Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

Goddard2000, I've p-blocked them from the page for a day, please report them again if disruption continues afterward. In general, I'd appreciate it if you also issued {{alert/first}} notifications when you engage with new editors in CTOPs areas, as this better ensures that people understand the expectations that the community has of them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill Hello, he's back again with the edits and i get your point about alert since he's a new user but he is obviously a troll. He is just removing "Chechen" from every sentence. Could you please block him and lock the article? Goddard2000 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi Rosguill! Not to be pedantic, but I do think it's an important distinction: Regarding [1], is Big Thumpus' TBAN, as imposed by Femke per community consensus, actually a CTOP action? My reading is that it's a community sanction that happens to duplicate a CTOP scope. That said, they are aware, so if you wanted to duplicate the sanction with an AE one, you could... Which is actually why I'm asking, because if that isn't what you wanted to do, it's now become ambiguous which procedure(s) they would follow to appeal the sanction(s). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello Rosguill.

Is this not a breach of the extended confirmed WP:GS/AA condition [2]? The revert occurred after a warning was issued, yet the user denies any wrongdoing including canvassing, however it's clear they wouldn't have engaged with the article if not for the troll IP WP:PA message directed at me [3] (which Erudite refers to as a “friendly notice”).

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

Addressed in the talk page discussion. Their misunderstanding of GS/AA is plausibly in good faith based on what they've said so far. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the default canvassing template didn't do you any favors, as it accuses Erudite of canvassing others, not of having been canvassed. This seems to have caused some confusion and probably hasn't improved Erudite's opinion of you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your article talk comment Rosguill. The issue is that Erudite Veteran is violating extended confirmed sanctions. He has once again breached WP:GS/AA following your warning, by posting two disruptive comments [4] [5] on talk that contravene the first condition of the sanction. Additionally, he made two edits to the lead section of the North Caucasus, [6] and [7], that reference Azerbaijan in the same paragraph. While these two edits are minor and may not be clear-cut violations but could be as broadly construed, one thing that's readily apparent is Erudite skirting the edges of the general sanction even after having received two warnings.

Then there is the recent continuous implementation of minor incremental edits within various articles, including but not limited to Chechens, North Caucasus, Alanic language, Digor Ossetian, Digor people, Armazi. Does this not constitute WP:GAMING in terms of trying to achieve extended confirmed unnaturally? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KhndzorUtogh -- I already admonished them for the continued GS/AA violation of accusing you on the talk page yesterday. I don't see an issue with their edits to North Caucasus, as their changes do not touch Armenian or Azerbaijani content and are also trivial grammar fixes. Having reviewed their other edits, their recent small edits don't look all that different from edits made in early February and elsewhere in their history, so I don't think it's fair to accuse them of GAMING at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are these not [8], [9]?

I also find it interesting that Erudite asked questions about policies/guidelines in this discussion like a newcomer might, yet when commenting on my talk page earlier, they appeared quite confident in their knowledge [10]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@KhndzorUtogh Sorry to interrupt—I was about to ask @Rosguill a question when I came across this. I have no intention of arguing with you or anyone else, and as I’ve mentioned before, I have nothing but respect and goodwill for your nation. We come from the same region, so let’s focus on spreading positivity and mutual support to celebrate the shared history our nations have had.

If you'd like, we can connect outside of Wikipedia to clear up any misunderstandings we’ve had towards each other. With God’s will, we might even have the chance to meet one day! This is an offer of friendship, not animosity

While I’m here, Rosguill, I wanted to ask—whenever I search for "Wikipedia: General Sanctions," nothing seems to come up. Could you direct me to the list if possible? I want to make sure I don’t accidentally violate any Wikipedia policies.

King regards, Erudite Veteran (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erudite Veteran, you can find details at WP:General sanctions without the capital letter. If you're looking into reading up on project-wide sanctions regimes, I would also check Wikipedia:Contentious topics, as this is the more frequently-used system for addressing pervasive POV editing in topics (these systems have evolved gradually based on community need and experience over the past two decades). Insofar as they directly affect topics which you've edited reccently, there is also an Armenia and Azerbaijan CTOP designation beyond GS/AA (GS/AA gets focused on at first because that's where the instruction that only XC editors can substantially participate is most clearly stated), as well as a Balkans and Eastern Europe CTOP designation, which includes the Northern Caucasus, Georgia, and all of Russia including portions that are geographically not in Europe. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify one point. Based on the policies I have reviewed, including Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, Conflict of Interest and maybe even Advertising, my understanding is that I am not permitted to cite my own research. Is this correct, or are there any exceptions for this rule?

Thank you for your time and guidance—I truly appreciate it. Erudite Veteran (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good conclusion to draw. The only exception would be if your work has been directly highlighted by RS as an authoritative perspective on a topic (and even then, best practice would be to point that out on a talk page and make the case for it to other editors rather than making the edits yourself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am formally appealing the sanction here.

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

That said, would you describe "the extent of your problematic engagement" on my part? You are incorrect here with saying that I "doubled down" when I clearly said "I was wrong with thinking Oxford had initially published the book".[11] You are saying here that I "continued inability to admit fault or drop the stick of attacking their perceived opponents", but right above, I have nowhere "attacked" any "perceived opponents". My comments here are complying with WP:NOTTHEM. I have already described above that:

• I already admitted on article's talk page that I did a mistake by saying that Oxford had published the book of Mehendale[12]
• The Mehendale source is unreliable, as already stated by multiple other editors.[13][14]
• TOI (see WP:TIMESOFINDIA) can be used with "additional considerations" for news, but it cannot be used for assessing credibility of an author on Wikipedia. I used it only for highlighting a news from years ago, but I rejected the use of TOI to establish credibility of an author. TOI is used on thousands of articles but with "additional considerations". On this subject, the assessment of a source's reliability is done as per WP:HISTRS. It cannot be done by relying on TOI.

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

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

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

GenuineArt, my main concern is as follows: you introduced a TOI source into the discussion to make an argument. It was pointed out that the source did not support your argument. When I requested that you comment on this issue, you attempted to pivot and blame Akshaypatill for citing TOI, saying I think Akshaypatil is misleading the editors here by attempting to rely on a 22-year-old flattery description from TOI, which is itself an unreliable source per WP:TOI. It's all the more egregious considering the fact that Akshaypatill had already identified their comment as frivolous and withdrawn it following discussion with Valereee. This behavior is extremely tendentious and I don't see a good faith way to interpret it. Here you try to claim that you've already acknowledged your faults by recognizing that you did a mistake by saying that Oxford had published the book of Mehendale, but that wasn't even the main issue with your TOI-based argument--the initial issue was that the relationship between the events of the article, the 2011 book, and the 2018 bibliography commenting on the 2011 was entirely unclear (read: not a basis for a coherent argument about the Mehendale source), and then the much more serious issue of trying to accuse Akshaypatill of engaging in misleading behavior for having made an argument based on the source you brought to the table, which at that point you denounced as unreliable.

Particularly considering that you were actively trying to get another editor sanctioned, I do not think it would be appropriate to consider you unaware of the general expectations of behavior in contentious topics, taking into account as well that you had previously engaged with them. The fact that you proceeded to immediately attempt to wikilawyer on the basis of this perceived loophole makes me further disinclined to believe that you were actually insufficiently aware of the behavioral expectations. If you hadn't been fishing for sanctions for other editors, or if someone else had made the awareness argument on your behalf, I'd be more inclined to revise the sanction. But given what I've seen thus far, I don't find your current explanation compelling. Pinging Valereee for further opinions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion on this. As I've mentioned, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that GA truly did forget. I do notice that GA apparently has never received a CTOP alert or warning, which maybe would have been a good intermediate step even though they'd filed the earlier case. I note that both editors were calling one another liars and accusing one another of intentional misrepresentation.

OTOH, a topic ban from Indian politics and history is a pretty narrow tban, and if someone fairly inexperienced is having a difficult time navigating a CTOP, I tend to think they'd actually be better served by editing elsewhere while they figure out our behavioral policies, because CTOPs are a really, really bad place to learn those lessons. And this editor does seem to have other editing interests.

But I'm always willing to discuss with editors why edits were problematic. GA, maybe start with this: You say above I would avoid targeting another editor like I did here. Two problematic things you said there were

1. I think Akshaypatil is misleading the editors here by attempting to rely
2. The question is, why is Akshaypatil aggressively defending an unreliable source to remove a sufficiently sourced sentence which has irked the audience of Mehendale?

Can you discuss why these are problematic and how you would deal with such issues in future? Valereee (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill: I am not standing by my comment. I have mentioned that I would "avoid targeting another editor like I did here". While I had admitted my mistake over the misreading of TOI, I think there would have been no problems if I had instead: 1) responded to Akshaypatill by reminding him of WP:AGF, and 2) discussed the cited book on its merit. Having been alerted of the IPA enforcement area now, I would be more careful.

I treated the IPA enforcement area to have concerned India and Pakistan per se, i.e. they were created in 1947 and the times after that. The 2019 report you are talking about cited edits related to only post-1947 events. Upon further reading of IPA enforcement area, I found a clarification request which concerned the same confusion.

@Valereee: Yes, I shouldn't have said, "I think Akshaypatil is misleading the editors here by attempting to rely," I should have said: "Above, Akshaypatil writes that "I am inclined to say that @GenuineArt is trying to mislead here," and "these are blatant lies told by GenuineArt in the above comment". While it is correct that I made a mistake in reading the TOI article regarding the publisher of the book, I did not intend to mislead. I would remind Akshaypatill of WP:AGF." I shouldn't have said: "The question is, why is Akshaypatil aggressively defending an unreliable source to remove a sufficiently sourced sentence which has irked the audience of Mehendale?" It did not belong there because article talk pages are not for discussing conduct issues, but only for discussing the article issues. Next time, if a similar situation happens, I would rather keep my hands clean and raise the issue on the appropriate noticeboard if the problem continues to persist. GenuineArt (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this doesn't allay my concerns given how blatantly tendentious it was to attempt to ask for sanctions for Akshaypatill for using your TOI citation. You hint at recognition of this, but then skirt past it and move on to other less significant issues. Frankly, even a full and direct apology for that argument may not be sufficient at this time given how egregious and recent it was. You've shown your hand; you now face the difficult challenge of rebuilding other editors' trust in you, and I don't think an iteratively-improved apology and appeal in the immediate aftermath of being sanctioned is persuasive. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are these comments also violations? [15]. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, meh, none of Big Thumpus's comments directly touch on American politics, and it's in the user space of an editor who clearly does not mind the conversation, so my view is that a blind eye makes most sense here. It would obviously count against them if they try to appeal in short order and this is the main thing that they have spent their time on Wikipedia doing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. The other editor, by the way, is about to get a topic ban, maybe even a site ban, at ANI. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rosguill,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Rosguill,

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

Thank you!

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

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

Hi Roguill,

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

Dear them Rosguill,

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

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

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

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

Sänk you.

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

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

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

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

Your logged warnings here are misleading.[16] Where was the consensus to warn me? The last comment I posted was more than 35 days ago, and it only established the long-term misconduct of the reported editor. It was all your sole decision, and it is flawed. Also, why would you warn Akshaypatil for "edit warring" when he was reported (37 days ago) for edit warring, personal attacks and more, and continued edit warring while also restoring copyright violations even until 6 days ago?[17] That alone proves the importance of the report that you are unnecessarily degrading as "frivolous". Given so many problems with your closure, you should undo it. Capitals00 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I had conclusively proven that removing "fake news" from OpIndia infobox was a behavioral issue, not a content issue because Akshaypatill never brought the discussion on talk page and he made reverts until he reached close to making 3 of them.[18] This was all against the warning he already recieved in during the end of 2021 that repetition of such a behaviour will lead to sanctions.[19]

What we saw in this report was all about the rampant repetition of that behavior. Again, how one can warn someone for edit warring when you were informed that the concerning editor is edit warring even after 30 days of the proposed page blocks?[20][21]

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

(talk page watcher) I am not sure whether me commenting here is appropriate, but Capitals00, bringing up 3-4 years old warnings, when I was totally new to the CTOP and trying to get me blocked based on it, wasn't a good idea. Everyone makes mistakes when they start here. It is part of the evolution as an editor. I see you had socked in your initial years with no less than 3 sockpuppet accounts. [22] It was a mistake, and it means nothing now.

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

...I'm not saying that Abhishek* or Capital00 are in the wrong, but admins should perhaps consider how often these editors report others at AE or ANI.[23]

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

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

You were simply not new when this warning was made against you. You were editing for more than 3 years.[24] Even in the recent times you are violating that warning.

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

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

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

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

You had claimed the existence of an "admin consensus" on AE, which does not exist. Now you are improperly implying that I don't understand when a person needs to be reported on AE. The record of my filings on AE[25][26][27] completely rejects your claim. All these filings resulted in topic bans or blocks.

Even until now, you haven't cited a single diff to justify your logged warnings. You had provided no reason on the AE report itself. You need to focus on justifying your logged warning at least against me. Can you? Capitals00 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00: Chiming in as a talkpage watcher and AE admin who did not participate in the thread. By my reading, Rosguill suggested a logged warning for you on 3 March, and then again on 25 March. Valereee replied to both of those messages without objecting to the proposal. Then Asilvering reminded the two of them to close the thread, also without objecting to the proposal. ArbCom intentionally chose a standard of rough consensus in AE threads, not the clearer degree of consensus expected in, for example, AN/I TBAN threads. An admin suggesting something and no one objecting after a suitable period of time, and then admins agreeing to close the thread, is indeed rough consensus. If you want to appeal the warning, there are procedures for that; I haven't looked into the merits of the warning, so I couldn't say whether that's a good idea. But you are incorrect to say there was no admin consensus. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"ArbCom intentionally chose a standard of rough consensus in AE threads, not the clearer degree of consensus expected in, for example, AN/I TBAN threads. An admin suggesting something and no one objecting after a suitable period of time, and then admins agreeing to close the thread, is indeed rough consensus." Noted, that made sense. Capitals00 (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, understood. Won't happen again. Akshaypatill (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals, you wrote: I had conclusively proven that removing "fake news" from OpIndia infobox was a behavioral issue, not a content issue. No, you made that argument, and I disagreed, twice. Our exchange was:

You provided a diff of the removal of "Fake news" from an infobox media type parameter, arguing this was removal of sourced information.

I checked and wrote: Capitals00, we don't generally get into content here, but to address the behavioral aspect of the issue in the context of your description of a particular content removal being "indefensible": to me the removal of "Fake news" from an infobox parameter "type of media" doesn't look "indefensible". If I were editing an article about a media provider I'd want to see multiple RS saying the equivalent of "X is a fake news website" to use that in the infobox. Using such a categorization in an infobox is an extremely strong statement in Wikivoice that to me intends to convey something along the lines of "The majority of experts agree X publishes almost exclusively fake news." There's a single source cited for that inclusion in the infobox, and that source doesn't even quote what that source said.

You said, @Valereee: Check again. The source does mention Opindia.com to have embraced the form of "trolling and fake news".[177] The entire article version of that time also described how OpIndia is spreading fake news. The fact that Akshaypatill is still defending his edit above shows there are indeed long-term issues with his editing.

I checked again, and said, again, not getting into content, just behavior: the fact a source says a site includes "trolling and fake news", while valid for including that content in the article, it does not necessarily support inclusion in an infobox that a site is a fake news website. Those are two different things. Which means removing that from the infobox is not necessarily a behavioral issue. Valereee (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does not prove how this warning was not violated with those unnecessary reverts and the lack of discussion. Anyone making multiple reverts to remove such a basic fact without ever engaging in talk page discussion is indeed showcasing a behavioral issue. Not to mention that this fact remains there to this day. Capitals00 (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that, and the editor has a logged warning for edit warring at a CTOP. Likely next sanction for edit-warring at this same CTOP would be a tban.

I'm not going to get into whether the fact actually does belong in the infobox or not based on that source, as that's a content issue, but for content that is contentious in an infobox, it's always going to be best to find multiple high-quality sources that strongly support that, which should be easy to do if it does belong there. Infoboxes are also CTOPs. Valereee (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

....with those unnecessary reverts and the lack of discussion.[28]

Capitals00, you should be reading your own comments. You have just been called for edit warring and not discussing issues on talk page by an admin yesterday.[29]. @Valereee, the warning dates back to time when I was pretty new to CTOP. The editor, with whom I had the disagreement, became a good edit-buddy of mine soon and we have made a good number of collaborative edits since. Have a look at some of their messages on my user talkpage, posted since then- [30] [31][32] Akshaypatill (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the nuance; you noticed. Sharp! Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was debating whether to clarify my point while you were copyediting, ha. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Also note that this is probably a sock of User:DangalOh, with whom I've frequently interacted before; see this comment, showing their acquaintance. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As @Quillthrill mentioned. If you cant get consensus, accuse others of being a sock from your preffered admin or wait for 3rr. I can see that now. Hismajesty2b (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: This is the same person, with same pattern of editing. See DangalOh’s comments at QuillThrills’ talk page. These discussions are also about the same article. GrabUp - Talk 07:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. 'I give up', 'I'm out of here', etc. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DangalOh. GrabUp - Talk 07:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you contributed to the discussion? Do you have anything to contribute? Or you just mad because your Pov is challenged and you have no answers of your own? Considering the type of edits you are engaged in , i highly doubt you have that intellectual capacity. How long do you guys intend to use editors like Joshua? Werent you the guy who was crying that kashmir files is fake and pure fiction and we shud write it clearly in the lede? I understand your stakes in this case.Typical Hismajesty2b (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hismajesty2b: The Kashmir Files is fictional, it is written in the lead, as we have consensus. GrabUp - Talk 08:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The plot and names etc obviously are , not the general events for which we have solid proof of all sorts. You will tell me what happened to my relatives and friends families? And we are not here to debate that. And that is just one example, There are several other examples which exposes your ideology. If you have anything to talk about regarding the current topic , then participate. Otherwise i am aware of all the tricks you guys play. Hismajesty2b (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rosguill, I hope you're well. I've seen you partake in a discussion in a similar article before and was wondering if you could take a look at the Llapusha article? I recently overhauled the article, made lots of additions, changes etc, but I take issue with a certain part of the article that was there beforehand. It's from a source from 2008 (Radovanović) which presents the claims of an author from the 1930s (Raičević). These claims — that Llapusha was once entirely inhabited by Serbs, some of whom left while others were Albanised — seem quite WP:EXTRAORDINARY. As such, I removed it - [33] - as well as sources that are no longer in use - [34] (notice some of the dates here as per WP:AGEMATTERS, as I've replaced some things with more modern sources where applicable, mainly in the geography section. Some of them are also just unused in the article, hence why I removed them).

I was then reverted - [35] - and keeping in line with WP:BRD, I opened up a TP discussion - [36]. I have attempted to explain my reasoning clearly, particularly that my concern is not with the 2008 source (Radovanović) itself (hence why I don't think the RSN is needed), but rather with its uncritical presentation of a 1930s claim by Raičević — a claim that lacks modern academic support and appears ideologically driven, especially given the political context of Yugoslav academia at the time of Raičević's writing. As I’ve mentioned repeatedly throughout the discussion, I am not objecting to the nationality or era of a source arbitrarily, but rather invoking WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:RS, and WP:AGEMATTERS as policy grounds for scrutiny. So far, the user reverting me has not provided a direct quote from the 2008 source to show whether Radovanović himself endorses or merely cites the older claim, and no modern scholarship has been produced to support Raičević’s assertion.

At the same time, I’ve tried to maintain balance in the article by including well-sourced content about Yugoslav colonization and Serb settlement where applicable. I’ve also been accused of pushing a one-sided narrative, but the sources I’ve used focus on Albanians in Llapusha during the Middle Ages - if there are no RS discussing Serbs in that period, that’s a gap in the literature, not editorial bias on my part. Nonetheless, I welcome good-faith contributions from all perspectives.

Unfortunately, the discussion has stalled, and I feel that the revert-warring and lack of policy-based engagement is making it difficult to move forward constructively. I’ve repeatedly asked for clear justification, quotes, or sources to support the inclusion of this material, but to no avail.

Would you be willing to take a look and offer your thoughts on how best to move forward? I’d really appreciate your input as a neutral voice. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book is not extraordinary because it was written and presented by university professor Radovanovic, also it would be nice that editor doesn't remove wp:rs with the excuse that it is a Serb author [[37]], and after that to remove the whole section of sources, coincidently all being Yugoslav authors [[38]], furthermore Botushalli then presented this addition [[39]] with the authors like Jusuf Osmani, this is not balanced addition of any kind, actually this is a presentation in a way that the Serbs never lived in this region and only came in 20th century, the edits should be presented by neutral international authors first, and presented in the manor of balance. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The book is not extraordinary because it was written and presented by university professor Radovanovic...

No one is disputing Radovanović’s credentials or his general reliability as a scholar. However, he is presenting claims made by Raičević - a 1930s Serbian author writing in a politically charged context, with no citation of archival evidence to support his assertions. These claims - namely that Llapusha was once entirely Serb-inhabited, and the rest were Albanised - are extraordinary historical assertions. According to WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:RS, the claim itself must be backed by strong, modern, and corroborated evidence - not simply mentioned by a modern scholar without endorsement or critical analysis.

2. ... doesn't remove wp:rs with the excuse that it is a Serb author...

I did not remove the source because the author is Serbian - I removed it because it presents the unverified claims of a 1930's Serbian author (Raičević), whose writing reflects a clear political agenda of the time and lacks any cited research or archival support. That context is key. I acknowledge that my edit summary should have been more precise - I meant to put "Serb author" and should have clarified that the issue was with the nature and quality of the 1930s claim, not the author’s ethnicity. However, them being a Serb author in the 1930s is of relevance here considering the context.

3. ... remove the whole section of sources, coincidently all being Yugoslav authors...

I removed unused sources from the bibliography that were not cited anywhere in the article. That’s standard cleanup - as far as I'm aware, there’s nothing wrong with removing unused references, regardless of who the authors are.

4. ... this is not balanced addition of any kind, actually this is a presentation in a way that the Serbs never lived in this region and only came in 20th century...

The sources I used are scholarly and academic (and also not based on unverified claims from the 1930's), and they happen to focus on Albanians in Llapusha - that doesn’t make the additions unbalanced, it reflects the current scope of available research. If in-depth reliable sources on Serbs in Llapusha during the Middle Ages don’t exist or haven’t been used yet, that’s a gap in the literature or in prior contributions, not a reflection of bias on my part. I’ve never claimed that Serbs never lived in the region - in fact, I included sourced information on Yugoslav colonization and Serb settlement where appropriate. If there are RS presenting something you'd like included, simply add them...

5. ... the edits should be presented by neutral international authors first, and presented in the manor of balance. AFAIK, Wikipedia values reliable sources, be it local, regional or international. There is no policy that requires “international” authors to take precedence over recognized regional experts. Many regional studies are only available in Albanian or Serbian due to the specificity of the topic - and both are acceptable under WP:RS. Balance does not mean giving disproven or outdated views equal weight. That’s false balance (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). What matters is weight of evidence, not identity of author. Yes, Raičević being a 1930's Yugoslav author initially caused me to question the claims, but my primary issue lies with the fact that they're unverified. The context in which the claims were created is also quite important.

After all this discussion, I am still yet to receive a direct quote from Radovanović showing whether he endorses or simply reports Raičević’s claims, nor have I seen any reliable, modern source that corroborates Raičević’s assertions. This is the overarching issue, and it's been at the heart of my position from the beginning. It's increasingly frustrating that every time I ask valid, policy-based questions, the response either shifts the goalposts or pretends not to understand the point being made. We can’t move forward if basic policy concerns like WP:EXTRAORDINARY are dismissed or deliberately misunderstood.

Apologies to @Rosguill for the length and the use of your talk page, but I really appreciate your time and patience in reviewing this matter. Botushali (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse but if Radovanovic is presenting typical political agenda then this addition to the article is also obvious political agenda [[40]], especially addition like ...Llapusha, like much of Kosovo, was one of the regions affected by the Yugoslav colonisation efforts, in which the Yugoslavs used agrarian reform as a cover for colonizing Kosovo with Slavic settlers, aiming to alter its predominantly-Albanian ethnic makeup, weaken Albanian national unity, and secure border areas through ethnic cleansing and military settlement. The policy deliberately targeted ethnically homogeneous Albanian regions - such as Llapusha, Drenica, Llapi, and other parts of Kosovo — for colonization. or this one ... Prior to the Yugoslav colonization of Kosovo, Llapusha was one of the ethnically homogenous regions of Kosovo, inhabited predominantly by Albanians. As such, it was among the key territories targeted by colonization policies aimed at reducing the Albanian population and breaking the national homogeneity of areas such as Drenica, Llapi, parts of the Dukagjin Plain, and other regions of Kosovo. Not to mention quotes where there are mentioned 5 villages in middle ages, which gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to the article. How is this neutral editing. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The material you're referring to is drawn directly from recent, peer-reviewed, academic sources, not politically motivated or unverified claims from the 1930s. Yugoslav colonization policies in Kosovo are well-documented by modern scholars (we even have a whole article on it) and are relevant to Llapusha’s demographic history. That isn't a "political agenda" - it's verifiable historical fact supported by WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. All those lines you listed are taken directly from these sources, just translated and reworked to avoid plagiarism. I can even provide quotes if need be - you're yet to give me 1. If Llapusha being an ethnically homogenous region prior to the Yugoslav colonisation efforts is an issue to you (as the reference cited for that states), then I don't know what to tell you.

As for the mention of medieval villages, those are sourced and relevant, and their inclusion doesn’t violate WP:FALSEBALANCE - the article reflects the weight of available scholarship, which currently focuses on Albanians in the region. If you have equivalent, reliable modern sources on Serbs in Llapusha, you’re welcome to add them. That’s how neutrality works. Botushali (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, when we mention 5 villages and ignore the others that is obvious case of wp:point, and when we only presenting one side that is WP:FALSEBALANCE, and [wp:undue]], and when there are sources presented only from one political spectre especially using quotes which you added to the article especially written in that manner then that is wp:extraordinary and politically motivated. Theonewithreason (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep citing policies like WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:EXTRAORDINARY, but none of them apply here. The sources I added are from peer-reviewed, academic publications, and the content reflects the weight of available scholarship — that’s exactly how WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT work.

If more than five medieval villages aren’t mentioned, it’s because that’s what the sources state, not because of WP:POINT. You’re free to add other verifiable content backed by modern RS.

Perhaps you should read the Wiki article on the Yugoslav colonization of Kosovo that I linked above before acting like the claims made by the author I’ve cited in Llapusha are extraordinary. We have mounds of scholarly research on the topic.

Let’s not lose sight of the core issue here: you have still not provided a direct quote from Radovanović nor any reliable, modern source that substantiates Raičević’s 1930s claim — which is what this entire discussion is actually about. Instead, the conversation keeps being derailed by accusations and policy misapplications. Unless you can provide that quote or a modern RS supporting the claim in question, there’s really nothing more to discuss. I’d prefer not to keep responding just to chase tangents that avoid addressing the actual problem. If you want to discuss these other things that you perceive to be issues, open up a new thread on Llapusha’s TP. Otherwise, stay on topic. Botushali (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all of them apply here, and for the claims you are accusing me, same can be applied to you which means removal of wp:rs, presenting wp:undue weight of sources which are questionable in reliability, quoting political statements, presenting wp:point by extracting and only mentioning one population, presenting other one to be a colonialist (like they never lived there before- this is wp:extraordinary claim)) and posting quotes like this : ...Llapusha, like much of Kosovo, was one of the regions affected by the Yugoslav colonisation efforts, in which the Yugoslavs used agrarian reform as a cover for colonizing Kosovo with Slavic settlers, aiming to alter its predominantly-Albanian ethnic makeup, weaken Albanian national unity, and secure border areas through ethnic cleansing and military settlement. The policy deliberately targeted ethnically homogeneous Albanian regions - such as Llapusha, Drenica, Llapi, and other parts of Kosovo — for colonization.. So yes every policy applies here. Theonewithreason (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open up a thread to discuss these on the TP, then. Still no quote or sources to support Raičević’s claims, yet? Botushali (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like each of these questions about whether accounts given by individual sources are WP:DUE could be best taken up separately and posed to WP:3O. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do — I’ll take it to WP:3O.

It’s just difficult to have a constructive discussion when the other editor consistently avoids providing direct quotes or reliable sources, and instead shifts the conversation away from the core issue. That kind of engagement makes it hard to resolve things efficiently, but I’ll proceed with the appropriate steps. Thanks for your time. Botushali (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My hope would be that zeroing in on the specific question of individual claims' DUEness should focus the discussion on the important questions and reduce rambling or whataboutism. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit shows the user this morning adding social media addresses to the user page subsequent to our (now closed) discussion on AN yesterday. This user is apparently already disallowed from ANI. Twenty-four hours ago I was responding to their immediate need for help with personal harassment. I didn't choose to utilize my permissions on their usertalk page so they could later invite in a perhaps better class of harassers... BusterD (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD, to be honest even Special:Diff/1285662987 yesterday had me thinking that this was all just trolling by them. I'm not totally confident of that, but it is now a plausible scenario in my mind. Given the uncertainty, and that frankly we've done all we can, I don't know that there's anything further that we can or should do unless they ask us to delete a page and/or rename them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of laying in bed had me thinking the same thing. We might actually be seeing a form of spoofing. BusterD (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The activity certainly is vast waster of admin time. Extreme urgency seems required, with an age- and gender-based sympathy attachment. BusterD (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the threads have been closed and it doesn't look like they're going to be reopened immediately, so we can worry about our time being wasted if anyone resumes wasting it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again do we really want to do this again with the victim blaming and the baseless acusations •Cyberwolf•. talk? 01:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Cyberwolf, I don't think the above speculation is fair to you, but I think it reflects a disconnect here. I think no one's really explained to you what the issue is, maybe because it seems too obvious to need explaining, and then the longer that disconnect continues, the more it seems like you're deliberately missing the point, when really I think you just need someone to spell it out. So here goes: There are people on the Internet who look for people who they think they can hurt. There are a number of things they look for, but they include being somehow othered (especially queer), being young, expressing emotional vulnerability, and looking to connect with people. Being a furry brings in the added complication that many non-furries associate the subculture with sexuality, even if that's a very incomplete view of what furry culture is.

Now, none of these are things we forbid people from expressing on their userpages, but it's critically important that someone who does express these things knows that doing so puts them at an above-average risk of harassment. You have every right to be upset about being harassed, but it's surprising, to experienced netizens, to see that coming from someone whose userpage is so likely to attract trolling. It would be nice to live in a world where people could always express themselves without being harassed for it, but we don't live in that world. Every one of us on the Internet has to make a choice about the trade-off between expressing our individuality and attracting unwanted attention. Personally, I've always chosen the individuality side, but I've always known the price it comes with. And I've received death threats, rape threats, and half-accurate doxxing as a result. I'm okay with that trade-off, but most people aren't, and for good reason.

In other words: You've been asking administrators for help in avoiding harassment, but sadly the best advice anyone will ever be able to give you is "Don't make yourself a target". I think maybe that's seemed so straightforward to some admins that, when it was implied and you didn't take it as intended, they've assumed the worst. I disagree with BusterD and Rosguill's speculation about your motives, but I see why they're frustrated. One of the hardest things for us to do as admins is try to protect editors from themselves; it makes situations like this emotional for all involved. I do hope you'll stick around, but I hope you do so mindful of this fundamental and unfortunate trade-off in managing one's online presence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which I asked what i did wrong I wanted to fix it but no one told me •Cyberwolf•. talk? 02:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that was unfair to you. But again, I think these situations are emotional for the admins who deal with them too. We've all seen a lot of people get hurt over the years, and it can be easy to mistake someone's good-faith failure to understand for a cavalier attitude. But I hope my comment has been able to rectify this miscommunication on both sides. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand •Cyberwolf•. talk? 02:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare told you to discuss this either in real life with a trusted adult, or over email with an admin. Issues like this need to be handled discretely and in private. There is no point removing information to try to protect you if the same information has been posted publicly on the talk pages of several dozen admins and some of the highest visibility noticeboards on the site. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what you are talking about and why this needed to be private •Cyberwolf•. talk? 15:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my assessment of the user page was: any amount of personal information on the user page of a minor who has faced personalized harassmeent and is concerned about continued harassment is too much personal information. And that "hall of shame" type posts are like lamps for trollmoths. The comment I highlighted seemed like it was possibly an attempt to bait someone into saying something that Cyberwolf could take offense at. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also something to be said about being less of a social butterfly if you are getting unwanted attention. Focus on editing (non-CTOPS) articles, you'll get much more positive feedback overall. Posting a bunch on village pump and ANI and admin's talk pages is the kind of thing that attracts a lot of potentially negative attention, regardless of what your user page looks like. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And i have to explain that the harassment wasn’t even related to my user page (a little but i dealt with that). What got lost in the discourse was what the harassment was and What made it extraordinary to me was the potiential of this to go beyond Wikipedia. So here’s my run down I interacted with this user last month originally on commons due to their posting of images unrelated to commons. They kept reposting the image till they got blocked (my memory is fuzzy) a couple days later i do more investigation. I uncover a sandbox which contained my netname, bishonen, and the central “Anthony07”(annh07). There was a google site that confirmed this to be serious and there was a podcast linked also. i was surprised (tbh kinda pissed off that it was real) i dug through the site and found the Anthony07 name in the “emails” section. I requested the then named 17Months to not use my name or anybodies name in this story. they ended up blocked. A couple days later i get the unintentional double pitfall that made me chuckle they first contacted me on the good ol cords of dis i called them out and discovered the behaviors that will give an sp away (which ill disclose over email cuz saying it compromises future spi) then we got the triple spi that happened on my talk page. Then i take a break. The day i come back they post the now suppressed message to me prompting me to jump back into the case which turned up a sandbox which is now deleted. It had me (as my netname) IN LOVE with anthony7(annh07) then it got worse i do more searching and pull up an wattpad story (which was 404) which wattpad is infamous for erotic fiction which alarmed me. This didn’t particularly stem from my userpage. Its hard for non eye witnesses to understand what exactly happenened which i felt flew away quickly (my fault). •Cyberwolf•. talk? 16:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberwolf: Right but I think what people are trying to tell you is... this sort of stuff happens when you do anti-vandal work. I have received harassment far more graphic than what you've described—we're talking, step-by-step descriptions of the violent crimes people wanted to commit against me. I'm not saying that to one-up you, but to show that if what you're describing has affected you this deeply, trust me, this is just the tip of the iceberg. And once you've publicly said that things toward the top of the iceberg bother you, that sadly is a magnet for people who want to say worse things.

I think Rosguill has given you some great advice, which is to go focus on non-contentious content work for a good while. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the more work one does distanced from that fact, the easier it is to forget what we're here for, and the easier it is to land in silly drama. Find something you're passionate about writing about, and spend a month or two just focused on that. I think you're going to find that much better for your mental health than crossing swords with LTAs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yah and i admit this was pretty stupid of me •Cyberwolf•. talk? 17:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill

someone recommended I get an experienced editor to adopt me and help me. I’m asking you because I see your an Admin. I want to help out anc contribute by blocking vandals and deciding which pages to delete. You can find out more about me on my user page and also some of the other posts I made. I thought maybe I could get to know you and then we could take it from their. L$Aiden$L (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - L$Aiden$L presented self at Teahouse discussion on April 5/6 and again 18/19 as a young person not responding to chemotherapy who has asked there and at rfa how to become an Administrator. Many editors have patiently advised that becoming an Admin is an impossible goal for a person who is new to Wikipedia and has shown no competence in improving or creating articles or contributing to AfDs. I'll add for L's benefit that vandalism can be reverted and vandals left warnings on their Talk pages without Administrator status. David notMD (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David notMD I’m sorry but I don’t understand why you’re following me around and trying to disparage me whenever you can. I’m trying to assume good faith but I can’t help feeling like you’re just trying to bully a kid with cancer. Honestly I did t know that there were people like this until now. L$Aiden$L (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @L$Aiden$L, I think Rosguill has already given you good advice below, but I just want to underscore the point about the hostility that can often arise from that sort of work. If you found David's comment hurtful, you're not going to enjoy either anti-vandalism work or being an administrator. In both of those roles, people will yell at you pretty regularly and you simply need to suck it up. But you can make some really important contributions to Wikipedia by improving articles or taking on some minor "gnoming" edits. I'm sure we can find you something you'll enjoy doing that doesn't involve people grumbling at you all the time. Do you have any particular interests you want to work on, or would you be happy "adopting" some backlog or other? -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L$Aiden$L, I don't think I have the time at the moment to mentor you. I would, however, recommend checking out WP:TASK to find a broad variety different types of constructive editing that you could do to help build the encyclopedia. I'm of the opinion that anti-vandalism work is honestly not a good fit for younger Wikipedians due to the hostility that can often arise from that sort of work. You'll have a much better time working towards building and improving content than you would trying to hunt down bad actors.

As for admin work, I wouldn't worry about that for now. Focus on learning your way around here and improving the encyclopedia, and if you still think that you want to be an admin in 2 years and 10,000 edits, you can consider looking it into it then. I had zero intention to become an admin until I organically worked my way up to doing consistent work in parts of Wikipedia that actually involve admin privileges/responsibilities by slowly expanding the areas I was confident editing in. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I've opened a thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Manyareasexpert , where your response is mentioned. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I edited pages like Battle of Izki or made articles about like the Conquest of Muscat and other confrontations between Wahhabis and the Qajars, would it be a violation on my ban on Azerbaijan or not? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viceskeeni2, I would say that given that the Qajar dynasty was founded by an Oghuz tribe that lived in the territory today corresponding to Azerbaijan and Armenia, and itself controlled this territory directly for several decades and retaining Azerbaijani as a court language, it does fall within Azerbaijani and Armenian history broadly construed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks Viceskeeni2 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]