User talk:Rosguill

NPR question

Hi, Rosguill, sorry to bother you but you recently assigned NPR to this editor. [1], and I thought you'd want a heads up about this warning I just gave them for very obvious cut and paste copyright violations.[2] They were good-faith copyvios, of course, but given that they're from within the past month, I thought you should be aware. Thanks, and again sorry to bother you. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up GreenLipstickLesbian, I'll keep an eye on it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Question

Rosguill hey, I just saw the message about editing something related to the Horn of Africa. Can you tell me exactly what edits I made that triggered this? I honestly don’t remember editing any contentious topic, so I want to understand what happened and what I said or did. Thanks! Majid8097 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Majid8097, I notified everyone who had not yet been notified that had been active recently at Sultanate of Mogadishu. The way that WP:CTOP works, everything within the sphere of the named topics (broadly construed, so anything borderline is included too) is considered part of the "contentious topic" even if the specific edits are not controversial. Ergo, any edits related to Somalia, other countries in the Horn of Africa or their history fall within the CTOP area. It's a standard notice, not a warning, and receiving it does not imply any past fault. Think of it as a heads up that there's less tolerance for disruption in the topic area, and conduct issues with editors may be brought to WP:AE instead of WP:ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2025).

Administrator changes

• CoconutOctopus
• Curbon7
• Hinnk
• Jlwoodwa
• Kj cheetham
• KylieTastic
• Ser!
• Smasongarrison
• UndercoverClassicist

• Bbb23
• Beeblebrox
• David Gerard
• Oleg Alexandrov
• Satori Son

CheckUser changes

• Alison
• Bradv
• Joe Roe
• RickinBaltimore
• ST47

Oversight changes

• Bradv
• RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
• Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

• Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
  • South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
  • The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
  • The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.

Miscellaneous

• Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I have been asked to review one of your blocks

Hi Rosguill - I'm currently at Wikimania Nairobi, and have been asked to review your block of Fiktube, whom I have met in person this week. I have no doubt that the block was made in good faith; I do wonder, however, how a user without a conflict of interest could adequately respond to such an accusation without getting blocked for denying the COI/UPE. I will meet with him again tomorrow to hear him out, and to get a better idea of what would change in his editing should he be unblocked; the UPE allegation was not the only issue identified (i.e., copyright concerns, inappropriate use of external links). I hope you don't take this as a criticism of your actions. It is a rare situation where a blocked user has the opportunity to make an in-person appeal, and is in a position to directly answer questions about the actions that led to the block. Best, Risker (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Risker, first off, no need to be so deferential, the inquiry is totally reasonable. With the disclaimer that I don’t have direct recollection of this block from 2 years ago, what I’m generally looking for from someone blocked for not responding to a COI inquiry is an explanation of how/why they chose to edit the articles that were identified as possible COI. From looking at their talk page today, if they’d simply disavowed the COI prior to continuing to edit the article (before the block) I would have taken that at their word. It’s also been long enough that they could probably just make a WP:SO request. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for being so obsequious; there are a few admins who are...shall we say a bit precious?...on the topic of undoing one of their blocks. You're right, the editor would probably be able to ask for SO, but since I'm here and can extract some promises of following best practices, I'm gonna run with it. Always useful to do some outreach to one of our smaller contributing communities, and take advantage of the "personal touch". Hope you're doing well. Risker (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for input at AfD

Hi Rosguill, I would appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clanker. After you led unanimous consensus to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian brainrot earlier this year, I withdraw that nomination. I believe that clanker, which I created yesterday, is an adjacent concept, but if you agree it that fails on WP:SUSTAINED, then I would value your perspective all the same. Thanks! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Link at WP:RSN

Hi Rosguill, I'm writing to you in your capacity as an admin here. In the discussion on whether the National Post is reliable a user made this edit [[3]] . A link included in this edit, https://archive.ph/t2wxG, leads to a page which gave me a warning in Italian that stated the page had been blocked for containing images of child pornography. I suspect this may be a problem with Italy's national block list, as that is where I am, but obviously there is a potentially very big problem here. Who needs to deal with this and how? Boynamedsue (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Boynamedsue That seems like a problem on the Italian end, the website in question is an archive site that can be pointed at any live website, so I’m not entirely shocked that at some point they have inadvertently hosted child pornography, but I don’t think that there’s anything to do per se. The original article was on the National Post website _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Great, that's a relief. As long as it is working properly outside Italy.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

WWE

Hello there. I recently came across the article WWE in the United Kingdom and decided to expand it by writing a dedicated History section. While at it I noticed that there is an entire section called 'Mayhem in Manchester' which is all about a single event, which shouldn't belong here.

I wanted to move all this to its own article Mayhem in Manchester but noticed in its history that it already existed before in 2019 and was removed (and redirected) by you because it wasn't sourced well. I concede that is true and that the article should not be restored.

Therefore the entire 'Mayhem in Manchester' section in WWE in the United Kingdom (which is the same, unsourced) should be removed but I'm stopping short of doing that in case someone else thinks I am vandalising, so I'll leave that matter to you. Hbkid2 (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Improving the article

Hi sir, i would request you to have a look here Nandan Van Zoo have tried to improve it. Thank you 🙏 Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like an improvement, and to a great extent I think that addresses the neutrality concerns (and the template can be removed). However, two minor things to still stand out to me: 1) The critical claims would probably fit better integrated into the article's History section chronologically, per WP:CSECTION 2) I think the attribution for the claims attached to citation 15 is slightly off--while the negligence by the forest department is alleged, the actual disappearance of the bear appears to be confirmed by the cited source in its own words. I'll go ahead and implement these edits myself now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I really learned from this article and your feedback. Has definitely helped in my overall understanding of article while reviewing. Thank you. I see lot’s of issues in Nepal related articles and observing them closely. Rahmatula786 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:GSAA concerns again

Hello Rosguill, sorry for bothering you again. This user [4] has suddenly appeared out of the blue and made not only excessive but also problematic edits with WP:VER and WP:POV issues. After being informed of WP:GSAA, they too instantly started this afromentioned rapid-fire editing to bypass WP:GSAA. Something is fishy here, what brand new user suddenly makes heavy additions, gets reverted and told of WP:GSAA, doesn't say a word, not even a complaint, and instantly starts to be able to byppass WP:GSAA? HistoryofIran (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It definitely is fishy. On the other hand, they're a brand new account, so they need to wait 30 days anyway, so joke's on them? That having been said, literally the first diff I clicked on, Special:Diff/1305741410, is linking the second mention of England, which is obviously incorrect, so evidently there's not sufficient care. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks for looking into it Rosguill! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately your message to them didn't stop them. They're still blatantly WP:GAMING to bypass WP:GSAA, eg [5] [6] [7] where they just add links one by one several times. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Tiggerjay at ANI

Just a heads up - I've taken the unusual step of reverting the notice on Tiggerjay's talk page, as I had (just seconds before) added the notice already but in the discussion above :-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

All good, totally appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

pending changes reviewer route

Hola Rosguill! Soy yo -- @AnonymousScholar49. En el futuro quiero tener el derecho de Pending Changes Reviewer; he leí los reglas de Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, WP:C Y todo eso. Tambien pase mucho tiempo en cambios recientes; puedes ver mis logs en mi página. Pienso que no estoy listo ahora, pero quiero preguntar: soy en la ruta correcta o no? Gracias amigo, un gusto AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is the English Wikipedia - we speak English here. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I know that man was just trying to have some fun based on the talk page banner AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

AnonymousScholar49, de verdad no creo que me he metido en la aprobación de Pending Changes Reviewers. Me parece que estas en buen camino, y de lo que conozco creo que en general PCR es más ligero y más facil conseguir que NPR. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

Thanks for the info. I will make further recommendations to deprecate far-right propaganda outlets like Politico Árvízfúró Tükörtűrőgép (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Seeking opinion about articles created from editor with COI

Hello sir,

i have observed 3 articles created yesterday by editors who had previous COI with other two articles. I found similarities in all 5 articles belonging to Nepali Congress a political party.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nepal/New_articles

i have few questions.

1. what to do in such situations- deal like any other articles as per its notability. 2. sometime if we can’t find such common things but observation make it clear that COI or UPE present. ( but lacks direct evidence). How we should approach. it may look like ordinary, but I always struggle with this situation. I saw good numbers of articles in nepal created by UPE but can’t produce proof. 3. if you want i can show few .

Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Chiyo Miyako

I have attempted to return the article to a redirect as you and a couple of other editors did fairly recently. I can't see any consensus to restore her page, however, I am stuck in an edit war with a particularly frustrating individual (although it's all great fun), I would appreciate your thoughts on her page and whether it is worth starting an AFD. I, for one, believe the original AFD supercedes the necessity to acquire consensus again. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

He only sends this because he thinks youll agree with an edit war he started so he doesnt have to actually have a discussion over something Steven547 (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You guys are both way over 3RR. As for whether it's worth a new AfD, that's up to you both - but you've got to stop edit-warring about it. (Personally, I'm surprised that second close wasn't contested, since it was closed by the same admin who closed the first one, which was taken to DRV.) -- asilvering (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thats partailly why i contested his edit war it doesnt make sense to uphold an afd that was closed by the same admin who closed an afd as delete whicu was then overturned especially since the next afd after that happned only 3 months after the drv Steven547 (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

It's fair to question it - but then you have to go to WP:DRV about it, open a new AfD, or find some other way to consensus. You can't just restore the content and then edit-war about it because you personally decided the old AfD was out-of-process. -- asilvering (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I dint really know how to do that but I'll try my best once the block expired Steven547 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Then he runs to his friends who he knows will back him up instead of pinging everyone who was involved before Steven547 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If an editor WP:CANVASSes a discussion, please notify an administrator about it. But avoid phrasing it like runs to his friends who he knows will back him up, since that's not terribly polite and is only going to inflame things further. You do still have to work with people you disagree with. Not to mention that it might get you in trouble for personal attacks/incivility. -- asilvering (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah your right i gotta keep my cool i just wish he would treat me with respect and actually engage in a discussion with me Steven547 (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

That goes both ways. I'm sure you're both just as annoyed at each other and just as frustrated at the lack of discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Yea you're right Steven547 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

AN discussion

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Lorraine_Crane. I pinged but also wanted to notify you that I mentioned you in that discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello

It seems that you review requests for WP:NPP. I want to be one soon, maybe in like one month. I think I will be responsible for it. Do you have any ideas on what I can work on so I can request the permission? My project record is here. Thanks, ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Rafaelthegreat, the main areas of editing that I look for when reviewing NPP requests are participation at AfD and article creations. At a very brief glance (less than what I would do if reviewing an actual request), your AfD participation looks good. Several of your recently created articles have templates, especially relating to insufficient sourcing--I would recommend fixing those issues before filing an actual application. As a side note, I'd encourage you to consider removing some of the dynamic content and animations from your user page, as it makes it difficult to load and interact with the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill thank you, but I did not understand "Several of your recently created articles have templates, especially relating to insufficient sourcing". Can you write that again but in more simple? ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 17:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I am referring to Theodor Dingermann, Duncan Penn, Cleamon Moorer, all of which have been templated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill ok now I understand. Thank you. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 18:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill by the way, I heard a backlog drive is happening. Do you think I can bee a reviewer now? ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Rafaelthegreat, my overall impression from this interaction is that you are rushing through edits, which is generally a bad fit for review work. I would not recommend applying for new page reviewer at this time. Backlog drives occur regularly, there will be many more in the future. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alternative for Germany on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 04:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Request

Hello sir, i have learned from mistakes. You can have a look on my edits since then. Trying my best to improve. I was requesting for an opportunity in September backlog, so that i can show the improvement. Thank you. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to decline. In addition to it generally being bad form to request something from a second admin after a first admin has declined you (and worse form still to do so without identifying that this was the case and clarifying why an exception should be made), I don't think you've made good on what I asked you to do last time you applied; ultimately, you were unable to address various lingering issues at Nandan Van Zoo and I had to clean them up for you to demonstrate. At this point, I feel like you're focusing way too much on receiving this permission, as opposed to genuinely working towards improving the encyclopedia and learning your way around at an appropriate pace. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, You are right. Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for sanction to be lifted

I hereby ask you to please lift the sanctions put on me in March of 2025, which restrict me from editing on topics associated with Azerbaijan and Armenia. Since the sanctions, I have made approximately 385 edits to Wikipedia in various topics, contributed to various topic areas, made 4 articles (Sawt Safir al-Bulbul, Jabal e-Malaika, Altes Rathaus, Deggendorf, Ya Ali (phrase)), greatly contributed to 3 articles (2025 Iranian strikes on Al Udeid Air Base, Abu Fanous, Ya Ali), gotten into 0 problems or conflicts (atleast I cannot remember getting into any, if I have done so please correct me), become more mature over the last 5 months and gained more knowledge in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict and other topic areas. I genuinely regret past mistakes and promise to try not to repeat those mistakes, e.g. when I mistakenly edited on GS/AA article and then didn't contest the sanctions, knowing I did a mistake and will have to pay for it. I ask you to please lift the sanctions on topics associated with Azerbaijan and Armenia, including the conflict, because I have been on sanctions in connection to these 2 countries for almost a year now and have learnt from my mistakes, promising to become a better editor now and in the future. I would be very happy if you accept this request, have a nice day. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Viceskeeni2 I would prefer if you bring this to WP:AE for collective review, given that your history of bans has included bans applied by other admins and discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, sure. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know too much about the Arbitration committee I wanted to ask you if it'll be variosu people watching the request and the ndeciding whether to accept or not or how does it work Viceskeeni2 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Viceskeeni2, AE requests are responded to by admins watching that page, it is a forum for addressing topics that have been designated as contentious by ARBCOM, but is not handled by ARBCOM directly. I would expect that a handful of admins will weigh in and respond over the next week or so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The appeal is now at WP:AE § Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Viceskeeni2. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 18:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Violation of WP:CT/IRP, WP:CT/KURD, and WP:GS/AA concerns

Hello Rosguill, as previously you helped in blocking users who violated the WP:CTOP restrictions, I decided to take this here and know your opinion on how to proceed regarding this situation: A new User who keeps into editing topics that they are not supposed to edit because of the restrictions, I have redirected one of their articles for violating WP:CT/IRP, and reverted one of their edits where they tried to expand a draft (the draft was about something of a kurdish conquest of a city, obvious Violation of WP:CT/KURD) so I reverted them, and I left them two different messages regarding the Introduction to continuous topics.[8][9] and now recently I can see they made a new draft violating WP:GS/AA, the draft goes by the name of Ksani valley. as I previously said, I have warned them twice. and this is their fourth violation for the restrictions. Shoul I redirect their article and warn them for WP:GS/AA restrictions? or you have got another thing in mind? Best. R3YBOl (🌲) 11:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

R3YBOl, I will look into this, as the KURD and AA issues likely warrant some sort of intervention. I think you may have misread WP:CT/IRP, as there is no blanket ECR in place for that topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright. I thought that military operations that involving iran (such as the article the user created:Operation Baghdad) fall under the CT/IRP restrictions. I appreciate your response, Thank you so much. R3YBOl (🌲) 14:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

R3YBOl, they are covered by CT/IRP, but to my knowledge there's no ECR baseline for the topic. The recent Iran-Israel war and related fighting are ECR by way of WP:PIA, as Iran's conflict with Israel is directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if Iran is not an Arab state per-se. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you or your efforts and active contributions on Wikipedia in general and also for assisting in granting permissions. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 23:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

TheCreatorOne

Hi. I reported TheCreatorOne on ANI, with almost no engagement and it was archived. After your comment in the Kosovo talk page, and my post there, they've continued to add disputed content, without using edit summaries or responding/acknowledging whatsoever on the talk page. Question is, what to do at this point? --Griboski (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

New message from Cactusisme

Hello, Rosguill. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer.
Message added 06:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Really sorry for disturbing you, I was wondering if you could take a look at my reply. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your revert on Malcolm X

About your recent revert (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_X&oldid=1309031596) - I also noticed the Antisemitism section's text was readded via an edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_X&diff=prev&oldid=1308231810). I thought that edit went against current edit/talk page consensus too. I wanted to revert it as well, though I wasn't sure how to communicate that in my undo's edit summary or on the reverter's user talk page.

The edit also created a Harv no-target error for Work cited sources (Pollock and Norton's sources, which go against current consensus) that didn't exist. The text was added back but not the sources. And fixing it would've gone against current consensus. It was stressing me out. Things are supposed to have sources on Wikipedia right? Especially on a featured article!

Thank you for taking action and knowing the right words to say! Similarsample5 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts on this IP user's behaviour?

There's this IP hopper who's been removing content from several Indian diaspora articles (e.g. Chindians, Indians in Japan, Indians in Korea, Indians in Thailand), and has been especially combative on the Ammar Siamwalla article, WP:TENDENTIOUSly repeatedly removing cited content by making up false arguments. Their refusal to create an account leads me to suspect that they're trying to avoid scrutiny of their edits, which are pretty much WP:NOTHERE. Going through the article histories, I saw Alikima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you indef blocked in 2024 for "persistent removal of sourced content despite warnings, misleading edit summaries, and dishonest answers to inquiries". This description sounds very similar to the current IP hopper's behaviour. I know CUs won't publicly connect IPs, so I'm not sure if there's much point to an SPI, but I'm not sure where else this could be raised either. Do you have suggestions? --Paul_012 (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Paul_012, you should collect some indicative diffs that show a behavioral match and file at SPI so that there's an easy paper trail to follow. There won't be any Checkusering, but your case will be reviewed and a block on behavioral evidence will be the outcome if you're right. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Looking more closely at their edits and scope of articles, I'm not seeing that many obvious parallels, so this should probably be approached separately after all. I guess what I was really trying to ask was whether their editing pattern was familiar to you, but of course you probably wouldn't remember a single block from a year and a half ago. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have any particular recollection that would be useful. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi! First, I haven't been making a lot of edits, I jump in here and there on articles that interest me. And no, I have never had an account and don't have an intention to make it at the moment, maybe in the future. Just want to clarify that I have only made a small amount of edits and probably not as many as Paul thinks. I want to improve the articles.

You are free to check and scrutinise all the edits I have made, there shouldn't be anything controversial. The problem is with Paul, who doesn't want to discuss and is miss referencing sources. If you check, especially the Ammar article, there have also been other users in the talk page that have questioned Pauls use of sources, which frankly could use improvement! As it is now, there is for example one reference to a completely different person, who is a music artist, but has the same name, and Paul refuses to remove or change that reference, unclear why. I think the article would be improved by at least having links that are actually talking about the person in the article. I don't think that's unreasonable at all. 220.147.123.41 (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

It turns out they have some overlap with 58.99.101.165, which you blocked for disruptive editing earlier this May. I've started an ANI thread, FYI. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing

You didn't mean to remove my comment? [10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

No, my bad! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Closure of The Bengal Files

Thank you for closing that case, which answered a question that I would otherwise have asked, which is whether the non-XC user was permitted to discuss the XC topic in project space. Okay. So they are not allowed to use project space noticeboards to discuss when they are not allowed to use article talk space to discuss. I agree that the restriction to XC users is draconian, and I agree that the draconian restriction is unfortunately necessary. I can see that Indian Military History is comparable to American Politics in that it has to do with a very large and very deeply divided country. I see that the filing editor was then given a 31-hour block by User:Firefangledfeathers for sealioning. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I'd actually go further and say that Indian military history and caste topics are significantly worse areas than American Politics on English Wikipedia, both in terms of the severeness of the restrictions, broadness of scope, and the widespread problematic editing (including extensive attempts to GAME AE and other processes) prior to the most recent ARBCOM case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. India is more populous and older than the United States. An American should understand the complexity of Indian history and politics by thinking of American history and politics. A South Asian should understand the complexity of American history and politics by thinking of Indian history and politics. There are caste and race. The United States is the world's largest Christian-majority country, and has a proud tradition of religious pluralism that is threatened by Christian fanatics. India is the world's largest Hindu-majority country, and has a proud tradition of religious pluralism that is threatened by Hindu fanatics. Yes. Two deeply divided countries. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

pirateWires RFC

As the crux of the rfc is from the tech4palestine article, would it be applicable to ask for folks to follow the 1k word limit from now on? The rfc seems to have devolved. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Bluethricecreamman that request seems reasonable at a glance, but my priorities today are such that I don’t have time to investigate and action it. I would suggest reaching out to another active admin with PIA experience. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I asked scottishfinishradish on their talk page for their opinion and if they want to enforce word limits as well Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:AE would also be an option, and would be most appropriate if you were asking to apply this to an article, but given the time frame of an RfC vs. AE response times I'm not sure that would be amenable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I owe you (and indirectly, SFR) a small apology, I hadn't realized that the 1,000 word limit is currently a topic-wide sanction by default, and thought I was being asked to apply a selective sanction that had been put into force at the related article as a discretionary action. Had I known that I would have taken action myself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Erasing talk page histories

I saw what you did with Project Penguin. You guys realized talk pages became a source for uncensored information or sources for verified or unverified links. Gotta shut it down! People CANNOT be allowed to click on the talk page and decide for themselves! Only random eggheads are allowed to find/create context! ;-) 2601:602:CE00:65D0:1B0C:4289:8B70:B009 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is in reference to, sorry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Just shocked at how confused, hidden, and different the talk pages have become. It used to be quite useful for interesting leads but then you guys started "archiving" discussions and shrouding them so that it becomes difficult to find a discussion concerning additions to articles, revisions, requests, etc. Like I said I used to find obscure and/or imteresting info and links by going to the talk pages of a certain topic. It reeks of dissimulation further narrative control. 2601:602:CE00:65D0:B4E:A372:37F9:B186 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Another DRN Case

Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Draft:Anuradhapura_invasion_of_Chola_Kingdom_(114-136) and advise me as to whether I understood the extended-confirmed restriction correctly. It appeared to me that neither editor was qualified to edit that topic. If there hadn't been an extended-confirmed problem, I would have told them to resume discussion, because the discussion was two months old.

I just noticed that when they started that discussion, the topic wasn't subject to the extended-confirmed restriction because ArbCom hadn't ruled yet. It's also strange because the dispute is about a draft, but there isn't an exception for draft space.

So was my thinking correct that the dispute needed closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yep, Robert McClenon looks like you made the right call, the only additional thing I would have been done would have been to leave a {{subst:alert/first|sa}} tag on the involved editors' talk pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you please take another look at the conduct of the filing editor? They have asked me a question on my talk page about how to proceed. They submitted a draft in the area of Indian military history, and are saying that it should have been accepted. It appears to me that it should not have been accepted, because they were trying to use AFC as an end run around the restriction, and they are now asking me about some concern about the other editor. I have now notified both of them, but I think that one of them may be headed for Arbitration Enforcement if they don't slow down. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Protection request

@Rosguill:Please protect Chauhan (surname) under South Asian castes with extended confirm restrictions, because socks of User:Truthfindervert targeted this page many times this page is based on different castes of India. This article was protected before against same sock group.[11] 163.61.74.19 (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Protection reuest/possible sockpuppet and IP editing

Hi, could you maybe help out with a new editor who is very likely using multiple IP accounts to disruptive editing multiple pages? Its Nataliarose123 (talk · contribs). Shares the exact same (disrespectful) language as these two IP’s: user:168.70.109.150 and user:219.73.24.186. I think its a very clear sockpuppet sort of a case, but page protections might be preferred instead. Could you maybe help out with that? Or at least warn this user? I sadly don’t have time for it right now. Thanks. Woxic1589 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I've warned the user--I'm not aware of any past sockmasters, so until they either heed or ignore the warning I'm not sure there's any further action needed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I just reported it at the notice board (just to be sure) for the disruptive behavior and language as the other editor just didn’t stop. But it did remind me of someone so I thought that it could be a sock. Woxic1589 (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

User continues doing the exact same thing: [12]. I don’t wanna revert it anymore because of a edit war thing. Could some other action be taken? Woxic1589 (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Woxic1589, at this point you should avoid continuing the edit war and work towards resolution at ANI (and if possible, on relevant article talk pages). In particular, it would be helpful if you could address the allegation at ANI that you have been adding material not supported by cited sources, as I think it would help clarify the matter. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thats a better idea indeed. I would however appreciate it if the other involved editor could show some patience and stop with that current behavior. But I won’t get involved with him for now as I will also end up in a edit war block then. Woxic1589 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Changed my mind, its simply not possible to work together with this editor: [13], see also the talk page Talk:United States men's national volleyball team. I have no idea what he even means with any of this. I don’t think that this is normal. Woxic1589 (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I also don’t think that this behavior is allowed either: [14] I let it over to the admins. Woxic1589 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Adoption Request

Hello Rosguill! I found your username in the Adopt-a-User program page as someone who is willing to take on an adoptee. I am relatively new to as a Wiki editor, but I've been reading Wiki for ages. Recently, though, I've been reading a lot of new material outside of wiki (mostly in the humanities), and I come to Wiki to double-check my understanding. I often find that articles could be drastically improved (for example: Fetishism, which I've started to work on.) I want to make sure that I'm revamping and improving this and other articles with care and according to Wiki rules, so I reached out to the mentor assigned to me by default. I haven't heard from them in quite some time, so I thought I'd ask for a new mentor. Would you be willing to mentor me? How does that process work? EspressoMachine77 (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

EspressoMachine77, I typically provide structured courses for editors who are interested in specific advanced permissions. Otherwise, I'm happy to answer questions and give advice but don't have much in the way of structured programming. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've also grabbed you as formal mentee, while I'm at it. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill and @Asilvering Thank you so much for responding quickly! I will work with Asilvering as I get started. I would be interested in engaging with you, Rosguill, in the future for leveling up in the wiki editor world, so to speak, after I've worked on a few articles. Thanks again to you both 🙏🏽 EspressoMachine77 (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure Rosguill doesn't mind if you ask them newbie questions! Just, now if you use that mentorship module to ask questions, they'll go to me instead of your less-active mentor. -- asilvering (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Sounds great! thank you! @Asilvering, I already posted my first question on your talk page :) EspressoMachine77 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Vokopolë

Hey Rosguill. I want to move Vokopole to its correct spelling, Vokopolë. However, Vokopolë is a redirect to Ferid Vokopola. I tried removing the redirect from Ferid's article, but I still can't rename Vokopole. It seems that the redirect page should be deleted to allow the page move. Can you take a look? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done, you may want to go through Vokopolë to proofread for the name's spelling. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Rosguill, much appreciated. Yes, I am doing it now. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)