User talk:The Wordsmith

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 8 as User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 7 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

WIKIPEDIA FOREVER

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 4 months and 10 days.

Status: Busy.

“ In light of the following considerations:

• That the core principles of the policy on biographies of living people—in particular, neutrality and verifiability—have been set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation as a mandate for all projects;

• That the policy on biographies of living people, and this Committee's ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case, call for the removal of poorly sourced and controversial content, and places the burden of demonstrating compliance on those who wish to see the content included;

• That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources;

• That Wikipedia, through the founding principle of "Ignore All Rules", has traditionally given administrators wide discretion to enforce policies and principles using their own best judgment; and

• That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people.

The Committee has determined that:

• The deletions carried out by Rdm2376, Scott MacDonald, and various other administrators are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to enforce the policy on biographies of living people.

• The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner.

• The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.

”

Competency

Why should the ARCA discussion about this be taken into account when deciding on sentencing length when I was not made aware of it until now? Ranze (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Because ARCA clarified the Arbcom ruling you are subject to. From modern times to ancient tradition, most systems of governance have held that ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 08:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

From what I looked into though, the ARCA case had multiple admins there voicing that topic bans could be localized to portions of articles and didn't apply to an entire article just because the topic came up in some portents of it.

Anyway with special:diff/729781495 with the original being months expired, if your advice is accepted would that mean I'm now utterly free to edit GG things? Even if that were the case it'd feel like walking on egg-shells. I think I would want to first discuss the validity of the material that initiated all this (since I don't think it's a BLP violation) but I would be uncertain where I would be allowed to discuss it without fear of this recurring, since talk pages are included.

Is there a place other than the talk page where I can safely discuss this without fear of reprisal? Like somewhere on policy or project? Basically the whole 'Star Wars' career statements. Ranze (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If I were you, I would wait until the AE request was closed with a definite result before editing in that area. However, if the result is that the ban is seen to have expired, and you are not under any other sanctions, then you would be free to edit in any topic area subject to the same restrictions as any other editor. Of course, if you were to abuse this privilege then the prior ban would be noted and it would likely result in an indefinite topic ban. I'm confused by what you mean when you say "where I would be allowed to discuss it without fear of this recurring". Do you have something to say that would potentially be a BLP violation? Also note that there has been a change in the admins enforcing in this area, so degrees of leniency may have changed as well. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

TripWire ARE

Dear Wordsmith, I suppose you have noticed that TripWire's response in the ARE case is way over the word limit. Cutting him some minor slack is fine by me. But I find it rather distasteful that he is using the leeway to make accusations against me and deflect attention from himself. (I have advised him numerous times to take it to WP:ANI if he had a case, and RegentsPark did as well, e.g., here. He never did.) I hope you will be stricter with the word limits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wordsmith, the ARE has been archived without any feedback from the admins. Would you like to reinstate and do something to get the attention of admins? Or should I assume that it has been closed without any action? I am afraid the latter is likely to increase tensions within the India-Pakistan space. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I've rescued it from the archive and commented on it. The bot made a mistake in archiving it before it had been closed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sack of Rome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

ARCA re Rape Cases

So, despite the fact that the affected editor does not currently have a topic ban, I'd like to have the scope of the GamerGate topic ban clarified around People v. Turner and other rape cases. You suggested ARCA as the forum for this, but I wasn't sure if you were going to go forward with raising the issue there.

Without rehearsing my whole argument, I'm concerned both about controversial cases of sexual assault, and with patterns of editing designed to describe rape cases in ways that (imho) exemplify victim blaming (generally a BLPCRIME issue), disrespect anonymity (BLPPRIVACY) and attempt to re-investigate concluded cases (OR). This editing need not be in the part of the article that is "about gender" (if one thinks rape is not about gender) or "about controversy." I think these issues fall under "gender-related controversy, broadly construed," but then again I never imagined administrators would say that they didn't at AE, so what do I know?

In any case, I've never interacted with arbitration at this level before, but I will go forward with making a request if you're not going to.--Carwil (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here, Carwil, where the consensus was that it 'obviously' fell under the topic ban. If you feel it's necessary, it's fine to start another discussion about it- it may nip the consternation by obtuse editors in the bud. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's necessary, especially given that Wordsmith voiced an opinion that differs greatly from the opinion of Arbitrators and is an active administrator in an area where this decision should absolutely be applicable. Like Carwil, I have no experience with the proper procedure (I'm pretty new here), but I feel very strongly about getting this clarified. Perhaps Wordsmith (or you, PeterTheFourth) can point us in the right direction and make sure we have what we need to raise the issue constructively/fairly. 107.77.218.54 (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant

Given Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carriearchdale, specifically, Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant is Unrelated to the above accounts. is there an reason this editor should not be unblocked?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because it shows nothing. It proves that Fouette is not related to that random sock drawer that was uncovered, and that Carriearchdale is not related to that sock drawer. It says nothing about whether or not Fouette and Carriearchdale are related. Indeed, Checkuser cannot say anything about a link between Fouette and Carrie are the same person, because Carrie was blocked well over a year ago and Checkuser data contains nothing past 90 days. That's why I never requested a CU before blocking. Aside from the WP:DUCK, one would think the behavior and harassment alone would be more than sufficient to sustain a block and I'm not sure why anyone would want them unblocked. I will not be overturning it. However, if you still believe I'm mistaken you can take it to WP:AN for review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the whole story. All I know is I placed a request at WIR for someone to write an article and Fouette stepped up and created it. I was chagrined when it was deleted, and when I saw the SPI, I wondered if Fouette had been swept up by accident.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Mistaken warning

Re this warning. While I support the removal, the user did provide a source. Their edit included an improperly formatted inline citation to the NYT. Properly better to just direct them to discuss on the article talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I double checked, and you're right. When I looked at the diff the first time, it only bolded the first half of it and didn't show the second half with the link to the NYT article. I'll leave a note on the IP's talkpage correcting myself. Thanks for the heads up. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline

On 22 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although Montesquieu had only intended to write a few pages about the decline of the Roman Empire, he eventually produced 277 pages in 23 chapters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

ARCA notice

I have filed two actions at WP:ARCA of which you are named party: action 1, action 2 --David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)