User talk:Rosguill

Deletion review forMoroccanoil

An editor has asked fora deletion reviewofMoroccanoil.Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Kapitan110295(talk)04:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done a deletion review before, I hope I'm doing this properly:)Kapitan110295(talk)04:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Kapitan110295,as the people who have responded to the discussion have already pointed out, DRV is appropriate if there was an issue with the prior deletion discussion/closure itself. In this case, the situation is that you are asserting that there is now a notable topic by this name, unrelated to the discussion at RfD 3 years ago, so you would have been better off skipping DRV and just drafting a new article since there’s nothing for DRV to evaluate. You can still do that by withdrawing the current discussion (if you’re not sure how to do that, just leave a comment saying that you want to withdraw and someone will do the rest) and then proceeding to start working on the article._signed,Rosguill^talk13:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

TheSagar

A redirect2024–25 SA20thatUser:Thesagar75had created twice, and whom you had blocked in Jan, has been recreated byUser:Sagar Singh 9,account created in March.Jay💬20:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as obvious sock, noting that they'd already been pinged for various disruptive edits as well._signed,Rosguill^talk15:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Shravan Tiwari

Hi Rosguill.Shravan Tiwarihas been moved back to the mainspace. I noticed in the page history that you draftified it in January citing UPE/block evasion concerns; so, I'm just letting you know as a couresy. --Marchjuly(talk)06:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Marchjuly,this ended up being quite the rabbit hole, seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maheshworld._signed,Rosguill^talk15:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I didn't realize things were that messy. --Marchjuly(talk)21:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Sent you a mail again

Really hoping you have the time right now. Only the private evidence is private. So, we can talk about the rest of it on wiki. Have you considered becoming a CU? If anyone needs it, that's you. Best,—Usedtobecool☎️13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Get well soon, Rosguill. Sorry to have put you in the position. I default to you cos of the NPP connection. Best,—Usedtobecool☎️18:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

All goodUsedtobecool,it was an honest mistake on both our parts and I don't think anyone's planning on throwing the book at us yet (just y'know, opening the book and pointing to a page)._signed,Rosguill^talk18:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool+1I was thinking the same for a while now that Rosguill would become a good CU. Since SPI has a backlog now and needs a few helping hands, I think this will be the right time to apply if they feel it is interesting. Regards!Maliner(talk)17:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Private evidence blocks

Hi, perWP:BLOCKEVIDENCE,related toSpecial:Diff/1206604402andSpecial:Diff/1223193298,please make sure you are reporting UPE and other private evidence blocks so that they can actually be reviewed.Primefac(talk)16:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

In fact, administrators who are not Checkusers or Oversighters should not make private evidence blocks at all, perWikipedia:Blocking policy#Confidential evidence,which statesThe community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed.

Please send cases like this to either a CU, OS, or to ArbCom. I for one am more than happy to take 'private evidence' referrals from admins in my functionary capacity.firefly(t·c)17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Primefac,firefly,noted! I hadn't been aware of that clause. I will collect the relevant emails and send them along._signed,Rosguill^talk17:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to include a reminder in the next Admin Newsletter.S0091(talk)17:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It's been inthere before.Any sort of reminder might make more sense when the newpaid editing queuelaunches (something I hope Rosguill gives serious thought about applying for).Barkeep49(talk)18:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll look into it when it's time, although my first impulse regarding this (and the encouragement to pursue CU status in the section above) is that for as long as actual new page patrolling makes up a significant portion of my editing, taking on these additional roles might make me more judge-jury-and-executioner than is really appropriate (at least from the vantage point of anyone on the receiving end)._signed,Rosguill^talk18:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the only relevant materials I have actually acted on are related to the QuadriSayedSahab case; I have not reviewed anything related to the second diff concerning Annuarif although I believe I did receive an email this morning (I have been sick recently and have thus been applying less than my usual diligence in responding to requests).Usedtobecool,please forward relevant further correspondence to [email protected] and/or firefly per their volunteering here._signed,Rosguill^talk18:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It's done. Thanks firefly. I did often wonder if it's functionaries I should be contacting but that wasn't the practice that I learned when I was learning, and missed that RFC as well.—Usedtobecool☎️18:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I don't believe any of my previous emails included private evidence. They numbered two or three and were sent for a more frank/comfortable communication and/or for communicating sock tells that I had shared more cryptically onwiki.—Usedtobecool☎️18:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The QuadriSayedSahab case involved private evidence sent to me by a different editor. Your description of our past off-wiki communication is accurate to my recollection: it's mostly been about calling out patterns of editing between accounts that would amount to spilling the beans if repeated on-wiki but which did not include anything actually private in nature._signed,Rosguill^talk18:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Çankaya Mansion

Is there anyway we can protect this article per WP:GS/AA enforcement action? An IP has been removing referenced information since 3 May. --Kansas Bear(talk)12:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Kansas Bear,yes, Armenian Genocide-related material is plainly within scope of those restrictions.Doneand logged atWP:AELOG._signed,Rosguill^talk14:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Stay safe, Rosguill. --Kansas Bear(talk)15:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Got Milked

Hi. Following that user's block from the specified 2 articles, could I ask you to glean through his other ones in the related subject? He has a history of warnings. From what I've seen, his style is inflammatory, and his contributions are large chunks of barely-relevant, poorly sourced and badly written text.AddMore-III(talk)23:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be a consistent pattern of COATRACK editing, yes, although now that the active disruption has been dealt with, nothing that rises to the level that would make it appropriate for me to deliver a sanction as a bolt out of the blue. If you think that the quality of their edits is of such a consistently poor quality that it has become disruptive in general, you can bring a case toWP:AE,but I doubt such a request will be successful unless/until there are examples of 6+ articles where this has happened or new examples of disruptive editing since the p-block._signed,Rosguill^talk01:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

thanks for your contributions!:)xRozuRozu(t•c)04:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Peranakans

You don't know about the whole Perakans! As a Malaysian, I still know everything about Peranakan,you don't know how many ethnicities Peranakan are out there, do you know the difference between Peranakan Chinese Baba Nyonya, Baba Yaya, Kiau Seng?2405:3800:84B:1E32:91A6:951B:7279:2F04(talk)17:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As a Wikipedian, you need to provide reliable sources to back your claims. Also, on English Wikipedia, you need to write in comprehensible English, which your article-space contributions have thus-far fallen short of._signed,Rosguill^talk17:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'd draw your attention to the hatnote already atPeranakan Chinese:This article is about Peranakans with Chinese ancestry. For Peranakans with Indian ancestry, seeChitty.For Peranakans with Eurasian ancestry, seeKristang.For Peranakan Muslims of Indian, Malay and Arab descent, seeJawi Peranakan._signed,Rosguill^talk17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Request to receive response for my claims in the discussion although I am not "qualified"

hey, did you had a chance to read the discussion before looking it?

I would appreciate if I could get an answer to my questions regarding the request for enforcement in that topic, specifically regarding the policy I have quoted regarding re-instating of content in dispute.

I hope you cold see I am coming with good fait and instead of fighting we could have a fruitful conversation...

"Many users believe that unregistered users' sole contributions to Wikipedia are to cause disruption to articles and that they have fewer rights as editors compared with registered users. Studies in 2004 and 2007 found that although most vandalism (80%) is generated by IP editors, over 80% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome_unregistered_editing

Hope that you will address my concern regarding the policy instead of choosing the easy route of calling me disruptive and dismiss my request for rules to be enforced equally:)109.64.78.25(talk)18:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

IPs are not allowed to edit these topics perWP:ARBCOM's rulings, which are endorsed by the community. This is a necessary measure to address sockpuppetry and persistent bad faith editing in the topic area. End of discussion. Persistent attempts to challenge this as an IP is itself a violation of the ruling, and will result in a loss of editing privileges if continued._signed,Rosguill^talk18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

redirect of the page: String Quartet No. 4 (Ichmouratov)

Dear Rosguill, I just noticed that you redirected the page aboutString Quartet No. 4, Op. 35.I realize that I probably didn't address the notability concerns properly and later forgot about it. Now, the page is deleted, and I believe this work by this Canadian composer is important and notable for Wikipedia readers, as it has been performed on multiple occasions in several countries, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. I would like to ask if you could restore the deleted page and give me a chance to improve it and prove its notability with reliable sources. Thank you,Patrick0506(talk)13:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Patrick0506Nothing has been deleted, you should be able to access everything in the page's history, here's a link for convenience to the last revision before redirection[1].I would have merged information to the article about Ichmouratov himself, except that said article was comprehensive enough that it wasn't clear if it would be appropriate. My concerns regarding the No. 4 article is that the cited sources appeared to praise the album that the No.4 appears on, but dedicate virtually no attention to the No.4 piece itself._signed,Rosguill^talk14:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for your input, it's appreciated. I will work on making this page more informative about the composition itself.Patrick0506(talk)18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have one more question. I want to ensure I'm following Wikipedia's rules correctly. After adding more information, if I understood correctly, I cannot remove the "Notability" tag myself since, as the creator of the page, I have a conflict of interest. Should I approach you for this task? Sorry for asking so many questions, this is my first time dealing with this issue, and I want to do everything according to the rules. Thank you in advance for your advice.Patrick0506(talk)18:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Eh, it's a gray area to be honest as long as you don't have an actualWP:COIwith the subject itself (i.e. while it's natural for you to be somewhat biased towards the state of the article given that you started it, unless you have an actual external relationship with Ichmouratov or this work it's not a full-blown COI). In this case, since we've already discussed it here and I'm confident you're approaching this in the right spirit, I wouldn't object to you removing it yourself (and if I still think there are serious notability issues even then, I would just progress to opening anWP:AfDso that the community can weigh in and come to a consensus._signed,Rosguill^talk19:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you for the quick response. I will do my best to get it right. All the best.Patrick0506(talk)19:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill, I just wanted to keep you updated in case you would like to check. I have worked on the page over the last few days, adding more information about this composition, including music samples, external audio, and image files. Thank you again for your advice and contributions. it's much appreciated. I feel that I learn something, and I am grateful.

Best regards,Patrick0506(talk)15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

TPA removal and rev/del request

Hi Rosguill, see the unblock request atUser talk:Make Way For The King.I have already sent an OS request for their edit summaries atKolkata Knight Riders.Pinging @K6kawho blocked them for their awareness.S0091(talk)19:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like K6ka already (correctly) removed TPA. I've gone ahead and performed the revdel._signed,Rosguill^talk20:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Rosguill.S0091(talk)20:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Re:Love, Chunibyo & Other Delusions: Heart Throb

I'm confused. Where is the evidence there was "extensive copyvio of the original English episode summaries"inLove, Chunibyo & Other Delusions: Heart Throb?Now that the history has been deleted, I can't check them for myself to verify your claims. You've also inadvertently leftList of Love, Chunibyo & Other Delusions episodeswith half of its content now gone without any episode list whatsoever for the 2014 series, which is not exactly helpful.--ThậpBát20:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The text came up in a copyvios.toolforge.org report that matched the text to www.themoviedb. org/tv/45501/episodes?credit_id=55525564c3a3683d3b001960&person_id=4c85cb465e73d66b5b00006e&language=es-es (n.b. that website is on Wikipedia's blacklist, hence the non-functional link). My guess is that the summaries were likely the original first-party summaries provided by the publisher of the anime, but that is still under copyright and not material we can include on Wikipedia._signed,Rosguill^talk20:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible for me to see which summaries were potential copyvios? Was it all of them, or just some of them? Seems kind of pointless to discard all of them if only some of them were in violation.--ThậpBát21:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

About 80% of them were matches, and in my experience when that's the case it's usually all of them and the non-matched ones just match to a different page on the site and thus don't get identified in the report. What I can do for you though, is restore the page and bring back the template and all of the other metadata other than the summaries._signed,Rosguill^talk22:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thank you.--ThậpBát22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Progressive Zionism

CurrentlyProgressive Zionismforwards toReform Zionism,where it is claimed that "Reform Zionism (is) also known as Progressive Zionism" but there is no source supporting this claim. This is a misleading claim in the US and in much of the rest of the world. I suggest that this sentence be changed to "Reform Zionism (is) sometimes known outside the US as Progressive Zionism." In the United States, and in the global Zionist movement, Progressive Zionism often refers to a non-religious successor to non-religious Labor Zionism. It is misleading to say that Reform Zionism is also known as Progressive Zionism.

The only part of the Reform Zionism opening paragraph that alludes to this claim is the last sentence, which reads "In Israel, Reform Zionism is associated with the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism." But Progressive Judaism is not ordinarily another term for Progressive Zionism, Progressive Judaism is another term for Reform Judaism. If you go to the website for the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism and do a search for "Zionism" -https://reform.org.il/en/?s=zionism- you will get no responses. It does not use the term "Progressive Zionism" to describe itself. I looked at all of the available sources cited in this article and almost none of them refer to the term "Progressive Zionism."

It seems that only outside of the US, Progressive Zionism sometimes used to mean Reform Zionism. Arza (Association of Reform Zionists of America) Canada almost exclusively uses the term Reform Zionism, and occasionally uses "Progressive Zionism" on their website. As one moves further from the US, the term Progressive Zionism is more commonly used to mean Reform Zionism. Arza Australiahttps://arza.org.au/about-us/uses "Progressive Zionism" and Reform Zionism and the World Union for Progressive Judaism uses the term "Progressive Zionism" to mean what in the US is Reform Zionism.

But in the US and in some English media in Israel, Progressive Zionism has a different meaning. It means Progressive in the political sense, not the religious sense. Progressive Zionism in the US has nothing to do with Reform religious Judaism. For example, the 1st hit in a Google search ishttps://ameinu.net/about-ameinu/progressive-zionism/.Ameinu is a non-religious organization with a historical connection to Labor Zionism. The 2nd hit is a Hadassah interview with Nomi Colton-Max, the VP of Ameinu. After the Wikipedia article about Reform Judaism, the 4th hit is a Jewish Currents article called "Progressive Zionists Choose a Side." This is not an article about Reform Jews, the Progressive Zionists in the article are "the Peace Bloc—Americans for Peace Now (APN), T’ruah, J Street, the New York Jewish Agenda, the National Council for Jewish Women, Ameinu, Reconstructing Judaism, and Habonim Dror, many of which operate as a loose coalition called the Progressive Israel Network (PIN)" The 5th hit ishttps://www.habonimdror.org/progressive-labor-zionism/,which is part of the Progressive Israel Network and affiliated with Ameinu. Even in American Reform Synagogues, Progressive Zionism is not equated with Reform Zionism. The guest speaker at a Stephen Wise (one of the largest Reform temples in Los Angeles "program about Progressive Zionism is Ken Bob, the president of Ameinu.https://swfs.org/calendar/progressive-zionism-in-light-of-october-7-%F0%9F%99%8B/This demonstrates that in the US, even Reform Zionists don't think that Reform Zionism is also known as Progressive Zionism.

Internationally, when the official American Zionist Movement presents itself to Israel and the rest of the Zionist world, Progressive Zionism is distinct from Reform Zionism. Seehttps://azm.org/elections/.The "Reform Zionist" slate is Vote Reform: ARZA Representing the Reform Movement and Reconstructing Judaism. In itsdescription,it calls itself "the largest constituent of ARZENU, the umbrella organization of Reform and Progressive Religious Zionists." Note - "Progressive Religious Zionists," NOT "Progressive Zionists." The Progressive Zionist slate is Hatikvah: Progressive Israel Slate. Itsdescriptionis "proudly supported by Aleph, Ameinu, Americans for Peace Now, Habonim Dror, Hashomer Hatzair, J Street, Jewish Labor Committee, New Israel Fund, National Council of Jewish Women, Partners for Progressive Israel and T'ruah..." - these are the same Progressive Israel Network organizations that are what Americans generally mean when they say Progressive Zionism. The only religious group in the bunch is T'ruah, which is non-denominational - it is not affiliated with Reform Judaism.

In English-speaking Israel as well, Progressive Zionism generally means left-wing political Zionism, not Reform Judaism Zionism. If you look at the articles inThe Times of Israeltagged "Progressive Zionism -https://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/progressive-zionism/- most of the articles are about what in the US is considered Progressive Zionism, for example thisarticleabout the merger between Ameinu and Americans for Peace Now.

Please make that correction in the Reform Zionism article, and restore the article I started writing about Progressive Zionism as it is commonly known in the US, in the modern-day global Zionist movement, and in the English-language Israeli press. Of course the "Progressive Zionism" could include the fact that outside the US, some English-speaking countries use the term "Progressive Zionism" to mean what in the US is known as Reform Zionism.Tysonsahib(talk)16:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Tysonsahib,please make a formaledit requestatTalk:Reform Zionismfor consideration. I'd also recommend trying to make briefer arguments._signed,Rosguill^talk16:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the long argument. I was trying to document the validity of my claims. I was bummed the article I started writing was deleted. I made an edit request as you suggested. Thank you.Tysonsahib(talk)16:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Rev Del Request

Hi there,

Is this "allowed" to be rev-del'd?https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oi!&diff=next&oldid=1226101870Thanks!Myrealnamm's Alternate Account(talk)15:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Eh, it's obvious vandalism but I think revdel is unnecessary here. It's juvenile, but it's not reallyoffensiveper-se and the article in question isn't a BLP and I don't see this being a serious defamation concern._signed,Rosguill^talk15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!Myrealnamm's Alternate Account(talk)15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

HELP

HiRosguill,I saw you reverted someonehereadding a site on perenial sources page with a reason"rv addition, 3 discussions all of them small, one of them not at RSN, none of them formally closed, and discussion looks like more of a" no consensus "balance than" generally reliable "to me."

While I am not related to the case, I just would like to know the steps I should take so that the siteThe Nation(weblink:https://www.mwnation.com/) could be added there or on the list of reliable sources.

I tried posting thisherebut don't know if the outcome will be the same.
Another thing is that I frequently create articles using this source, so I really need the community's input on it. Thanks. --Tumbuka Arch(talk)10:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

HiTumbuka Arch,WP:RSPis not a list of reliable sources per se, it is a list of sources that have been repeatedly, exhaustively discussed. Most sources used on Wikipedia are not listed there. If you are uncertain about a source’s reliability and want the community’s input, you can start a discussion atWP:RSN.Alternatively, if there’s been disagreement in whether or not it’s reliable enough to be used in the contexts you have been relying on it, you can open anWP:RFCat RSN to hopefully get a clearer consensus._signed,Rosguill^talk14:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Rosguill for accumulating at least 200 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog!Hey man im josh(talk)19:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

		Rack and pinion Award
		This award is given in recognition to Rosguill for accumulating at least 15 points during each week of the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog!Hey man im josh(talk)19:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Socking IP (belonging toBensebgli)

Hi, you mentioned inthis editthatthis IPhas behavioural similarities to asockfarm,they still seem to be socking using thesame range,and have personally attacked me multiple times.[2][3][4][5]Ratnahastin(talk)15:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

RatnahastinGiven how much the IP jumps around, I'm not seeing a range that we could block. I would offer to remove or strike messages with personal attacks, but it seems like that's essentially been taken care of already. You can request page protection if they make disruptive edits._signed,Rosguill^talk19:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know, their range (2404:3100:1800::/40) has been blocked bySpicyas a checkuser block.[6]Ratnahastin(talk)12:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious IP address accounts

Hello i was just wondering what could be done about suspicious accounts such as this one @77.87.98.59which does nothing but revert articles in order to remove mentions of Chechens? Can it be blocked or could the articles they spam be locked so only people with a certain amount of edits can access them? because this account does nothing but remove mention of Chechens likehereandhere,my rollbacks to original versions (which me, Wikieditor and others agreed upon) are still being removed and i don't want to edit war.Goddard2000(talk)21:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they took a break from editing shortly before you left this message. While their pattern of edits is concerning, I'd like to see more concrete evidence that their edits are clearly tendentious--there's one or two where they give a completely misleading edit summary, but the majority indicate justifiable reasons for changes (e.g. removing unsourced material or material not verifiable with the cited source). If you can demonstrate to me that these justifications were false a block would be in order, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort at this moment given the chance that the IP goes dormant. If disruption continues at these pages it's a basis for protection._signed,Rosguill^talk22:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The two examples i provided are not enough evidence? the IP is literally just removing any mention of Chechens in the intro from articles such as Orstkhoy (a major Chechen tribe) and Durdzuks (an ancient exonym for Chechens). I am sure you remember how me and Wikieditor/Muqale debated about various sections in these articles but nowhere did any of us disagree that both Orstkhoy and Durzuk are related to Chechens, the talk pages are testament to that if we disagreed on something it was rather who the tribe/exonym was related to most. The removal of unsourced material is fine but again it seems to have been done due to it having mentions of Chechens but the main issue with his edits (the most recent ones) is the removal of the sentence about the Chechen ethnicity of Argun district and the villages transferred to it. This part:"due to them belonging to the same nation as the locals (Chechen) and geographically closer to the central governance of the Okrug."He removes it despite it existing in the source on page 3 in the bottom, again it was already accepted by other editors who usually disagree with me. Only the IP addresses seem to be disagreeing, in my opinion it is enough to ban.Goddard2000(talk)01:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I see your perspective, and I hadn't realized on the first glance how much sourced text concerning Chechen ancestry was included in the rest of theOrstkhoyarticle and had just been paying attention to the sections they changed, which were unreferenced. I also hadn't realized that the "return to stable version" (which it in no way was) was their second edit, out of the blue, which to me signals that they both a) clearly have edited Wikipedia before and b) fully understand how disruptive and misleading their editing is. I'm going to go ahead and block for a month or so, given that the IP has about a week of stable history._signed,Rosguill^talk02:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Benicaverra

In February, you gaveBenicaverraa UPE warning, which they ignored. On 6 June, they reappeared, removed your warning from their talk page, and made several drive-by "votes" at AfD, all deletes except two keeps atWP:Articles for deletion/Matt Hunt (journalist)andWP:Articles for deletion/MacGregor (filmmaker),both SPA-created articles. This smells like a UPE network, but I'm not sure how best to proceed except raising it atWP:COIN,which probably won't achieve much. I already emailed the CU mailing list with the concerns, given that it wasn't obvious enough to build SPI case on, but no action seems to have been taken. Do you have any suggestions? --Paul_012(talk)03:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The ignored warning followed by AfD disruption seems like enough for me to justify a block. You may want to also file anWP:SPIbetween this account and the two accounts that created those AfDs, as they're both SPAs with less than 50 edits, and a CU check may turn up more accounts as well._signed,Rosguill^talk03:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've filed an SPI atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benicaverra.--Paul_012(talk)04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

So I was chatting with Barkeep49...

...and we were talking about the need to develop better information on Afro-centric reliable sources. Barkeep49 pointed me tothis pageand, on looking at its history, it seems you started it and have been constantly improving it. Thank you for your work here! It is a hidden gem that just highlights how knowledgeable editors like yourself do so much to help improve the project quietly, consistently, and professionally.Risker(talk)02:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Risker,ironically, when I saw the RSN thread bemoaning a lack of assessments of African sources last week my first thought was "oh I've tried and failed to fix that". A few years ago I made an effort to try to launch RfCs assessing the media landscapes of countries obscure to English Wikipedia, but it ended up being a bit of a bust for the same reasons that we lack these assessments in the first place: our editors by and large are not familiar with them. The problem is resistant to proactive solutions within the sphere of English Wikipedia, but at least by documenting the discussions we do have (despite whatever shortcomings and biases they may have) we can incrementally assemble what we think we know in a format that is conducive to further correction, critique and expansion._signed,Rosguill^talk15:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism and misinformation related in the pageTiyyar

Hi,

I have seen that you have redirected the page "tiyyar" back to ezhava which was redirected to the pageEzhavaearlier. seems like it is removed again by someone else. this page was redirected from years to ezhava and it has been discussed a lot of time. there is no proper source to suggest thatb these both are separate. its like creating multiple pages for the same topic. in addition to that most of the topics mentioned in the article tiyyar seems to be based on newspapers and are fake. it even claims there is a dialect called thiyya in the lead. The main page details all the history of this community. and what is the reason for creating a low quality copy of the same? multiple times the redirect was added again. In addition to that name tiyyar seems dubious as in almost all sources it is mentioned as thiyya, so thiyya not tiyyar. please look into this.Lisa121996(talk)13:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

In addition to that in around 200+ pages the word ezhava is used for thiyyas, this is creating extra confusions, from 2013 ownwards multiple admins have redirected the page to ezhava because of the same. most of the new page sources are simpley news articles while a detailed one with raj era sources are added in the main page. please bring the redirect back.Lisa121996(talk)13:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Lisa121996the concerns you raise are valid--I have tried looking into this in the past and was both disappointed and confused by the state of sourcing atTiyyar.However, there area lotof sources on Google Scholar that do describe a group by the name "Tiyyar", which would nominally establish that an adequate article could be written, even if the current revision is lacking. The decisive evidence that would support your suggestion of restoring the redirect would be either 1) a high quality source unambiguously saying that Ezhava and Tiyyar (and/or Thiyya) are synonyms or 2) links to prior discussions that establish a consensus around how to treat this group/these terms._signed,Rosguill^talk14:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

ezhava and thiyya being synonymous is clarified by wikipedia admins from the main page ezhava like 100+++ times. wikipedia,main page itself says in the section variations. like else either would have to separate entire things or else would have to redirect this. the thing is some things are contradicting and confusing, interestingly this was discussed earlier in the page ezhava as well as thiyya, like every once in a while this happens and it would get redirected back, you can check from the page history. the currrent page tiyyar is simply discussing genetics and like 90 percent of the sources are dubious when we talk about a large commununity and there is a properly researched page with raj era sources, what is the point in creating this to confuse the audience? i would reccomend to redirect it backLisa121996(talk)15:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Its just the alternative name which is synonymous: Quoting from the main page Ezhava --> They are also known as Ilhava, Irava, Izhava and Erava in the south of the region; as Chovas, Chokons and Chogons in Central Travancore; and as Thiyyar, Tiyyas and Theeyas in the Malabar region.

This is from the section variations from the main page ezhava. the problem is since these both are included together it would require to split like the entire pages, if it is separate. I have checked the past edits and archieves and the main admins had made it clear that both are same. It would require splitting up the page "Ezhava" too. Else it is like creating 10. 20 pages with the same name. Also thiyyas are being counted as a separate ethnicity in the page tiyyar in most of the cases including the govt records the name is thiyya, so like it is extra confusion. All the details are well discussed in the main page ezhava. the current page tiyyar even discusses, genetics like indo aryans etc, is a mere news article enough enough for this claims?? the article claims things like separate dialect for thiyya. I mean how can this be in an anecyclopedia even a news article wont say thisLisa121996(talk)15:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

proofs:

Also, I was just checking up the talk in the pageTalk:Ezhava - Wikipediaadmins have made clear that. you can check. (check the last one)

Also below are the links where almost everyone have reverted it back stating the same reason as wikipedia considers it as one.

Tiyyar - Wikipedia

Tiyyar - Wikipedia

Tiyyar - Wikipedia

Tiyyar - Wikipedia

regarding book sources - The main page ezhava have that.

So it is clear with the disputes and the decision. the user 'HariNellattl' has been constantly removing this once in a while while the editors were reverting.

So if you are adding the redirect back as per the other admins did previously kindly do it in a protective way as i doubt there are group of soc accounts surfing around this page. they will revert it within seconds just like they did with your first edits.

Also in most of the pages in wiki these both are synonymously used, identifying this as separate would require the entire thing to be changed. otherwise this only contribute to misinformation and confusion.

thanks.Lisa121996(talk)16:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

1. The heading of this page is "Ezhava",while the irony is that in the first pragraph itself 2 images are being conpared- this is no longer the case. They are both captioned at being Ezhava (as the article lead identifies "Ezhava" and "Thiyyar" to be synomous (they are local names for the same group)

The page is providing an outdated citation and with the help of that is trying to defame both ezhava and one other community.- can you please specify which citation is concerning you.

- the pageThiyyaredirects toEzhava.

SSSB (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a similar edit request and the reply, that i found from the page ezhava the link, I have copied the needed points and decision i have provided the link --Talk:Ezhava - Wikipediapasting it again. (for full discussion).

Also the main page ezhava itself claims so please check the part variations. these all need to be removed else it would become so contradictory statements.Lisa121996(talk)16:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Responding broadly to all of the above: 1) I am arguablyWP:INVOLVEDat this point and thus should not take admin actions, you should make a case atWP:ANIorWP:AEif you're calling for the page to be protected. 2) While this doesn't preclude you from being correct, the evidence you've provided in the form of small, several-year-old Wikipedia discussions and the content of other Wikipedia articles is extremely weak. In the absence of a clear, recent consensus of multiple editors, you really need to make your case based on citations to RS.

I would recommend that you beWP:BOLDand make the changes you believe are necessary, and if that means restoring the article to redirect status, open anWP:AFDand bring it to broader discussion._signed,Rosguill^talk16:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

well this is actually not small discussions this has been the stand of the page since years and this was always redirected also most of the contents in the page are from news articles while main page details everythingLisa121996(talk)03:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

In addition to that there were multiple pages opened in the name, if all is removed it would lead to again multiple pages. My main concern is majority of the sources are simpley recent news artciles and the article is claiming multiple things like a separate dialect for thiyya, that too in the lead.Lisa121996(talk)03:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

As you recommendedWP:BOLD,I have redirected the page the valid informations are:

They are also known asIlhava,Irava,IzhavaandEravain the south of the region; asChovas,ChokonsandChogonsinCentral Travancore;and asThiyyar,TiyyasandTheeyasin theMalabar region.Some are also known asThandan,which has caused administrative difficulties due to the presence of a distinct caste ofThandanin the same region.

Even some form of disputes from both sides are also mentioned in the main page:

Also from a decade ownwards multiple pages related to this groups like thiyya.tiyyar,theeyya etc were redirected to the main page. So while the main page contains almost all informations from theWP:RAJsources, I cant find them being different, this is violating all policiesWP:V

WP:GNG

Definitely the raj era and historic books are weighed more than recent news articles. In addition to that the page views thiyya/ezhava as separate ethnicity, which is contrary to all the early sources and the stance of wikipedia regarding the main pageEzhava.

For eg sources all the sources i provided are used as primary by wikipedia in the main article and it openly declares both as synonymous. I can provide 10 ++ sources for the same.Lisa121996(talk)11:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Tiyyar notability

TheTiyyarpage is mostly copied fromEzhavapage, and sources are also same. The expert on this topic @Situshsaid many times that both Ezhava and Thiyya are same group, so not meeting notability critierias. But he is no active now, so the page was made i think. Is that ok?Piyush Chekavar(talk)10:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I add the notability tag to article. I pinged @Sitush also, but i think he is not working these days.Piyush Chekavar(talk)10:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, its not just sitush, sssb, and many other editors from the main pageEzhavahave taken the same stand. The page is claiming this to be separate, if so the first article need to be split or else this is a low quality duplicate copy plus some dubious info from news articles. Also the page is saying nothing about the main page, this is violating those policies.Lisa121996(talk)11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@RosguillMalayalamWikipedia article exists and its been almost 10 years the article created. [[7]]Dpvl(talk)12:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The article was redirected from the time it was created for like 10 yearsLisa121996(talk)13:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

They are also known asIlhava,Irava,IzhavaandEravain the south of the region; asChovas,ChokonsandChogonsinCentral Travancore;and asThiyyar,TiyyasandTheeyasin theMalabar region.

Even some form of disputes from both sides are also mentioned in the main page:

Also from a decade ownwards multiple pages related to this groups like thiyya.tiyyar,theeyya etc were redirected to the main page. So while the main page contains almost all informations from theWP:RAJsources, I cant find them being different, this is violating all policiesWP:V

WP:GNG

Definitely the raj era and historic books are weighed more than recent news articles. In addition to that the page views thiyya/ezhava as separate ethnicity, which is contrary to all the early sources and the stance of wikipedia regarding the main pageEzhava.

For eg sources all the sources i provided are used as primary by wikipedia in the main article and it openly declares both as synonymous. I can provide 10 ++ sources for the same.

valid sources which treats both are same: The sources are attached

Lisa121996(talk)13:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Further discussion should take place atTalk:Tiyyaror another relevant discussion page, as opposed to here._signed,Rosguill^talk13:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  yes, Before but before lifting the revision, a conclusion need to be there regarding the persisting issues.

  this was discussed way before and the conclusion was always the redirect.Lisa121996(talk)13:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that this article was in a redirect for like 10 years because of the same issue and this been discussed many times in addition to that there are more weighable sources which considers both as same, in addition to that the article is a copy version of the main page without any mention regarding that. multiple pages like tiyya was deleted previously and this was redirected. This need to be resolved before lifting the redirect. I have intiated a talk section there in the page.Lisa121996(talk)13:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Some serious Issue withTiyyarand similar pages.

Hi @RosguillI dont know you areWP:INVOLVEDin this or not. However since you are dealing with redirects. I would like to point out a serious issue related to this.

multiple accounts in the name thiyya, thiyyas, tiyyas etc were created previously claiming that these are distinct fromEzhava,However in all cases theconsensuswas that all these pages in the names "thiyya,tiyyas,thiyyas were permanently redirected to the pageEzhava.Providing the links

[[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]]

An ongoing issue of randomly lifting the redirect (only temporarily solved ) is also happening in recentTiyyar

The irony is that these groups have again submitted another draft in the name "Thiyar" making similar claims and pointing to similar people. link - [[13]], that means 6 th duplicate copy "Thiyar" is being created after "thiyya,tiyyas,thiyyas,thiyyar and Tiyyar My humble question is what is a permanent solution for this?? They are simply changing the spelling and coming up with the same contents and talking about the same people.Ezhava,this is been discussed since a long time. Again since you deal with redirects is there any permanent solution to this? I am amazed to see, How such a credible platform is being exploited by these groups simply by changing the spellings.Lisa121996(talk)13:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Lisa121996,this sounds like a case ofWP:GAMENAME--step 1 is to raise the issue with the editors engaging in it on their user talk pages. If that doesn't address the issue, open a case atWP:ANIorWP:AE._signed,Rosguill^talk14:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Ugh.

You were the blocking admin forUser:Murmayo,but just going through expiring ANI threads, I looked in at his talk page, which had additions that aren't merely TPA-revocation worthy, but cross the line into revdel territory to boot:[14].Just thought you ought to know. Regards,Ravenswing12:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ravenswing,thanks for letting me know. I've gone ahead and pulled TPA access with someone else having already wiped the page clean. I decided against REVDEL since I can't really imagine someone being disrupted by its existence in this talk page's edit history so far off the beaten path, and thus it would be excessively covering the tracks of my own admin action's._signed,Rosguill^talk13:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Eh, no problem; that's why they pay you the big bucks. (However metaphorically.) Thank you for doing a thankless job for us all.Ravenswing13:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes&Late Ottoman genocides

Is there anyway we can protect these articles per WP:GS/AA enforcement action? Five users, each with under 500 edits, have been changing information since May 8th, June 17th for Late Ottoman genocides. --Kansas Bear(talk)21:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Done_signed,Rosguill^talk22:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear(talk)23:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)