User talk:Mosi Nuru

Hi, this is my talk page.

Warning about stalking

Following an editor to an article you have never edited before because of a disagreement on another article is considered hounding which is considered a form of wikiharassment and is actionable by admins. You have now changed (at least) 2 articles which you have never edited before simply because of our disagreement on Project 2025. If you continue to do this, it may result in a report for violating our policies which prohibit such conduct, linked above. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you have accused me of improper conduct (lack of civility, now harassment).

In both cases I believe your accusation is baseless and made in bad faith. Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try me. You are in the wrong here. Skyerise (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Try me." You sound threatening. I would like you to please contact the admins. Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I will. But not at your demand. Skyerise (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan, Tassedethe, GiantSnowman, and @OverlordQ: you are the top four listed recently active admins--would you be willing to weigh in?

Here is my version of events (if Skyerise disagrees, I welcome input).

1. I visited the page for Project 2025, and noticed that the see also section included a link to Liber OZ. I found this inappropriate, and deleted.

2. Skyerise reverted my edit.

3. I created a talk subject on the page. Another user deleted Liber OZ as well. Skyerise reverted that user's edit too.

4. Later, Skyerise acknowledged that a consensus had been met, and deleted the link.

5. In the process, I noticed that Skyerise had made the same "see also" link to Liber OZ in Tyrannicide and human rights inflation. I believed that these were similarly inappropriate, pointed to the consensus from Project 2025 and deleted. I also noticed several parts of the Liber OZ article that could be improved, and made edits. Skyerise has reverted most of these edits.

6. Skyerise has accused me of incivility and harassment. I believe this is wrong, and that Skyerise is himself behaving in an uncivil and threatening manner to me (see my talk page, and our discussions on the talk pages of Liber OZ and Project 2025), and is reverting my edits in violation of "revert only when necessary" and "encourage the newcomers."

I would appreciate input. Thanks! Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD. Admins, please see the talk page where this editor called me "obsessive" - a clear personal attack, in which they mentioned an article I had been working on. Then, they go to that article and essentially defaced it without any discussion on the talk page. I reverted it per WP:BRD and asked that they demonstrate consensus for their change, as required by WP:BRD. Instead, they defaced it even more. There are specific reasons why the specific headings are used in that article, as explained on the talk page, but it seems the intent is not to improve the article, but rather to hound me. That's not right. Skyerise (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you're misgendering me. Skyerise (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Your recent editing history at Liber OZ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also links

Re your changes to the see also list at Project 2025, please be aware that our manual of style states that: "As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." Two of the links you added were already linked from the article lead and the third has been added to the body (and was already linked from the infobox). Your edit has therefore been reverted. Thank you for observing this guideline in the future. Skyerise (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please also note that the manual of style prescribes that there should only be one link per item listed: that is, that every item should be listed on its own line, and there should be no additional links in the gloss for the entry. I refer to your edits to Brotherly love, which I have cleaned up for you. You're welcome. Skyerise (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your edit to Brotherly love, and they seem reasonable.

However, I must note the context: You started an ANI against me because you accused me of "hounding" you by following you to unrelated pages. Now you have followed me to a totally unrelated article (to which you had never before made edits).

You are doing the very thing you accused me of. Mosi Nuru (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you followed me to Barbara Bouchet too.

By your own definition, this is Wikihounding. Mosi Nuru (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered you at WP:ANI. One was on my watchlist already, and there was no intent to harass involved on the other. This is, to my perception, entirely different than what you did at Liber OZ and Talk:Liber OZ, in which you specifically targeted an article I've been meticulously preparing for a GA review, which I intend to submit when the current GA review on Helen Parsons Smith is completed. A GA review will address whether the article is too long and whether its tone is excessive, and that is the proper way to do things with a robust well-written and well-cited article. Skyerise (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the process and tone of a GA review at Talk:Helen Parsons Smith. If you like to critique the work of other editors, perhaps you should consider becoming a GA reviewer so you can participate in our editorial process in a disciplined and non-disruptive manner. Skyerise (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the reason I was so upset by what you did was that it delayed by several days my ability to respond in that GA review. If you read through the review, the reviewer did get a little impatient with me. Skyerise (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for you the context.

You say there was "there was no intent to harass involved." Will you believe the same about me?

I think we can both acknowledge that both of us are deeply suspicious of the other at this point. I think it is a basic gesture of good will that we shouldn't be unnecessarily expanding our interactions with each other at this point. I'm not finding articles to edit based on your user contributions. Please extend the same courtesy. Mosi Nuru (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But there is one thing that still bothers me; that is that one of the requirements for a GA review is that the article be stable and not have outstanding issues on the talk page. So I will now probably have to wait several months before I can submit it. (Though it also needs more work to be ready, primarily adding page numbers to the citations, which can be extremely tedious.) Would you agree to let me archive your posts at the Liber OZ talk page once I have finished preparing it? I am happy to leave your concerns there until then for other editors to respond to. If you can agree to that, I will be happy to post to the ANI that we have come to an agreement if you will do the same. That will allow even a non-admin party to close that report. Skyerise (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for correcting my error at Brotherly love. I wasn't aware there was a distinction between the "New" and the "Great" commandments. Skyerise (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]