User talk:Rosguill

GS/AA

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

Kevo327, it's rare that I tell editors that they should have brought something to my attention sooner, but I think this is the case here. New editors engaging in GS/CTOP noncompliance are rarely going to listen to anyone until they are blocked because it's very easy to gloss past the GS/CTOP warnings and interpret other editors' objections as bad faith obstruction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to AfD the articles created in the restricted area by the non-EC user, I even tried to cross some of the articles that could be merged, yet still fall under GS. While it all could've been just blanked I assume. But I don't think the 2 users participating in the AfD so far are aware of the sanctions in AA (even though I mention it in the nomination). Do you think withdrawing the AfD and just blanking instead would be an option now? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

At this point since it's at AfD I think it's better to let it run. The articles are now in a procedural gray area where there really isn't an obvious path forward. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that the AfD has run its course, would the GS blanking option still be viable? It seems both excessive and unfair to everyone else’s time to create 12 individual AFD nominations, when the user whom the WP:BURDEN is on is currently blocked for violating GS/AA twice. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that a bold WP:BLAR would be appropriate for articles where there's a valid redirect option (it can always be contested by any editor), otherwise AfD is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that after their 2nd block, the user violated GS/AA again by creating this AfD [3]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

What in the world were they thinking? I also can't shake the feeling that there's a weird amount of behavioral overlap with AmanAmanAmaTurq, although at a glance they would appear to be on opposite sides of the conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Another user warned twice actively edits GS/AA articles [4], thought to let you know. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

An IP violated GS/AA twice after being warned, could you take a look [5], [6] ? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Another user violating the restriction after being warned [7]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The ban on participation in move discussions is a relatively counterintuitive aspect of GS/AA so I opted for a renewed warning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A warned IP also violated gs/aa [8]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The user that got renewed warning violated gs/aa afterwards [9]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

IP blocked, I'm inclined to ignore the violation at Musa Dagh given the edit's context (following up on a criticism previously posted on the talkpage, solely removing unsourced content). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Several other users have violated GS/AA after being informed about it, [10], [11], [12], [13]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

See User_talk:AntonSamuel#Notifying_editors_regarding_GS/AA, I feel that the initial notices about GS/AA were not clear enough here, and there hasn't been further editing by editors who have since received clarification about the matter (e.g. Eloquent Editor). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating since the above-mentioned users violated GS/AA and some were reported. Another user also violated the restriction after being warned [14]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Also an IP that was blocked already for GS/AA violation has violated it again [15]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This is about one of the users you've re-warned of GS/AA: they've commented on a gs/aa covered article talk, trying to somehow justify and whitewash the recent renaming of a street in Stepanakert after Enver Pasha, one of the perpetrators of Armenian genocide. This was reported by RS following Azeri takeover of the city. The user doesn't take into account what the cited sources in the article reported [16], [17], user just makes an OR speculative comment that adds no value to the discussion.

After basically being asked by three different users [18], [19], [20] to be more competent in such a topic area and discussion, they left this comment afterwards.

My question is: don't the recent OR, incompetent, and borderline whitewashing comments by this user violate the WP:GS/AA, specifically "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below."

I think the comments by this user are disruptive, OR and extremely incentive bordering on whitewashing, justifying the renaming of a street after a genocide perpetrator - trying to paint it in a different narrative using OR speculative comments, ignoring sources cited in the article. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you raise valid points. I'm not going to take action at this time because I think their comments there are ultimately inconsequential and the level of disruption is low, and because there are other editors engaging them with charged language themselves. I would have felt a bit differently had I come across this as an AE report, rather than a personal one, you may want to consider filing there, especially if they continue in the same vein. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the IP you've blocked has been circumventing their block, making similar to the above forum like comments in Talk:Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. Perhaps a range block is needed. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP violated GS/AA again using more dynamic IPs [21], looks like they're hounding me. Is a range block due at this point? I'm not sure if this is their range [22].

More violation by other users warned of GS/AA [23], [24]. Could you take a look? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

A new user with 8 edits in continuing to WP:BLUDGEON after posting a 15K+ wall of text [25] and replying to virtually everybody who disagrees with them. I've warned the user of GS/AA and explicitly asked to stop this behavior [26], [27], but they still continued to bludgeon [28], [29], [30]. I believe these are disruptive use of talk page under GS/AA. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Now using the talk page to make accusations of non-neutrality despite several editors "unrelated to both sided" already disagreeing with them on talk [31]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

My view on this one is basically the same as the last one: posting walls of text on a talk page that are related to edit suggestions is lower than the level of disruption that I am willing to take action on from a report to my talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

And do personal attacks raise the bar? This user keeps bludgeoning the discussion and disagreeing with multiple editors opposing his unfounded comments, ignoring RS and wall of text. Now they resort to asking if someone's a "child" for disagreeing with their pov. This looks to be more than disruptive usage of talk space which is covered by gs/aa, and the user is pretty much an WP:SPA. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that crosses a line (although just barely). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

User

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

This user is now asking other editors in the topic if they have Discord to message. Google translation of what he said: "Do you have Discord or something like that, can I run with you? I have many hearts to give you" NMW03 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely, as not only is there the apparent gaming behavior that you pointed out, it's almost all to pages still covered by GS/AA so it's ALSO a violation of that. I'd be open to them being unblocked on the condition of a topic ban, but given that they clearly don't understand how topic bans work I think that this step should come only after they've explained themselves. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! NMW03 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. This and this user are creating articles and making edits about Armenia after being warned ([32]) about extended-confirmed restriction. NMW03 (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither of these two editors had been given a {{alert/first}} warning, so I'm not jumping to a block just yet. I've placed CTOPs warnings for both editors; in the case of Samvel Khuspov, it's a final warning regarding GS/AA compliance before blocks. For LewonK, I don't see any GS/AA violations (or edits at all) since your warning, and their focus seems a bit broader topically, so they have a bit more rope left. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

LewonK has made 17 edits since my warning, all to the Tigranes Invasion of Sophene (94 BC) (article about Armenian history) and Fight for Karabakh (1918-1919) (article about an Armenian-Azerbaijani battle) articles. How are they not violations? Also, it's weird that three new users all made edits to this new article that only has one article linking to it. I'm suspecting sock or meatpuppetry going on here. View on Interaction Timeline. NMW03 (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you're right about that. I think I may have pulled up the wrong contribs page by accident. And they've now continued past my warning. I'm tied up in a meeting at the moment but once I'm free I'll address this again, and it's looking like it's time for a short block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Samvel continues editing Azerbaijan/Armenia-related articles even after receiving a warning. Also, one of the three new users who edited the newly created article Tigranes Invasion of Sophene (94 BC) by Samvel, (Georgian person) blanked the article in the same way as Samvel did. I think this provides sufficient evidence of potential meatpuppetry. NMW03 (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yikes, Special:Diff/1170080542 by Samvel is obviously inappropriate battleground behavior, on top of all of the more mundane rule-breaking. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Another one. This user has made 3 edits to this topic after my warning. For example: [33] NMW03 (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Another and another NMW03 (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The former's violation is less egregious so I left a second warning there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

[34] NMW03 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello. LewonK on YT is active again on Armenia-Azerbaijan topic after warnings and week-long block from you. NMW03 (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Review of EMY Africa Awards Page

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

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

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

References

I finally finished the section on my NPP school page

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

I forgot a section and need a bit to finish, sorry! Asparagusus (interaction) 19:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I have now finished, really sorry about that! Asparagusus (interaction) 20:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Serious issues

Hello Rosguill,

User NMW03 removed the neutral WP:POV of several articles by removing scare quotes and other expressions of doubt,[35][36][37] when the cited sources themselves use quotes and expressions of doubt.[38][39] Even after the due weight was explained to NMW03, they began edit warring to continuing pushing this false weight[40][41] and never replied to the talk page discussion about removing sourced quotes. Not only has NMW03 previously removed scare quotes to push an undue pro-Azerbaijan narrative, they are now hypocritically adding scare quotes to push an undue pro-Azerbaijan narrative. The existence of a humanitarian crisis is well sourced, yet NMW03 removed most of this part and reduced it to: what has been described as a "humanitarian crisis", and completely removed that "imports of essential goods have been blocked". NMW03 also added original research by writing "Azerbaijan relaxed the blockade" for a source that only mentioned "signs of possible easing; the blockade is still very much ongoing but a reader would be left with the impression this isn't the case.

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

Rosguill, please note that almost all of these points were already discussed in a recent AE report where Kevo327 brought them up. Two admins agreed that there was nothing sanctionable and closed the report with no action taken. Actually, he was warned for very similar behavior less than a week ago as a result of another report. @Callanecc: you may want to take a look. And for the record, the quotes around humanitarian crisis were not scare quotes, but actual quotes that were grammatically required because before it, I say "has been described as". NMW03 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The diffs of you removing the scare quotes are before the AE report, after which you proceeded to hypocritically add scare quotes when no recent sources used them. And the article previously had no expressions of doubt for the humanitarian crisis, being called such by multiple sources. You adding expressions of doubt like “has been described as” was POV pushing. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but as can probably be guessed by my recent editing history, I do not have the time to even begin to address the above. Please direct concerns to AE. I might end up addressing it there, but I can't focus on editing with this unresolved on my talk page and I do not wish to give it such high priority at this time. I expect my workload to be back to normal in two months or so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Kevo327: if you have concerns about NMW03's editing you need to create an AE request. That AE request needs to have very recent examples, not repeat what has already been raised at AE and dismissed, and be clearly explained with reference to the policies (etc) being breached. Posting in other places (obviously with exemptions) about editor conduct within this contentious topic is not helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hello @Callanecc. Thank you for the suggestion. NMW03 himself reports many users in this same page User_talk:Rosguill#User so I assumed it was alright to report a recent problematic diff of NMW, from after the previous AE discussion. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Rita Payés

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

Cl3phact0, I think the article is ready to promote: about a third of the sources lack clear bylines and/or seem to be routine announcements of concerts rather than SIGCOV, but the rest of the coverage (especially in Spanish and Catalan) has more heft and gets us to GNG I think. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Great! Thank you for having a look. I might try to pare back some of the most egregious non-SIGCOV overcite and then take care of the AFC review later today or tomorrow. (I was initially served the draft by the "random AFC" algorithm, but was knocked-out by the music – I must say.) I'll probably do a quick stub on the mother too at some point, if somebody doesn't get there first.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done (Thanks again for your help!) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

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

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

Notability tag

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

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

Your recent Prod

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

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

Johnny Depp fan is back

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

It seems pretty clear that these should be G5-able as block evasion. What were your thoughts? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That was my conclusion after looking it over. Deleted. The only edits by named accounts were minor - typos pretty much. There are several IPs that need proxy checks. Two main locations. I blocked the one I'm sure is the same as one sock. The other two I'm still looking at. They are static and at least one is on the blacklist. Thoughts on the IPs? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This IP did some really Quacky and substantial edits, like this huge text dump.[42] - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the IPs that edited the draft page linked here, despite the difference in IP numbers, they almost all geolocate to the Cayman Islands (with one US IP)--that seems highly unlikely to be a coincidence. None of the IPs seem particularly active, although there is history from ~4 years ago that seems to be unrelated to Johnny Depp. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sanction

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

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

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

Hi, Rosguill refused me in Arbitration, yes there is strict judgement, it is always so, I have seen many times how people are judged in the Russian section. Please don't send me to Arbitration anymore.)) After some time I will appeal to you again, if you have free time, you will decide for yourself. Just don't judge me harshly, you can see that I admitted my mistakes and apologised, and after that I had no violations. Anyone can make mistakes, no one is immune to it.--Товболатов (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

article protection

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

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Earlier today I notified a user [43] of GS/AA. They just violated it [44].

And I tried to open a Move discussion since users commented agreeing with me in here, but it was collapsed [45], [46] by another user since there can't be two Moves at the same time apparently. I tried to verify this but couldn't find in the policy, is this true and what can I do now? The current Move doesn't take into account any policy - sources don't report as such either, yet the Move I've opened was the one being collapsed which is supported by majority RS. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That squares with typical practice even if it's not a chapter-and-verse rule. Sometimes when people start a bad RM proposal, a more appropriate alternate suggestion can be made "from the floor" as it were and the question can be resolved that way. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe this also needs protection per GS/AA, could you add the protection? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please remove the personal attack comments from the article talk page? I gave a standard notice to a gs/aa user, after which they have started personally attacking in their page [47] and on article talk [48] - what's the purpose of that discussion on an article talk page where content is ought to be discussed, and why a EC user keeps suggesting ANI report me, twice, to a non-EC user who can't even edit this topic area and started off by making personal attacks? How all of this is appropriate let alone for an article talk page where we discuss content? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

This isn't about GS/AA, but I hoped you could take a look: A user added "both sides" ceasefire violation supposedly by Artsakh [49]. Not only they're inserting the text in a sentence cited completely different time period, they're violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in process as their cited source quotes the Russian peacekeepers which actually don't blame any side for violation, just that it happened - unlike the sources in lead which blame Azerbaijan. I looked up the official Ru Defense ministry peacekeepers reports, and they said the same without blaming side for violation, so I expanded the article accordingly and removed the synth OR [50]. They proceed to not only edit war without addressing any synth OR concerns, but also remove the images in the article for no reason whatsoever (the images are sourced by Russian peacekeepers stationed as both sides' agreed 3 years ago) [51], [52], [53]. They're now adding an "unbalanced" tag to the images [54] and article [55] – what else the images are supposed to be if they're sourced by third party (Russian peacekeepers that both sides agreed to be in Artsakh) and that Artsakh didn't start the attacks, it's barely defending itself and already agreed to talks just to have a ceasefire. The user has gone beyond POV editing, an admin should take a look if possible. Could you take a look? This user should be at least p-blocked from the article, they don't have enough competence to edit it and are extremely POV. They also have several warnings in their talk already.

They're also assuming the ethnicity of a user [56] - I looked up at the page of user Vanezi Astghik, nowhere it says they're Armenian. Ecrusized is clearly a battleground POV editor. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Kevo327, I can't commit to giving this a thorough investigation today, but the main points you've identified here are concerning. My sense is that you can challenge the POV edits you disagree with on the article's talk page, and that if the matter can't be resolved there an AE case is likely appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

ok. I'll comment on talk, but you might want to look at this [57] when possible to you - how am I suppose to engage with a battleground user like this? It's their second comment and they're already making personal attacks, after assuming the ethnic background of a user earlier. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

In the context of the article talk page, ignore the barbs and make succinct arguments regarding the content. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I just don't think the user should be given so much leeway given their conduct on the article and its talk, I think an admin intervention is necessary. apologies for bothering, hope you can take a look when you have time. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

If you think it already rises to that level, feel free to go to AE or ANI. Based on the diffs here alone, I would want to investigate the editors' history more thoroughly before intervening, and I don't think I can promise that I'll have time to do that this week. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:G4 and WP:AFD

Hi,

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

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

Can you link the prior AfD here? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian Air destinations as part of a multi-article nomination. Coastie43 (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that that discussion was a multi-AFD with several pages and that an AfD is already open, I think letting the current discussion run to its conclusion is the most efficient way to move forward here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions

Hello Rosguill,

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

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

"Pay for play" and unreliable sources?

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

I reviewed that article over a year ago, so I do not remember and cannot speak to precisely what my reasoning was at the time. From looking at it now, while I don't remember how I arrived at the conclusion that DIY, Dork and Gigwise are unreliable, the Clash and NME sources don't appear to provide any significant coverage of the album Oblivion!not attributed to the artist, so those are beside the point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 10:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree—the Clash source used is a feature on the artist prompted by the then-upcoming release of the EP (even if it's not in-depth about the EP per se) and the NME source is an announcement, which hardly ever proivde "significant coverage" in and of themselves. But regardless, without those it still passes WP:NALBUMS. Ss112 11:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

No objection to the tag removal, as I said I don't recall how I arrived at that conclusion and your reasoning here seems sound. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 11:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Jersey Tigers

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

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

Thanks for the message. Lightburst (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

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

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

Prometheus (moth)

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

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

NPP School current section example 2

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

In that case, the answer is that the SNG does not confer notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 13:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)