei articoli di Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 01:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Sanction

Good evening, Rosguill as the administrator who imposed the restrictions — indefinitely topic-banned from articles related to ethnic minority groups in the former Soviet Union, broadly construed. In my first appeal to AK, 4 admins suggested I contribute on other topics, as I was asked so I contributed. You also told me to work on other topics before the appeal. Please reconsider your decision of 17 February 2023 to restrict the topic. Sincerely Товболатов (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов, acknowledged. The contributions list looks promising at a glance, but I would ask that you take this appeal to AE as I don't have time to do it due diligence in a timely manner. signed, Rosguill talk 14:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill All right, I'll try again.--Товболатов (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Rosguill refused me in Arbitration, yes there is strict judgement, it is always so, I have seen many times how people are judged in the Russian section. Please don't send me to Arbitration anymore.)) After some time I will appeal to you again, if you have free time, you will decide for yourself. Just don't judge me harshly, you can see that I admitted my mistakes and apologised, and after that I had no violations. Anyone can make mistakes, no one is immune to it.--Товболатов (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Rosguill Good morning, can you please reconsider my appeal on the restriction. I haven't broken any rules in 8 months. I have created articles in other areas.--Товболатов (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Товболатов Sorry, after your last and rather catastrophic appeal at AE, I'm not going to touch this sanction unilaterally. I also note that you've made relatively few edits since then, and that your only talk page engagement on en.wiki has arguably been WP:CANVASSing violations of your ban. signed, Rosguill talk 14:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Rosguill Judging people is a big responsibility. Maybe it's for the best. Thank you, kind man.--Товболатов (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Rosguill once again I would like to contact you regarding my case. Yes I did the newsletter at the beginning of the year, it was my mistake, I admit it and I have apologised. It's been a long time about a year. Could you reconsider the topical ban, remove the blocking, I did not violate. I created 114 articles in the English section. I want to make useful contributions to the English section on Caucasus. Regards --Товболатов (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
My prior comment stands, I'm not going to touch this sanction unilaterally. I would further expect that AE would interpret most of the edits you've made since your last request would be dismissed as busybody work. signed, Rosguill talk 16:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no big offences, for spamming violation yes one day or week blocking understand. Other offenders with full blocking you will remove the blocking. I don't understand why I'm being treated like this. I was editing for two years before the violation, no one told me that I am a violator. At the beginning of this case was the administrator Callanecc he warned everyone that it is not inappropriate to violate, I did not violate anything kept away from disputes. It was the other editors who were arguing. Then when you took over the case you took their side, they realised that they could violate the warning of the Callanecc administrator. They immediately started correcting everything in the articles. That's where the big argument came from. Yeah, I got carried away with the argument, I agree, but I didn't do that big of an offence. When Reiner Gavriel disappeared, I was blamed for everything. For my contribution after the offence, I was thanked by many members. You have to understand me too, it's not my fault. Sincerely--Товболатов (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Товболатов You continue to have recourse to AE if you want to appeal your sanction. Please do not email me about this further. signed, Rosguill talk 22:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I also think that you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of how sanctions work on en.wiki and the expectations surrounding sanctions appeals. I would recommend reading through Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and related pages carefully. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Хорошо Товболатов (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Empty categories

Hello, Rosguill,

After categories are tagged for being empty, CSD C1, they sit for 7 days in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion in case the category is only temporarily empty or has been emptied out of process. Then incorrect edits can be reverted. They shouldn't show up in a regular CSD category so I'm not sure how you came across them. Of course, if the category creator wants to have the category deleted, they can always tag them CSD G7 and they can be deleted immediately. Otherwise, we wait a week before deletion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I came across them at the bottom of WP:CfD and had assumed that it collected both CSDs to-be-done and categories that had been cleaned up following a CfD closure. signed, Rosguill talk 02:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

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

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill/Archive_39&oldid=1201937501"