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

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

Hello, please review this edit. It’s not a title; it’s part of his name. It represents a genre of Bangladeshi names, similar to Syed Shamsul Haque.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 05:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, we don't need "(scholar)" as there is no article by that name.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to draw your attention to the article Fazlul Karim (scholar). It should be renamed to Syed Fazlul Karim. He was the father of Syed Rezaul Karim and Syed Faizul Karim, and the son of Syed Muhammad Ishaq.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 06:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owais Al Qarni,  Done, in the future you can also bring such requests to WP:RM. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On [1], if I may suggest a "broadly construed" on that. Articles like Biafra, their draft(s?) etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was intended as broadly construed, such that any group Ekpa has belonged to would be in-scope (but I'll make sure to clarify that before moving forward). Hypothetically I think there could be room for constructive editing about Biafra as long as it doesn't overlap with Ekpa and his government-in-exile activities, which to my reading comprise the clear focal point of the sockpuppetry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SOURAVSHETTIGAR now used User:2402:8100:2818:6FA2:0:0:0:1 for undid your editing in Bharathiya Janata Party, Kerala, Bharatiya Janata Party, Puducherry, Bharatiya Janata Party, Tamil Nadu अर्नाब5454 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the IP has in all three cases started essentially a new article from scratch, rather than reverting to the prior edit. It may still be inappropriate to create these articles, but I'm not quite sure this is sockpuppetry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, have never heard of it before! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, if we had an article I would have linked it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reaching out because I think an indef might be a bit too much in this instance. Due to the inherently bitey nature of ECR their reaction wasn't unexpected, and although they needed to let it go i think that putting them into AE appeals to be unblocked with so little experience is essentially going to end their time as a contributor. Hopefully if they had a short forced timeout that would give them time to read the CTOP info and reach out for any clarification, as well as let the initial bite wear wear off so they could engage with a level head. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, I would be open to waiving the need to appeal to AE if they indicate an understanding of what is expected of them and of CT editing moving forward. I don't see any such recognition thus far, and instead see clear intent to continuously litigate and selectively read what is communicated to them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that's reasonable. I don't think the chance is high, in my experience less than 5%, that they'll become a regular editor but at least this way we can say we tried. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, one thing that did factor into my initial decision was that reviewing their edits, even before the issue at Talk:Zionism, they had a confrontational interaction with PakEditor at Liturgy, where they asserted that they were upholding NPOV by what appears to be a misreading of the text, misunderstanding a sentence asserting that liturgy can specifically refer to Christian public prayer (with an unambiguous, verbatim citation to OED) to be somehow minimizing other religions. While Mikewem has to their credit mostly remained calm/polite, at pretty much every turn they've demonstrated a lack of due diligence, an inability to admit fault, and a tendency to assume bad faith. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't want to give the impression that I think this was an unreasonable block, just that I thought that a lighter sanction might give a chance at a better outcome. I really appreciate you hearing me out about it, as well as being receptive enough to make an adjustment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please add a {{refideas}} template to the talk page with the Google Scholar sources? Mach61 17:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up self-reverting the addition of the template, as on closer investigation the papers I found were all undergraduate or Master's publications. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have accordingly unreviewed the article. Cheers, Mach61 17:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, meant to do that but evidently missed that step. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illeana Douglas & Talk:Illeana Douglas are currently disabled by new or unregistered users (so far, three years). would you re-enable? ... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

restore this?

{{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected due the [[WP:BLP]] policy. If you want to request an edit on this page click [[WP:RFED|here]] instead.}}

69.181.17.113 (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

need to show Melvyn Douglas (Melvyn Edouard Hesselberg) is grandfather to Illeana Douglas (Hesselberg) 69.181.17.113 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this claim? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a Mentorship barnstar, but unfortunately couldn't. Sending over this cup of tea (perhaps because I'm biased towards tea, I like it much more than any other thing) to appreciate everything that I learned from you during my NPR schooling. Earlier this year, I passed my RfA on Wikimedia Commons and then on Urdu Wikipedia, and over the years, have been gladly able to attend several Wikimedia events. I have always been through a lot of wiki-tech and volunteer as a translation administrator across several wikis. I recently came across you again at WP:VRTN, and I remembered, I have a thanks due. You have been a kind mentor. Thank you for being here. I have learned a lot from you. Thank you for making this difference. Regards, Aafi (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aafi, I'm touched, thank you. If we ever cross paths at a Wikimedia event we should definitely share some tea. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am hopeful. Thank you for responding. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps tu should bloqué cette l'utilisateur? Il/elle engage dans disruptive editing. (LOL) Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 23:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S'il continue ouis, mais iel n'avait pas editée plus apres l'avertissement finale. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, any chance of letting me have a copy of this article? Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore this, I have a copy now, thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this theorist to my attention. I think I'll enjoy reading some of his work. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to his picking apart of media memes in the broader text I linked at AE, his papers on Liberal [2], Marxist and Anarchist [3] views of the state, as well as the broader place of Marxian theory in international relations academia [4] are interesting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, thanks! Those look right up my alley. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rosguill. Yesterday I was left heartbroken after being banned from the AA topic by you without a chance to respond to the Vanezi's misrepresenting claims. [5]

May I write my response to Vanezi that would consist of a table and several references to the AA topic?

Regards, Hew Folly (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hew Folly, no. I gave you a chance to respond, waiting until you continued editing before addressing the concerns raised. You ignored the concerns, and proceeded to post a The message on Lucky102's talk page alone is clearly against the letter and spirit of GS/AA and merits a ban after having received the prior warnings from Firefangledfeathers (as would the edits I identified from the report). You have received sufficient warnings and second chances already. Your remaining recourse is to follow the standard appeals procedures described in the ban notice. I would strongly recommend that you first demonstrably build up your editing skills and dedication to Wikipedia by making significant contributions to other topics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a chance to respond, waiting until you continued editing before addressing the concerns raised. You ignored the concerns, and proceeded to post a The message on Lucky102's talk page alone is clearly against the letter...

I propose to look through chronology:

My post on Lucky102's talk page was written at 05:16 on November 12, 2024 [6].

Vanezi wrote his distorted claims more than 16 hours later, at 22:13, November 12. [7]

And you issued your ban less than 24 hours after the Vanetsi's letter in the absence of my answer, at 14:55, next day, November 13.[8]. And then issued your ban notice right after that(one minute later), at 14:56, November 13 [9], and then on the AEL page, just three minutes later or at 14:59, November 13.[10]

All my edits after the Vanezi's letter were either related to my response on my draft page or those posted on your talk page on starting from 16:10 November 13 to November 14. [11]. Last but not least, the edits were done more than 1 hour after you imposed your ban, and not before.

Conclusion: you technically couldn't impose your ban due to alegged disregard to the raised issue (in the form of post on Lucky102 and edits after the issue) from my side for the following reasons:

1. My post on the Luck102's page was written before the issue was ever raised.

2. All my edits after the issue was raised were not only related to the issue itself but were also done after the ban was actually imposed.

Do you agree?

Regards, Hew Folly (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WIKILAWYER. I still think the ban is warranted for the reasons I have already laid out, I do not disagree with the technicalities you point out but they're ultimately irrelevant. You have not demonstrated care for abiding by GS/AA after warnings; no further warning or response was required following the initial CTOPs notice left by FireFangledFeathers about 3 months ago. I'll also note that you're addressing comments that I had already struck and amended as of several hours ago. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WIKILAWYER. I still think the ban is warranted for the reasons I have already laid out, I do not disagree with the technicalities you point out but they're ultimately irrelevant.

Sure, I have some questions about them, too. But let's finish this one, because there's still some unclarity about that:

I'll also note that you're addressing comments that I had already struck and amended as of several hours ago

I have checked both the older and current versions and noticed that only one of the comments I addressed [12] was struck [13], while the first line (I gave you a chance to respond, waiting until you continued editing before addressing the concerns raised.) remains unchanged in both versions. [14] [15].

Let me just clarify if you still stand with it.

Regards, Hew Folly (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the error in the application of the text striking. This has now been addressed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We have finished this part and now I suggest to start working on the next one. Hew Folly (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After our previous discussion, I appreciate your modified post on my talk page. Although there is still some unclarity:

I am also deeply concerned by the most recent comment, which is another irrelevant, RGW and source-free statement about Armenia-Azerbaijan. [16] [17]

So, we have two comments: Mine and that of Lucky102:

1. The Lucky102's post was written on a Stepanakert talk page [18] that was published on January 16, at 06:06. [19].Note: as you can see, Lucky102's post was published with no links but WP:OR (which is legitimate for a Talk page), supported by links to Wikipedia pages [20], not specific sources, proper.

2. My post on his Talk page published several months later on November 12, at 05:16. [21]. Note: this post, as you can see, was tagged with a link to his post on another talk page[22], and provided with a source[23] to a text on another Wikipedia page that itself had a source [24].

Was my statement on the Lucky102's source-free, as you mentioned here [25] ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hew Folly (talk • contribs)

The difference is that as an editor who is not yet extended confirmed, you are expressly forbidden from making any edits to this topic at all, unless they are obviously constructive improvements like correcting spelling mistakes, updating information based on RS, etc. Lucky102's comment in this case does appear to be subpar and reflects poorly of them. If they exhibit a consistent pattern of behavior in this fashion, they may face sanctions. But as an editor with more than 500 edits and 30 days, they are allowed to participate and that means some leeway for being less-than-constructive in discussions. You have not reached that level of clearance, and thus are held to a higher standard per WP:GS/AA. The exceptions to GS/AA exist to allow us to accept clearly beneficial edits that no one would object to; you have repeatedly abused them to make polemic arguments on talk pages, and for this reason you have been indefinitely banned from the topic.

I believe that I have sufficiently explained the grounds for the sanction. Any further appeals should be made to WP:AE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have sufficiently explained the grounds for the sanction. Any further appeals should be made to WP:AE

To appeal to WP:AE (or any other relevant Wikipedia arbitral institution) is exactly what I am planning to do, but I need to clarify all the unclear issues, as you recommended yourself [26].

Lucky102's comment in this case does appear to be subpar and reflects poorly of them.If they exhibit a consistent pattern of behavior in this fashion, they may face sanctions.[27]

And that's exactly what I meant when wrote that Lucky102's statement was not subject to the Wikipedia rules[28]. Can we now agree that my post on his talk page was relevant, not WP:Tendentious due to this reason [29] and the fact that I actually supported his point, and definetely not source-free? If yes, please modify your comments here [30].

The exceptions to GS/AA exist to allow us to accept clearly beneficial edits that no one would object to; you have repeatedly abused them to make polemic arguments on talk pages

How can I know if anyone would object my argument or not? And according to the rules you referred to, 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.[31] Polemic ≠ disruptive. I took part in polemics after receiving warning[32] [33] from FireFrangledFeathers, was reported[34], warned again [35] yet, supported by FireFrangledFeathers themselves in multiple cases[36] [37]. Hew Folly (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is the kind of wikilawyering that is unlikely to persuade anyone to unban you. I believe that I have sufficiently explained the grounds for the sanction. Any further appeals should be made to WP:AE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts match Rosguill's. It's very unlikely that an appeal based on these grounds will succeed, and it's likely that it would worsen the chances of a future appeal based on better ones. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers@Rosguill Thanks for advice! I appreciate that! Can we set the record straight here? [38] Hew Folly (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you'd want to continue to talk about your ECR violation, except to say that you understand that it was one and will be sure it isn't repeated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rosguill, could you please delete: this, this and this. Thanks a lot. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 06:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou @Rosguill. Kindly cleanup this as well. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 15:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill, thought i'd reach out as I saw you had issued a topic ban for Ratnahastin in 2021. I'm concerned about their behavior on an article (among others) and seeking guidance on whether the 2021 ban needs to be revisited. Looks like it was lifted in December 2023.

In their appeal they mentioned that "In the future, I will only rely on broad perspective scholarly sources for the changes i wish to make and utilise venues such as WP:RSN and WP:DRN incase the dispute arises. I will avoid making any edits that might be deemed promoting a POV. If I get reverted, I will seek consensus on the talk page and refrain from edit warring . I will not accuse or cast aspersions against any fellow editor. I will maintain civility and take additional time to seek the consensus". However, recently, I've observed how their behavior has violated the conditions by which they sought appeal. To keep this brief, will try to limit my diffs to one article, but as I said before, am concerned it's also going on on other articles.

• For starters they copied one pov of an incident from the article into the lead without accurately summarizing the entire details from the body [39] in a npov
• Ignored questions raised on talk when reverted [40] [41]
• Disregarded reliable sources that don't meet their POV: [42]
• Edit warring [43] and tag teaming with editors who had no prior history/edits on the article [44] [45] [46] to bait a new user [47] [48] into violating 3RR and getting them banned for some time, only to later add in the content the editor was trying to point out earlier [49]
• Instead of trying to seek consensus on the talk, they haven't WP:AGF and filed an SPI against me and other users who have attempted to engage in discussion

Eucalyptusmint (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalyptusmint, based on these diffs this seems like it's still at the level of a content dispute.

• For the first point, the lead expansion is perhaps off base, but the text clearly includes that the claims are "alleged", and the sources used to support most of the additional details undermining the suit appear to generally cite weaker sources, so it doesn't seem to be a foregone conclusion that they're due for the lead. Is this edit going to win Ratnahastin a Defender of the Wiki barnstar? No. Is it grounds for an immediate sanction? Also no.
• Ignoring the questions raised on talk would be a significant concern if they continued to make edits to that page contra the objections after they were made, but the questions seem to have been made after Ratnahastin's last edits to the page.
• Dismissing the AP source out of hand is perhaps the most concerning thing listed here, but they don't appear to address that source directly, so it's not clear whether this is tendentious. It's also not clear that AP really supports most of the issue under contention, as most of the contentious information seems to be attributed to Trivedi, in which case ignoring it is less of an issue.
• I think that the evidence related to the edit warring does not demonstrate that this was an attempt to bait anyone into anything, and Ratnahastin was only peripherally involved with that.
• Editors are allowed to file SPIs if they provide appropriate evidence; if it's baseless and clearly tendentious, that will be evident from the result of the investigation and action can be taken at that time.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking some time out provide your thoughts! I can see how this can be seen as a content dispute, but as far as the RS I think it would be unlikely that the AP along with other widely circulated Indian sources are all deliberately falsifying the same set of facts. Regardless, I'll look into this further to see if there's any independent verification of these facts available. And to my point about being concerned, I'll also take a look again to determine if this is indeed merely a matter of differing viewpoints on one article or a wider re-emergence of similar behavior that had previously led to their tban. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You offered a statement in an arbitration enforcement referral. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've blocked Walter Tau for a week for violation of the topic ban you issued them recently.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosgulla haven't blocked but seems concerning. Star Mississippi 17:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not quite impersonation, but their edits look like an AfD troll or gaming attempt _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with some sock puppetry potentially thrown in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANZER.AYOUB cc @Maliner as I'm not familiar with this group. Star Mississippi 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just saw the new case too as I have that on my watchlist. It does look like a behavioral match to me but I’ll leave that to CUs or another admin to confirm _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi Thanks for your ping I have replied you on SPI. Maliner (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I don't know what the details are surrounding the topic ban you logged at Special:Diff/1257355698, but the type of bludgeoning it was supposed to prevent is still ongoing at Talk:List of video games considered the best#List fails several wiki rules and has now spilled over into WP:ORN#Potential SYNTH violation on "video games considered the best" list article in a way that's becoming a huge mess. Pinging Valereee, who I see is also involved in this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Valereee (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]