Why did you reverse the edit I made to the Ram Rothberg article? It meant no harm. 88.226.104.79 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's because you are evading a block and claiming that Arabic and Hebrew script templates are necessary, while there is no official policy requiring it. Same goes with Iran and Afghanistan but no policy required for that. Nastaliq is only for Pakistani articles. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Skitash. Could you please send me your email in my mailbox ? Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Skitash (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why’d you remove the Edit I made on the Syrian civil war? Flopqueen2000 (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit constitutes WP:Original research. Skitash (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh alright I see. Thank you Flopqueen2000 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skitash, someone created this 1991 Kurdish uprisings but this article already exists Battle of Suleymaniye (1991). What are you thinking? Kajmer05 (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The editor responsible for creating these AI-generated WP:POVFORKS is now blocked indefinitely. Skitash (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for spotting and reporting the sockpuppet. I also saw the discussion about both of you at WP:AN/EW and I thought of sharing my general advice from similar experiences, if helpful (feel free to ignore it if not!):

Prioritize the SPI report, submit it, and then hold back. If the sock's edits are clearly damaging articles in the meantime, then proceed like it's a usual new disruptive editor, with at least a formal assumption of good faith. (With the possible exception of the most obvious consecutive sock edits, it's usually inappropriate/risky to state your sockpuppetry assumption in other edits before the SPI concludes.) If urgent intervention is still needed before the SPI concludes, then report it to WP:ANI and mention the SPI alongside the evidence of disruptive edits. Admins will either block them temporarily, giving the SPI more time, or sometimes they'll even go straight to the SPI. Even if the sock edits are blatantly disruptive, it's often less work to just wait until they're blocked (especially if they're editing minor articles with few other active editors). Aggressively reverting them often just provokes them into wasting your time with protests, as they did here. And if they do WP:BLUDGEON you like that, don't waste your time engaging with them much, just state the evidence clearly for the benefit of the admins and let them decide. (If there's no new evidence to present, you can even just ignore sock replies.) The admins will almost always draw their own conclusions regardless of what excuses the sock provides.

Of course, some sockpuppeteers have a predictable pattern that, if familiar to you, can help you decide a slightly different approach, but this is the process I follow for the most annoying/persistent ones. R Prazeres (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And apologies if most of this is repeating what others told you at the noticeboard. R Prazeres (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for sharing your advice. I'll make sure to hold off from reverting perceived socks before the SPI is concluded by a CheckUser and handle their disruptive edits in the meantime the way you suggested. Skitash (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]