User talk:Rosguill

This diff gives me no confidence the user understands consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adoption

Hi Rosguill

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

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

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

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

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

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

AE thread

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

Question

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

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

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

Maniacal ! Paradoxical

Wanted to bring this diff to your attention since you have proposed a topic ban for Maniacal ! Paradoxical from IPA on WP:AE.[1] There was no violation of WP:CLOP yet that was the reason provided by Maniacal ! Paradoxical for his content removal. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Seeking Adoption :D

Hello @Rosguill, I'm AnonymousScholar49, I saw that you were open to adoptees, and I would like to be adopted :D

About me: I created my account in March 2025, and I definitely had a rocky start. Full disclosure, in the beginning I was blocked for being overzealous with the CFD tag, and for general disruptive editing. See my redemption arc here: User talk:AnonymousScholar49. Since then, I've learned a lot and familiarized myself with Wikipedia's rules, particularly notability rules, and especially consensus rules. From that, I focus a lot more on coming to consensus on talk pages before making big edits, and waiting for consensus. I also learned about WP:NPOV, and how Wikipedia is a representation of verifiable sources; Wikipedia is not about the perceived "truth," but about verifiable sources. I think I've learned to be a better Wikipedian.

Aside from that, I've made ~626 edits so far, mostly focusing on coming to consensus for NPOV for the Department of Government Efficiency article. I have 5% authorship credit for that article at the moment. I've also made many AfD's, mostly focusing on notability and lack of sources. I definitely want to broaden my horizons lol; I want to edit articles relating to Jewish history, more broadly in American politics, and the history of activist movements and activists in general, particularly players in the American Civil Rights Movement. My user page has a list of articles I'm working on, and articles I want to work on. Aside from that, I've lightly dabbled in reverting vandalism and recent changes patrol, for example regarding vandalism on the Wikipedia:MOS redirect page, which moved to semiprotected status because of my report.

I really, really like Wikipedia, and I want to stick around. In my view, Wikipedia represents one of the last vestiges of what the Internet was supposed to be; a place of freedom, a place to share knowledge, and a place to have a community, before it became mostly social media and ads. :(. The reason I'm asking to be adopted by you is this: looking at your contributions etc., I noticed that we have somewhat aligned interests, like some history, politics, some Jewish history, and journalism. My goal with editing Wikipedia is to eventually become a "generalist," editing multiple topics, and contributing to including Articles for Creation. I think it could be interesting to learn about that aspect, because one of my biggest gripes about the Wiki is the prevalence of low-quality, non notable unsourced articles, AfC can act as a filter for that. I'm also interested in lengthening articles like this one Henry Moskowitz (activist), and maybe bringing up some articles for GA.

I hope you consider me :D AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey AnonymousScholar49, I would potentially be interested in mentoring you but want to be mindful about my limited availability of late. Do you have a sense of what you would envision mentorship looking like (i.e. what kind of guidance, how frequently do you think you'll want it)? I wouldn't want to volunteer only to potentially leave you hanging when you're looking for help. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you for considering me. About what I'd want in a mentorship: helping me understand how to apply rules like the various notability guidelines, and beyond that WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and things of that nature; generally how to make positive, neutral contributions to the wiki. In addition to that, I want to get better at AfD discussions, and improving articles to bring them up to GA status, plus DYK, things like that. (That's broad, I know lol.) About time commitment and type of mentorship: what I'm looking for is someone who will semi-regularly (depending on availability ofc) look into my activities, and give me some advice on my edits, how to reference rules better, and how to be more constructive, etc. I'm not looking for a huge time commitment; just someone to help me. I am definitely not asking you to do my GA reviews, or other time sinks, but I'd love some tips and tricks on how to be a better Wikipedian, generally. For example, right now I may need some advice on how to structure Wikipedia articles bc I'm working on Henry Moskowitz (activist). I'm pretty independent minded, so I don't foresee needing any hand holding. tl;dr, I want to learn from you and learn your wikiwisdom from your experience. Thank you so much for considering mentoring me, and I'd love to work with you in the future! AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks AnonymousScholar49, I'd be willing to field any questions you have as you go about editing and help with difficult situations that you might encounter. I don't think I'll be able to proactively keep an eye on your edits (although if you'd like me to watchlist specific pages you plan on editing I can at least do that much). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Sure, that works for me -- Should I consider you my "adopter" lol AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, it's not a particularly formal process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

thanks lol AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Trolling

Hello! I see you have blocked someone who is the subject of an ANI a few hours ago on a temporary basis despite openly admitting WP:NOTHERE behavior and expressing no remorse for it. I would just like to say I hope your good faith is not misplaced, particularly if their only replies to your notice are these [2]. Borgenland (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Borgenland, yeah I see what you're referring to. When initially blocking I hadn't seen the totality of the trolling, and erred on the light side of sanctions on the basis that they had not received warnings for either CTOPs or personal attacks prior. I also am rather hesitant to add extra sanctions immediately on the back of a sanction I've already imposed, partially due to wanting to avoid taking multiple bites at the apple, and partially because it can make the nature of the block more confusing to follow for the recipient (although I have no objection to another admin shutting down their talkpage access or upgrading to indef as they see fit). My view is that otherwise, if they continue to engage in trolling after their block is up, a second, indefinite block will be easily delivered. Insofar as they can't edit and disrupt the actual encyclopedia or WP space, I'd rather just ignore them than give them the satisfaction of paying attention to whatever they're doing on their talk page at the moment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Word limit

My statement on AE is close to crossing 500 words. I would like to request some extension. Thank you. Srijanx22 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Srijanx22, could you provide a brief motivation of what you hope to address with the extension? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

HerakliosJulianus raised issues about sources like TOI, ICHR, etc. and I wanted to reply about that in brief. I also wanted to spare some words for the future interactions on that thread in case it becomes necessary. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Srijanx22, my inclination is that that shouldn't be necessary: I dismissed the sourcing concerns as not contributing to the case for sanctions and no other admin has taken them up, so there's no need for you to provide further defense to that point. Meanwhile, if there are further comments that merit replies we can revisit an extension then. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

question

Hello Rosguill, I wanted to ask if an editor can place an ARBPIA template by himself, which may warrant an admin? The brain rot article may not fall in this topic area. Shakakarta (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Shakakarta I don't think that it's explicitly stated that ARBPIA talk page templates are admin-only. I think it's appropriate to follow regular consensus process for determining propriety, and appealing to an admin, AN, or AE if there's entrenched disagreement on whether it applies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I got it, the article I was referring to was Italian brainrot. Shakakarta (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Belle Moskowitz article improvement

Hello -- it's @AnonymousScholar49.

I'm working on improving Belle Moskowitz for Women in Green -- Belle Moskowitz is a jewish american political and social reformer from the early 1900s. I haven't gone into full swing yet; I reorganized the article and moved around the sections; I haven't made substantial changes to the text yet. Can you please glance at it and point me in the right direction? (All of it needs a lot of help, but what stands out to you, and do you have any tips for significant article expansion?)

Specific questions:

1. How should I deal with two changed surnames by marriage in the lead sentence? Moskowitz was born Belle Lindner, then got married and changed her name to Belle Israels. Her first husband died, and she got remarried and changed her name to Belle Moskowitz. What should I do for the neé parentheses? Right now I have (neé Lindner, Israels; dob info). AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the article, the main thing that stands out is that the lead is quite short compared to the depth of content. There are also perhaps too many subheadings under Career: it seems like the Triangle Shirtwaist and Labor mediation sections could be combined, as could the Smith sections and Later career (unless there's more to be said about her later career).

Looking at the references, it seems like there could be some consolidation of the citations to Freeman 1989. Having what looks to be a full-length scholarly biography to work with is like hitting the jackpot compared to most referencing for Wikipedia biographies, but it's worth checking if anything more recent has been published. Even if there isn't, I'd imagine that there's likely a lot more material that could be pulled from that source if you can get a copy.

As for the specific question, the relevant guidance is MOS:MULTINAMES, which is part of MOS:NAME. In this case, since it seems like Moskowitz did noteworthy work as Israels, I think it's worth mentioning in the initial parenthetical. I would phrase it as (neé Lindner, later Israels...) since neé specifically means "born" _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I'm working on getting access to the book. I also found some Robert Caro pieces in the New Yorker from the 70s which could be useful Edit: although 70s New Yorker has inconsistent reliability lol AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

AkshayPatill

Last time, you had warned Akshyapatill for not just edit warring but on this very talk page you cautioned him not to snipe at Capitals00[3], however he jumped on the entirely unrelated report (about Dympies) to attack Capitals00 once again.[4] Though Valereee had said in clear words on this talk page that Likely next sanction for edit-warring at this same CTOP would be a tban.[5] but Akshaypatill has edit warred on Shivaji again by making a revert revert there that reintroduced misrepresentation of the source into the article. Upon being asked to make the self-revert, he refused it. [6] Now he is announcing he will "would purpose restoring the affected pages (at least the major ones) to at least their one year old versions", thus effectively repeating the same episode again where he had no consensus.[7] Some strict action is needed. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Koshuri Sultan, I don't think that my informal warning Akshaypatill to disengage from the then-ongoing dead-end of an argument occurring on my talk page precludes their participation at AE. The report is not "entirely unrelated", as it was filed by Capitals00, and other editors had already called into question the propriety of their behavior in the process. Akshaypatill's comments at AE, irrespective of whether one agrees with their conclusions, seem measured and relevant.

Glancing through the diffs, while it is not beyond the realm of possibility that there's some problematic patterns underlying them, on the face of it there's no issue so obvious that it warrants action on the basis of a one-sided report brought to my talk page. As I have expressed many a time, I only take unilateral action based on reports to my talk page when the behavior is truly egregious.

Reviewing the AELOG and seeing that Akshaypatill was warned for edit warring, whereas you were warned for failing to assume good faith. And here we are again, failing to assume good faith. I'm strongly inclined to issue a topic ban, at minimum from discussing other editors' behavior in relation to IPA if not the topic as a whole. Pinging the other admins who participated in this last case for second opinions: asilvering, Valereee _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

That wouldn't be needed because I was not being rigid. Right now all I can say is that since you don't want to take any action with regards to Akshaypatill then I have no issue with that either. I assure you that I won't pursue this matter anywhere else. Thanks Koshuri ^(グ) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism on Peruvian history article

Hi I am leaving you a message as you dealt with the admin noticeboard post on the topic;

Canto Grande massacre - Wikipedia

I hope I linked the right version of the page but it is I think an anonymous account making changes similar in substance and style to the ones made by the blocked account.

Do you have any suggestions for dealing with this the person seems to have made multiple accounts and IPs, is it worth looking at temp protection for the pages so there is a 30 day 500 edit requirement? Im not sure if I should ask for that or even how I would go about it.

Cheers,

LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

LeChatiliers Pupper, looks like an IP range used this week (Special:Contributions/2001:1388:1B8E:2C7:0:0:0:0/64) has been blocked for 1 week, and a prior IP address making similar edits was blocked (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eddu16/Archive). If new IP addresses show up in less than a month, I think a request for page protection would be appropriate. You can also contact me directly for that, and/or it may in fact be easiest to install WP:TWINKLE and use its RfPP menu . _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Wikipedia

Just to give you a heads up there has been more similar vandalism, if you could make an application for page protection Id be grateful. @Rosguill LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2025

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

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Request

Rosguill, with your permission, I'd like to respond to this stealth reporting by CharlesWain for which Bish has already made her mind to indef me. For some reason, both Koshuri Sultan and CharlesWain are avoiding participation in my AE report -- perhaps to avoid getting dragged into ArbCom. Koshuri has already indirectly advertised the report, which is a good example of canvassing, and now CharlesWain has shown up on Bishonen's talk page. It might be a stretch, but Sitush has already thanked Ivanvector for giving proposal for indefinitely blocking everyone, all while staying away from the report himself. I'm not sure what's going on, but I just want to request an additional 250 words to respond to them. Dympies (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It's partly CharlesWain's report on my page that inclines me to indef you (not exactly the same thing as 'making my mind'), Dympies, but more than that, it's the comments from Vanamonde93 and Abecedare. I'm a little surprised you're apparently giving priority to responding further at the AE report, which seems unlikely to yield any result at all. (Incidentally, when accusing others of "stealth", it may be a little unbecoming to talk about me without a ping. But never mind, I'll wait for a bit longer for your response, say twelve hours.) Bishonen | tålk 17:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC).

No, Bishonen. You had made up your mind to indef me well before CharlesWain had reached out to you,[8] likely due to my tussle with Sitush.[9] Dympies (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with CharlesWain's activity here. I am personally loathe to respond to non-trivial reports at my talk page but there's no rule against it, nor is it necessarily a better use of people's time to add several more unrelated complaints to an open AE discussion. Similarly, KS has no obligation to participate in the report; that having been said, I am concerned that the diff you highlight does comprise canvassing, which in combination with their last appeal to me here and their prior logged warning makes me consider some sort of sanction (and I would appreciate the input of the other admins already tagged/participating here). Sitush thanking an admin for their proposal, meanwhile, is definitely not sanctionable behavior, even if the proposal is for sanctions.

I think that if you're concerned about the accusations made on Bishonen's talk page, you should respond to those accusations there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The recent flareups between Dympies and a few others have been characterized by the same battleground attitude and tag-teaming behavior that led to a mass ARBIPA TBAN a few years ago. Dympies's behavior here has been problematic enough that I believe a sanction is needed, but that in no way excuses the conduct of his opponents - I find this diff concerning, and if there's other evidence of such behavior it may well merit sanction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, see #AkshayPatill and the recent AE ending in a logged warning _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

That was certainly my last edit where I complained about an editor, and as I had made it clear there that I won't pursue the matter anywhere else, I am still standing by my word and avoiding any such situation from happening again. Koshuri ^(グ) 18:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, I was previously banned from IPA area due to violation of Rajput TBAN rather than "battleground behaviour" or "tag-teaming".[10] Dympies (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

My reference to a mass TBAN has nothing to do with you, Dympies: I am saying the behavior observed right now is comparable to the behavior that led to this outcome. Rosguill: I saw the discussion above, but not the AE closure. I cannot take admin action here, so take this as you will, but based on those instances I would hesitantly recommend a narrow content-related TBAN, in the hope that removing them from the most heated areas will allow them to recalibrate. Right now that may be Maratha history. If a few sanctions aren't handed out this increasingly looks like it will need ARBCOM attention, and that is quite likely to end in topic-wide bans for most of the principal actors. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Rosguill: It's not like I can't respond to Charles' report on user talk pages, but this feels like excessive forum shopping. I'm already worn out from this two-month-long attrition--first the AE report, then the SPI, followed by the second AE report, and now another "talk page report". I've never seen any editor dragged across so many boards and talk pages before. The relentless effort against me is just exhausting. It reminds me of another non-guilty editor, Sir Calculus, who was similarly targeted two years ago. He had an apparent heated exchange with Sitush and Bishonen (just look at the talk page topics, most of which were started by the former). Maybe I'll finally get some rest if I end up being blocked. As of now, unfortunately, no serious action has been taken against Capitals (for clear battleground behavior, including filing a frivolous SPI and the current weak AE report), or against Koshuri (for indirectly fueling this forum shopping by canvassing my well-wishers--yes, sarcasm). Anyway, I'll respond to the new set of allegations soon, but I hope you'll also take a moment to reflect on all this.

Dympies (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Banglapedia

Hi. I happened across your mention of Banglapedia as clearly user-generated here and I think you may have made a mistake. Banglapedia is actually a national encyclopedia for Bangladesh, with a proper board of editors etc., so I think it is more reliable than you made out. It just happens to use the MediaWiki software. You can see that there are actually only five users, so it is certainly not a free for all. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out SunloungerFrog, I appreciate the correction and have amended my comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding my edit

I understand the concern of the other admin and you also, but was waiting because a user already opened a discussion at the article talk page for which I was waiting. My revert was because, it was added "Islamic terrorism" instead of the points. For which I did the revert. My intention was never to keep the primary source. I never said that I will not undo something which is not confirmed by independent source. Why such harsh step and even without warning? Drat8sub (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't consider it drastic: in this reply to Doug Weller, you double down on a startlingly poor understanding of how primary sources work. I further seriously considered topic-banning you from IPA entirely, or at least from citing primary sources in IPA, on the basis of an absurd, WP:BATTLEGROUND statement like 1.4 billion Indians believe and understand the motives even before the briefing. You have 20,000 edits and are editing in a contentious topic while an active war is going on. I expect you to know better and do better. Ultimately, I elected to merely pull advanced permissions, as you had displayed a crucial lack of understanding commensurate with those permissions, but had otherwise engaged with discussion and do not appear to intend to cause disruption intentionally. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Let me explain: I only hold on to it because of the discussion, I do understand my mistakes, my one edit hopefully should not question my intentions. I was waiting for the discussion, since in India-Pak war or any war article infobox, "per country" sections are used, and these motives are per India, though I have not used Per India. Through the discussion at article page we could have achieved a consensus, since the revert was because "islamic terrorism" was written which was totally unsourced, I though it will not be wise to keep Islamic terrorism as another discussion going on the same topic only. Secondly, the terrorist organisation which claimed intially said their motive but two days later that organisation made a U-turn, so their motive cannot be used. So, only Indian version is available. I was thinking of adding "Per India" rather then simply adding the points. My intention was never to keep something with primary source and let readers raising question on the neutrality of the article.

About my reply, I want to say, it was indeed a mistake by acting on the tone of the writing rather than sticking to point, I was just replying to his words, "foreign secretary as politician" and the above highlighted points, rather I could have said, "I am waiting for the discussion to end, then will do the edit according to the consensus". It was a genuine mistake. But I have edited many contentious topic before too like India-China skirmish ro CAA protest, always maintained neutrality and independent RS as my citation, hardly use govt source as my citation. I do understand the guidelines of WP:USEPRIMARY, and I will again go through it and also WP:OR. Kindly, if you let my rights back...I understand from this mistake that, I have to be always keep these in my mind when editing contentious topics and I assure you this will be reflected in my future edits too. I already reverted my edit. Again, kindly consider my point for granting the rights back. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate this explanation and take it as a positive sign of your intentions and understanding. I'm still disinclined to immediately restore permissions, taking into account your initial responses to Doug Weller on the question. I would recommend re-applying for the permissions sometime in the future. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I appreciate your words. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

We would challenge...

the recent elevation of User:CharlieMehta to new page reviewer, for two reasons. First, it appears his activities here are mostly restricted to creating new pages, so there is a potential COI in this elevation. More critically, please carefully review our recent edits at Kush Desai, which is an article that this User created. The misuse of a key source as biographical, when the title subject is not named or described in the article—is evidence that suggests either tremendous lack of WP editorial experience, or otherwise motivations in editing that are suspect. Sincerely, a retired multi-decade WP editor, and former uni. faculty member. 185.104.139.75 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

IP, CharlieMehta has held that permission for six months, and autopatrolled for 5 months before that; the edits you are specifically concerned about at Kush Desai are more directly related to the latter, although they're not irrelevant to the question of suitability for new page patrol work. Reviewing their recent review log, I don't see any obvious issues. I would ask that if you wish to see these concerns addressed, please bring them to WP:ANI for more thorough review by the community. While you are partially correct that the Mint source's inclusion is puzzling and does not contribute to the article, the other two independent citations provided by CM do appear to verify all of the information in the article and establish a sound case for notability in themselves, so I don't see particular cause for concern in the absence of other issues. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It was an honest error on my part; I intended to include this specific Livemint link.The fact that both Livemint articles were published around the same time, and perhaps because I had opened both in multiple tabs, led to some confusion on my part while copying the link. Charlie (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Indian military history case opened

The Arbitration Committee has opened an arbitration case titled Indian military history in response to an arbitration enforcement referral. You are receiving this notice because you are a named party to the case and/or offered a statement in the referral proceedings.

Please add your evidence by June 5, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage.

For a guide to the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Question from Hikmatyar Kassai

rasgulla , what msg you left on my page Hikmatyar Kassai (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read the notice, it is a standard notice for editors editing or commenting on designated contentious topics. I'd recommend that you refrain from mocking other editors' names; I don't mind much personally, but others may feel differently. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Question about Extended-Confirmed Protection and Contentious Topics

How do I check which contentious topics are inherently limited to extended-confirmed users I knew that Palestine and Israel is ECP, and I think that I recall that some other contentious topic was not ECP. I see that you raised the question of whether Azercell was ECP, and said that the editor who filed the DRN was not ECP. I now know that Azercell is ECP because you ECP protected it, which doesn't answer the question of whether you marked it ECP because it already was ECP, or whether you marked it ECP because you had the discretion to mark it ECP. Anyway, as you can see, I closed the DRN for multiple reasons. But I would like to know how to check whether a particular contentious topic is inherently ECP. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Obviously not Rosguill but Azercell falls under the community's decision to have Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction. Which doesn't answer your question of how to know which areas that's true for and shows the complications of it because even if there was one for CT it wouldn't include community GS. A page that has both and could be linked from WP:ECR strikes me as a good thing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

There's WP:GS, which (theoretically) lists all community and Arb sanctions. Ctrl-f "extended confirmed" and "extended-confirmed" gets you all the relevant results (with some false positives). I agree a central collection would be useful. An Arb clerk might be tasked with updating the GS page with new things like PIA5. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Robert McClenon beyond that I'd just note that the entire list of such topics at this time is just WP:GS/AA, WP:PIA, WP:GS/KURD, WP:RUSUKR, and WP:APL. More broadly, it's been an ongoing annoyance for me that our {{alert/first}} templates for the above topics (with the exception of PIA) do not automatically include notices concerning the ECP restriction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

That seems like an issue we should fix, you should raise that in the Arb space ;) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I tried to raise this before at Template_talk:Contentious_topics/Archive_1#Adding_text_for_GS/AA_for_the_Armenia-Azerbaijan_alert, which seems to have resulted in a related but ultimately different problem with talk-page templates getting fixed. Would ARCA (or somewhere else) be a better forum? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I will note I have raised it in an arb space, I just did so in a private one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me

Can I please be a confirmed user? Can you please change my user rights log? - Humberto 15:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) This is 2603:8080:3C00:68CD:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) + a few dynamic IPs in Special:PageHistory/The Land Before Time within 2600:1000::/28, but I'm too sleepy to figure out whether to block IPs, account, or both. (AFAICS no existing IP blocks.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

About improving Article

Hello Sir, I have tried to edit and improve Nandan Van Zoo as you have guided. When I looked into this article again, I did realized the facts you raised. I accept that I missed to have a look from COI point of view. I also realized that while reviewing these articles my main attention was notability, but now I realized that I need to look into other issues once notability is met. Thanks for helping me to identify this mistake. If my intention is good and brings positive impression plz provide me longer NPR right. I will do the quality job. Thank You. Hoping for your consideration. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Rahmatula786, I think that your further edits at Nandan Van Zoo are an improvement, but to be honest you didn't address what to my mind is the most serious concern. From reviewing just the headlines of the sources cited in the article, you'll see the headline "Naya Raipur Jungle Safari animals death rocks assembly", but there's no mention of any animal deaths anywhere in the article. The situation is more confusing, because when we look at that source's text, it seems to be discussing a different zoo, so it's unclear as to why this reference is included at all. Nevertheless, if you google Nandan Van Zoo animal deaths you'll find coverage such as this, which clearly presents significant, negative coverage about the subject that's left out of the Wikipedia article.

With that in mind, I'd recommend that you get some more editing experience (if you like the queue-style work but aren't sure where to find more of it, WP:TASK is a great resource, and I think AfD participation will also build up relevant skills), and reapply for new page reviewer permissions in a few months. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Rahmatula786 (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for adoption

Hi Rosguill, I’ve been on Wikipedia for almost a year now, though my editing was pretty inconsistent for most of that time. I mainly focused on North African and Berber-related articles, but didn’t really engage with Wikipedia as a whole. Recently though, my interest has grown, not just in editing specific topics, but in understanding how the platform works more broadly.

Early on, I got into some unproductive disputes. While I had good intentions, I can see now that I didn’t always approach things with the right mindset. Lately I’ve been trying to step back, diversify my edits, and contribute in a more thoughtful and constructive way.

I came across your name through the adopt-a-user program and felt your approach to editing and guidance aligned with the direction I’m trying to take. If you're open to it, I’d really appreciate the opportunity to learn from you and sharpen how I contribute.

Either way, thank you for your time. ElijahUHC (Talk) 19:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

ElijahUHC, were there any areas of editing in particular where you're looking for guidance? My usual advice to editors who want to branch out is to take at gander at WP:TASK, which provides a wide range of different work queues to choose from. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I looked through WP:TASK - really helpful seeing how broad the work behind Wikipedia is. I’ve already noted a few areas I’d like to get involved in, especially copyediting, de-orphaning, and random Article Patrol, and I’ll be trying them out as a way to stay active.

More broadly, I’m working on improving how I handle sourcing (particularly for regions where coverage is limited), notability, and overall policy awareness - especially to avoid the kinds of disputes I got caught in early on. In short, I'll try to get a better understanding of what makes content solid and sustainable. ElijahUHC (Talk) 18:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

ElijahUHC, if you have questions I'm willing to field them. In general I don't do much structured mentorship of late. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

MyEnchantedLeader

I believe it may now be warranted to remove their TP privileges. A type of cabinet (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I see any abuse of their talk page; their unblock request is less than persuasive, but pulling TPA is generally only done when they're being flagrantly disruptive (e.g. stealthily removing declined requests contra policy after warnings, hurling slurs, engaging in polemics, repeatedly pinging editors, etc.) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

They removed accusations of racism and such, but fair enough. Thanks for checking it out anyway.

It does appear that they finally got the multiple hints and have hopefully walked away from the dead horse. A type of cabinet (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Evidence phase of Indian military history extended by three days

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

2025 India–Pakistan conflict

Hi there,

Apologies for the disturbance, but I would appreciate it if you could take a moment to review this discussion.

RogerYg continues to repeat previously refuted arguments and has again removed content despite being shown why it was inappropriate to do so. This is in disregard of prior responses and warnings about WP:BLUDGEON behaviour.

In his latest response, he has now made inappropriate insinuations, accusing me of "abruptly stopping an ongoing discussion" and "almost bullying" another editor. It’s worth noting that editor he’s referring to was recently blocked due to his conduct related to this same topic.

On May 29, I had already warned RogerYg in the discussion that continued disruptive removals would be reported per WP:EW, yet he has persisted to remove the content, once again rehashing the same arguments in the discussion in violation of conduct guidelines.

As you can see, I had stepped back from this topic weeks ago for the sake of my mental well-being, but this behaviour continues. I would have taken this to the relevant noticeboard, but due to exhaustion from dealing with this topic, I’d deeply appreciate it if you could please take a look and, if needed, intervene.

Best regards JayFT047 (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I've warned them about bludgeoning on their talk page, as it seems like that had yet to be done outside of the Talk:2025 India-Pakistan conflict page. I think the "insinuations" fall a bit short of personal attacks in context (it's not clear to me that RogerYg is referring to you, or to Foodie 377, in that context). In the absence of disruptive editing on the article itself in at least a week, that's the extent of response I'm willing to give at this time based on a report to my user talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for issuing the warning. In that specific response of Roger to my comment, where I was responding to misleading claims made by Foodie 377, RogerYg was indeed referring to me when he said I was "almost bullying" another editor (Foodie 377). That characterisation doesn't make any sense, specially considering the context and the whole discussion. I won’t bother responding to him or engaging further, as it’s clear his repeated arguments will just continue, but hopefully this warning will help stop that. In any case, thank you again for your time and for your measured response. JayFT047 (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Protect

Hi. I request to protect on June 2025 Iranian missile attack on Israel but I can't edit now. May you give me access? HumanRight 19:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

HumanRight, as notified on June 9 on your talk page, topics relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict are off-limits to editors with less than WP:XC status. Please focus on other topics until you've reached the requisite tenure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill But this is about Iran attack ti Israel. It's a same? HumanRight 20:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Restrictions are broadly construed, so anything that could be thought of as borderline is included. The root of Iran's conflict with Israel is intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict, so yes it applies here. In general, almost any military conflict involving Israel conceivable is going to be covered, barring future major policy shifts by Israel or other countries. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill I write articles on these topics professionally and have a positive activity here. As an admin, can you make an exception for me? The content I upload is definitely useful and in accordance with Wikipedia rules and without bias. HumanRight 20:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Nope, Wikipedia doesn't operate off of external credentials, and 500/30 is not at all a high bar. The articles will be waiting for you when the time comes. The only times that I've ever seen an account be granted XC status early is if they're a confirmed and legitimate secondary or successor account to an already-established Wikipedia account in good standing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Rosguill Thank you for the guides. HumanRight 20:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Human Right Wiki please give WP:Words to watch a read as I just made some changes to Mojahed Kourkour but more is needed to reach WP:NPOV. S0091 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@User:S0091 In fact, his article ended after his execution. I translated it exactly from the Persian Wikipedia and added more English sources. But I'm trying to find better content. Thank you for your support. HumanRight 20:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Human Right Wiki each language Wikipedia has their own policies and guidelines so what might be acceptable on the Persian Wikipedia may not be acceptable here and vice versa so do familiarize yourself with the English Wikipedia's polices to ensure adherence. S0091 (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

That's why I just create article via AFC. I try to read and learning policies step by step. Thank you for helping. HumanRight 20:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Human Right Wiki AfC just determines notability and if the article would likely be deleted and so it being accepted via AfC does not mean the article meets all policies and guidelines. S0091 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I will spend more time this week to learning about notability guideline as sure. HumanRight 20:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes that and WP:NPOV which is one of the English Wikipedia's core policies of which WP:Words to watch is a supplement. S0091 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Mentorship

Hello @Rosguill, Do you mind mentoring me on Wikipedia, I admire your efforts in this community and I want to learn from you. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 23:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Chippla360, I don't think I currently have capacity to take on a student, sorry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s fine; I’ll keep following, I can still learn from you from a distance, Thanks. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 01:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran Protection Status

Hello @Rosguill, I'm pleased to make your acquaintance. In line with WP:RFUP, I wanted to inquire regarding the talk page protection level for the "June 2025 Israeli Strikes on Iran" article. While I understand the genuine issues cited in the protection log, I wanted to discuss the protection level.

Since the article itself shares extended-protection level, assigning the talk page the same designation has prevented and nullified the usage of edit requests. Further, while I don't know the details outside of the log note, if the issue is inherently new users, would it be possible for the semi-protected level be tried? Particularly considering the immediate usage of extended-protection (which is not to say it was outside of any policy bounds), I respectfully ask you to reevaluate the current level.

Thank you for your time and efforts. ExiaMesa (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the addition, but I'd like to reiterate that this request solely pertains to the talk page of the article. ExiaMesa (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

ExiaMesa I actually referred to "new accounts" because the autoconfirmed accounts did not seem to be engaging any better than the IPs. My actions here are in part due to recent experience at Talk:2025 India-Pakistan conflict, where the talk page was flooded by subpar edit requests for several days. I tried doing pretty dogged cleanup at that page in order to avoid the exact scenario you're describing, and in the end I don't think it was worth it. There was a marked change in the quality of discussion after I applied protection: suddenly, discussions stopped being forked into a dozen different threads every day, and more experienced editors that had been spending all of their time fielding poorly-written edit requests were able to actually devote their attention to the article itself and improving it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see. I do recall that talk page's issues as well and I certainly see what you mean. Thank you for clarifying. Given that, I've attached below my requested edit, while I understand this is not your purview, it would be greatly appreciated and I only add this to resolve an issue noted on the talk page pertaining to the validity of a source.

Change: According to the Jewish News Syndicate, parts of the Iranian opposition called for Iranians to overthrow the Iranian government.

To: Parts of the international Iranian opposition have called for Iranians to oppose and take direction action against the Iranian Government.

AND: add citations

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250613-son-of-late-shah-urges-iranians-to-break-with-islamic-republic

Once more, thank you for your time and efforts. ExiaMesa (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll copy it to the talk page for other editors to address. FWIW, since it seems likely that this is liable to become Israel-Iran war soon, I'll likely lift the talk page protection early if the breaking news attention shifts away from the "strikes" pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, looking more closely, I think your request as written has typos and would be declined. The important part that you're contributing is what appears to be a better source for claims that were already under discussion, so I've pointed that out to editors at Talk:June_2025_Israeli_strikes_on_Iran#Jewish_News_Syndicate _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! (I did visibly cringe when I realized I put "direction.") ExiaMesa (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)