User talk:The Wordsmith

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 9 as User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 8 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

WIKIPEDIA FOREVER

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 8 months and 7 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.

”

DYK for The Right Stuff (blog)

On 19 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Right Stuff (blog), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that alt-right media hub The Right Stuff has a core principle of ethnic nationalism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Right Stuff (blog). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Right Stuff (blog)), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Crash Override Network

• Crash Override Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is clearly a page related to Gamergate. What would you think of applying Template:pp-30-500, as a DS? I am concerned that rather new users are constantly advocating for the claim that some of the original Gamergate victims joined in doxing of Gamergate supporters, based on what are claimed to be chat logs. If such a claim is to be accepted, it is better if it is judged valid by experienced editors. For example, check this edit summary by a person restoring the doxing charge who has 19 edits. The page was fully protected by User:MastCell between Sept 14 and 21. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd be willing to apply it to the article page (not the talkpage), but first I need to look into the history and issues surrounding the article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: After checking out the recent history and monitoring edits, I see only the single diff you posted that the semiprotection did not prevent. We don't apply 500/30 unless semiprotection is clearly insufficient, so I'm not going to do that here just yet. If it becomes a bigger problem, I'd be willing to revisit that idea. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland

Hello, as you may have expected, I am not satisfied with the close of the AE filing against Sean.hoyland. I am not sure what the appeal procedure is. Where can I appeal this decision? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of possible appeals. The first is usually asking the imposing administrator (me, in this case) on their talkpage to reconsider, explaining why you think I made the wrong call. I'm open to a reasonable argument, as long as it is concise and well explained. Decisions may also be appealed to (in order from easiest to most difficult) WP:AE where overturning requires a consensus of uninvolved administrators, WP:ANI which requires consensus of uninvolved editors, or to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The main reasons I would appeal the close is because it does not address the issues for which I made the filing, namely a deliberate 1RR violation, unexplained reverts, and outright refusal to discuss said reverts. Each one of these is a very serious issue on its own, and together they are not only very problematic, but go against the very principles Wikipedia is supposedly built on. Please reconsider your close and let me know what your decision is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that there were indeed two reverts, that much is clear. However, enforcing administrators have the prerogative to use discretion in deciding how to enforce things like that when there are mitigating circumstances. The consensus of administrators in this case is that the BLP grounds (shaky but not 100% wrong) and the obstructionism by ES is sufficient to justify not sanctioning for 1RR this time. If it happens again, this request will certainly be used to establish a pattern. Regarding the refusal to discuss, it could potentially be problematic indeed and indicative of a problem. However, as a non-administrator and regular editor, Sean is not under any obligation to explain his actions to anyone who questions them. He explained his motivation at Arbitration Enforcement, and most admins found his explanation not worthy of sanction.

After taking some time to review my close, in the absence of new evidence I decline to overturn my own closure of this case. The other options for appeal that I mentioned are still available to you, should you wish to pursue them. Regards, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review. I find the idea that an editor doesn't need to discuss their reverts unless someone drags them to AE to be completely contrary to both common practice and the spirit of this project, not to mention that it was deemed disruptive in previous AE cases. That they can declare that they refuse to discuss with people they are ideologically opposed to at AE, and that elicits no response whatsoever from the admins is, well, I don't even know how to describe that. I will be appealing the close at ANI. Other than yourself, who should I notify when I do so? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing the decision politely; that is a rare thing in Arbitration Enforcement and it is appreciated. I understand that you brought this request in good faith, so I wish you well at ANI. In addition to me, you are required to notify Sean.hoyland as well. It is also somewhat common, but not mandatory, to notify the other administrators and participants in the original request. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also think you dealt with the request in good faith and I given the same result (which I was expecting, considering the comments the participating admins made), I would have appealed regardless of who the admin who closed the request was. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I opened an ANI thread here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the AE

Thanks for closing the Sean.hoyland AE. Could you please post a note about the warning on Epson Salt's page? I'd rather it didn't just roll into the AE archives. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC).

 Done The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

AE Close and Warning

Hi, I see you closed the Nishidani AE with a warning to everyone who participated. I don't think that is fair. I posted a general comment and suddenly I'm warned? If certain people are to be warned, then it ought to be explicit. I don't think it's fair to punish everyone who merely posted at an AE. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not punishing anybody, just sending out an advisement to all participants that further incivility will not be tolerated. The problem is deeper than just one or two users. If you're not uncivil in the PIA topic area, then it doesn't apply to you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, and I agree being civil is or at least should be one of the most important pillars that in my opinion is often not seen as a priority. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Your block/unblock of Kamel Tebast

Hi, Wordsmith. I just noticed the Kamel Tebast AE here and was a little surprised that you had closed it so quickly, after only one uninvolved admin had commented. Not that there's anything wrong with you blocking on your own admin discretion, but first blocking and then fairly promptly unblocking after an email discussion with the user[1] worries me a little. Other admins and users may have felt differently. I don't do ARBPIA myself, but I'm thinking of reopening the AE discussion, for the sake of providing space for more input from other admins and users. What do you think? Also, I'd be interested to see the e-mail discussion you mentioned. Bishonen | talk 16:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC).

Ordinarily I wouldn't have closed so quickly, but the BLP vio was clear and pretty egregious. He directly compared a former President of the United States to the Nazi Party, on his biography, using sources that were not even close to up-to-snuff. When he appealed via email, we had a discussion about his lack of understanding of policy and I genuinely believe that he accepts responsibility for his actions and that his apology was sincere. I've sent Kamel Tebaast an email asking for permission to forward the email chain, but if he declines then I won't publish without permission.

Clearly he meant to be speaking to you alone, so of course you must ask him, yes. But these things are better in public, and I hope any undertakings KT makes can be made public, perhaps in a written-for-wikipedia style, so that more eyes can see what, if anything, he's undertaking not to do again. I say this because I noticed he was just recently forgetful of the responsibility he had previously taken for his edits, compare [2]. Bishonen | talk 03:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC).

KT has declined permission to forward our correspondence, so I'm afraid that's that. I will say that he has read the relevant policies, understands why his actions were wrong, and acknowledged that he needs to earn back the community's trust before appealing the topic ban. I have a good faith belief that he was sincere in his intentions. He has also agreed to consult myself or another trusted administrator if he has questions about policy, which he has done since being unblocked. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Request to remove topic ban

Hi The Wordsmith. You blocked me because of WP:BLP, and your subsequent unblocking of me was addressed. The unfortunate edit for which I was blocked had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli topic, and my record in that area has been clean since my original topic ban. Therefore, I respectfully request that you remove my topic ban. Thank you. KamelTebaast 02:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your situation, but I'm going to need more than a week and a half of good behavior before I'm willing to lift the ban. Your appeal is declined at this time. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, you did not address why I was topic banned. Again, considering that my block was not topic-related, at this point, it appears that your sanction is either punitive or content related. Especially considering that you did not sanction MShabazz, who most agreed violated the 1RR, and the same for Sean.holyland, who also violated the 1RR. KamelTebaast 04:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It was explained to you exactly why you were topic banned. Your serious BLP violation was a textbook example of disrupting to prove a point as part of a content dispute in the PIA topic area, which was pointed out to you in our email exchange. You acknowledged to me that you needed to earn the community's trust back, and that takes a little longer that we've seen. My decision stands, for now. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wordsmith. Obviously, I understand the ramifications of my BLP violation, which I acknowledged. It has been one month. Can you please remove the topic ban? As you know, there are a number of safeguards in place and enough warnings against me should I violate policy. Thank you. KamelTebaast 02:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith? KamelTebaast 17:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look through your recent contributions, and inform you of my decision in a day or so. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. KamelTebaast 18:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response, I've been busy with work. After getting a chance to check your recent contributions, I see you seem to have been contributing positively and stayed far away from BLP violations. I'm not sure if this is the best course of action, but I'm going to cautiously agree to lift the restriction, to take effect once I take care of all the red tape. However, consider yourself on notice that if I or anyone else has to reimpose sanctions (in ARBPIA, BLP or any other topic area), I will not be endorsing any appeals. Please take this as a learning experience to work collaboratively with your fellow editors (of all POVs). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a note. See here for what was obviously going to happen as soon as you granted that appeal. I really wish you had let this be appealed at AE instead of directly to you, but I guess that was your call. nableezy - 21:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, straight back to useless disruption. Zero^talk 00:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Wordsmith. I wrote a simple question to an administrator (Zero), and included a thread on which I based my question. Subsequently Nableezy responded (I'm being kind), then Nishidani responded (I'm being kind again), and now I see that someone deleted all of those edits from the record, including all of their edits. To make things even more murkier, Zero, in place of where the original edits were, wrote about himself having two accounts and that the Arbitration Committee several years ago judged it to be proper. Further, someone apparently disabled my ability to look at Zero's dif. Lastly, as I've seen in the past, when something is deleted because of COPY or Vandalism, or other policy concerns, note is made of it. Here, nothing, only the action gone forever. I followed one thread on Wikipedia where an admin referred to another editor as "Jewboy", and other extremely offensive words were said, yet, even that was not deleted from the record. This needs to be brought into the open, especially if an admin has overstepped his authority. My question and edits did not violate policy, and I'd like to know what can be done to address what happened, and to have my edits and their edits restored. Can you please help clarify what direction I can take in order to clear this up? Thank you. KamelTebaast 04:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This matter is in the hands of the Oversight committee. Zero^talk 04:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm eager to learn how my simple question and the subsequent edits was cause for removal based on non-public personal information; potentially libelous information; copyright infringement; blatant attack names on automated lists and logs; or vandalism. How can I follow up on this? KamelTebaast 04:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You can wait until the Oversighters decide what to do about it. Zero^talk 04:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi The Wordsmith.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of User:EEng's userpage

Could you please link to the discussions you had with EEng about his userpage before deleting it, and the WP:MFD or other WP:CONSENSUS that his userpage should be deleted? Softlavender (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not discuss it with EEng prior, and I speedily deleted it under G10 as a Attack page. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff decided that "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." As you know, BLP summary deletions are summary for a reason, and do not require consensus or prior discussion. Procedure is to delete, put it for review, and restore if consensus supports restoration. If EEng wishes to restore the non-polemic parts of it, I have no objection to that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

AN thread

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Xenophobia

Hi Wordsmith.

Thank you for you mediation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikiszlsmall, where with User:BU Rob13, we had an issue with the word "xenophobia". Subsequently, I have gone off reading about the word, its meaning, its use-in-practice, and alternatives.

Wikipedia should avoid coming even close to xenophobia, but which I mean having or displaying an aversion, or rejection of foreign (actually, non-English) contributions, and collaborations. I observe a degree of such xenophobic behaviour in Wikipedia deletion processes, which I recognise as an unconscious bias. En.wikipedia is the "English" Wikipedia, and so, logically, everything that is "not English" does not belong? WikiMedians (as opposed to WikiMedians - hmmm, there's a burr there) must object to that. The foreign language Wikipedia's are part of the project, and they are lagging. Improvement of foreign Wikipedias by translation of English articles is arguably the biggest jobs remaining. Therefore, we should make especially welcome multilingual editors and facilitate collaboration of editors across Wikipedia's of different language. This is why I often reject "foreign language" as a deletion reason, if it relates to userspace of actual or potential multilingual editors, as do userboxes such as Template:User wikiszlsmall.

So that's where I was coming from.

Unfortunately, as you observed for me, "xenophobia" is often used as an emotive word in personal attack. I guess it is due to "xeno" being a funny sounding word thus grabbing attention, and "phobia" by similarity catching the common emotion of the word "homophobia". "Homophobia" has crossed from the literal meaning of "fear"/"aversion" into "hate" and "vilification". OK, so "xenophobia" might be a word used more carefully, or avoided? If so, how?

The antonym is xenophilia. That would be too far the other way. We don't need to actively go out seeking to love foreigners. But we should be openly, enthusiastically, welcoming of multilingual, multi-language Wikipedians.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no. Purely non-English templates don't belong in the English Wikipedia. This isn't about nationality or race or anything. It's about the fact that this is quite literally the English Wikipedia, and so editors expect to find ... English. I'm certainly not saying that non-English sources, articles, and other items don't offer value – they certainly do, which is why we translate them into English for use on the English Wikipedia. If you ever write a memoir, I will expect to find no two consecutive pages in the same language, so as to prevent it from being xenophobic. It's about an ability to communicate using a common language, not hatred toward those who speak other languages. Setting all that aside, this personal attack that you will not rescind is the latest in a stretch of incredibly shitty things this week. In the past 2–3 days, I've had to take one of the admins I respect the most to ANI for a slew of nonsense - which I can't get a single uninvolved administrator to even comment on, witnessed AE collectively lose its mind by blatantly disregarding severe BLP violations because they happen to be directed at Donald Trump – putting me in the position of having to defend a man who wants to treat me like a second-class citizen, had to deal with editors who think they can discard any TfD outcome they don't like again, for what feels like the umpteenth time, and now been called a xenophobe. This isn't worth the stress on top of what I've got going on in real life.

As for how to avoid the word, the how is simple. You don't ascribe malice to an action that can be perfectly explained with common sense. I'm baffled that you don't understand how this crossed so many lines. You've lumped me in the same group with neo-Nazis and members of the Klan. I'm gay. Both of those groups would prefer I be dead. They actively advocate for violence against me and others like me. I doubt you can possibly know how it feels to be lumped in as having the same values as such people by someone I respect. How dare you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Rob, I did not call you a xenophobe, that reading of it was unexpected. Sorry. I'm sorry you have had a bad week. I agree with you about the Trump stuff. Why don't we drop this, and see if we can write up some acceptable D* CSD criteria next week? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

After the week I've had, I don't expect to be around much for a while, at the very least. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ARCA archived

Your clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Clarification request (November 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, The Wordsmith. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE#SageRad

This AE request was put on hold for a month and has recently been reopened. Your name is already in the admin section from the October discussion, and you may want to take another look to see if your position is affected by the newly-filed material, especially the response from User:SageRad. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I have posted a suggestion about imposing 0RR plus a one edit per week restriction for the topic area. I have explained the relevance of that on the AE page. Instead of focusing on the details of what we don't want (e.g. arguments involving accusations of Stalinist, or just uncivil behavior), if we consider the problem from the other end, i.e. aiming at perfect edits, then it's clear that you should limit the number of edits. If you can only make one edit to the article and one edit on the talk page per week, then you change the nature of the talk page edits from a conversation that can go off the rails and degenerate in uncivil behavior, into something more similar to writing an article that aims to get as much support as possible. If you can't edit anymore for one week there, you have to make sure that whatever is said is convincing to the other editors. Insults are obviously not going to work in such a setting. Count Iblis (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at your suggestion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

According to what I can see of the block log, the block is for 31 hours instead of one year. Perhaps that was a mistake? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Fixing that now

WP:AE#Kamel Tebaast

This request might be ready to close, but since you are one of the admins who already knows this editor, we should wait until you have a chance to look at Nableezy's answer to your question. It looks to me that User:Kamel Tebaast has a strong POV which he controls only with difficulty. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: With all due respect, my editing has been solid with no edit warring or disruptive editing. You (and it looks like The Wordsmith) are accepting the words of two editors who, as you know, are not impartial and fall distinctly on the side of anti-Israel editing. That is unfortunate. I am perfectly capable and willing to open this case up wider to show the details of edits in question, Nableezy's recent violation of WP:HOUND of me, and Zero's wrongful use of admin privileges in order to suppress solid edits. But that is now what this is about. This is only about an editor who filed a gotcha complaint within 10 minutes of an admitted mistake that I would have self-reverted had I been given the chance. Nableezy did that in order to remove me from Wikipedia because I am a distraction to his POV. KamelTebaast 20:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen Nableezy's answer. I'm leaning towards agreeing with the case presented, but I do want more input from other uninvolved admins. I see a lot of the usual ARBPIA suspects opining, so I would like more outside opinions before deciding unilaterally. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Note that "Zero's wrongful use of admin privileges in order to suppress solid edits" is a false charge. What happened is that the Oversight Committee suppressed edits on my talk page at my request. The fact that any editor's text needs to be oversighted is a pretty bad reflection on them. Zero^talk 23:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You suppressed simply because I asked you about operating two accounts, all based on yours and Nishidani's edits. It's going to come out, but your inference that I made wrongful edits (worthy of suppression) is more of your pattern of manipulating the line of honesty. Until now, as you know, there has been no reason given for the suppression, and your last edits indicated that it is under review. I'll be contacting the committee to have the suppressed edits taken off. In any case, this is just more of your straw man and smoke screens. KamelTebaast 23:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for revealing what appears to be part of the oversighted information. "It's going to come out" looks like a threat to me. Are you aware that editors must at least pretend to collaborate at Wikipedia? Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't find your comment that "editors must at least pretend to collaborate at Wikipedia" a bit ironic, considering that the entire complaint was based on a 10-minute revert and filing on something that I surely would have self-reverted. Please check your partisanship at the door. KamelTebaast 00:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Check my partisanship? In a thread about your editing reported at WP:AE? That is full combat mode. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm recovering from my procedure and will be offline for about a week. Upon my return, I would appreciate a chance to respond to any further complaints made against me. Thank you. KamelTebaast 16:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm back. KamelTebaast 17:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hope everything medically went as well as can be expected. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, John Carter, for the kind sentiment. Unfortunately, I'm only accustomed to a lot of negativity whenever I see an edit, it is wonderful to see such a human and touching thought. In the meantime, I'm better than I was, not as good as I hope to be. Again, I greatly appreciate your edit! KamelTebaast 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

Hello,

As you were the administrator who closed the AE proceedings and issued the warning to TRM, I'd like to draw your attention to some recent issues that I believe should be addressed. In no less than 24 hours from your closure, it appears that TRM has continued to engage in inappropriate behavior. He has made personal attacks towards myself, including: not to mention his utter abject recalcitrance in redacting his accusations of lying ... To err is human, to completely reject any responsibility for false accusations is rogue admin, Mike will just use IRC and find an Arbcom/Mike-sympathetic admin to do the dirty work behind the scenes, Get him to write an error-free DYK, that would be a miracle. It is Christmas after all., and equating my warning and block to lynching and character assassination.

TRM's uncivil behavior has extended to DYK when another editor asked him a question and he responded in a belittling fashion: I'm gonna take a punt here: PREVENTING ERRORS FROM HITTING THE MAIN PAGE?. It was followed up with: Impressive that you found such an appropriate yet shit article. You must have shares. Usual "belittling" caveat applies, although in your case, I couldn't give one, two or three fucks! Just kidding, obv!!!!!!!!! and No-one gives a fuck about the main page any more Martin. You know that.

Finally, TRM has made insults towards some of the arbitration committee candidates: Hilarious, thanks. That someone who doesn't really edit Wikipedia and didn't answer the questions posed didn't come last, sums it all up perfectly! and Spectacular result. No wonder we trust Arbcom to understand what we do day-to-day around here!

I am asking that you take a look at TRM's behavior and action it as appropriate. Mike V • Talk 00:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Some of these diffs are just allegations of administrator misconduct. While I believe they are incorrect allegations, we shouldn't bar any editor from reporting someone to ANI due to a mere allegation being deemed "belittling". On the other hand, some of the DYK comments and the constant addition of "Of course, if that's deemed "belittling", my unreserved apologies." to the end of his comments are an actual issue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to anyone raising a question about another's conduct. However, I do object to the manner in which it's conveyed. Mike V • Talk 01:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

In light of the current AN case, I consider it to be wholly inappropriate for you to be even commenting on The Rambling Man at the moment, Mike V, let alone trying to engage someone who is directly linked to the AN case. Why not grow a pair of bollocks and apologise for the way you've behaved rather than try and stir up some more shit? Cassianto^Talk 01:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how my comment is inappropriate. You and others have encourage me to seek input from other admins in regards to TRM and here I am doing just that. I do object to your continued use of personal attacks towards me and again I ask that you stop interacting with me in this fashion. Mike V • Talk 01:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I object to your refusal to say sorry, Mike V, but we don't always get what we want, do we? Cassianto^Talk 01:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I've also done no such thing than to ask you to "seek input from other admins in regards to TRM" -- diff please? Your comment here to the AN filer is inappropriate inasmuch that this is an active case and your silence there is deafening. Rather than man-up and go there to say sorry, you're continuing to grind your pathetic axe elsewhere. Cassianto^Talk 01:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That was in reference to your support of the proposal. Mike V • Talk 01:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Then your referencing is wrong: read RexxS's post again and you'll see that nowhere does he say: "seek input from other admins in regards to TRM". Try again? Cassianto^Talk 06:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, Mike V responded at AN before initiating this thread. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss. It was a nothing comment which could've been written differently. Cassianto^Talk 06:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for commenting. I've reviewed the diffs, and I believe that the appropriate venue, if anyone believes the Arbcom sanctions have been violated, is thataway. The rest of the bickering about Mike is more suited to AN. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

As requested. Mike V • Talk 15:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, and I understand you find me unpalatable, thank you for redirecting Mike to an appropriate venue. This isn't over by a long way it seems. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just because I'm not terribly fond of you (and I'm certainly not alone in that) doesn't mean we get to suspend our administrator standards for accountability. Indeed, it could be argues that the time our standards matter most is when dealing with someone we don't get along with. That being said, you also need to cool it for a while. Your constant (paraphrased) "see you in a week if anyone finds this belittling" is not helping the situation, and arguably WP:POINTy. The best thing for you would be to find something unrelated to write about, and not continue to prod, lest the boomerang come back around again (*groan*).

I directed Mike to the right venue, just like I directed you to AN when you took issue with my previous AE close. Fairness is important (and as much as you assumed AN would do nothing, it seems I was right on that being the right place for you to go). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No need to reiterate that I'm unpopular. That's belittling, remember? And it may have escaped your attention but I do more in the mainspace every day than Mike does every year. So asking me to go and find something else to do is also belittling and trivialises my contributions and motivation. But you're ok, you're not going to be blocked for that. My issue with "belittling" is exemplified perfectly by Mike's abject inability to see the reality in most of my discussion points, moreover a failure to see any kind of historical context. It's a serious knee-jerk failing. Your recent comment "I think the best thing to do would be to give him some breathing room and time to think. This pressure on him is certainly not helping." is very charitable, but Mike V had 13 days to respond to me about my concerns over his original warning to me. He did no such thing, and as of now, still hasn't. He's accused me of lying twice. He's not doing the things he's been elected to do properly, he's not representing WMF the way they would want him to, and just running away is a simple indication that he needs to be restored to a normal editor until such a time he can handle the position(s) he's in properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Black Kite this whole "when he has time" thing is a little bizarre, see above, 13 days to respond to me and nothing, still nothing in the face of heaps of evidence I provided at the time plus numerous editors asking him to respond. The AGF is wearing really thin. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern. For what its worth, I believe that Arbcom restriction was poorly worded in a way that is too subjective to be useful. There is probably a better way to phrase it that leaves less room for "creative" interpretations. Maybe something in the old Giano civility parole? But anyway, one thing I've noticed is that in situations like these, the pitchfork brigade rushes to grab their pitchforks as usual, everybody gets swept up in the fervor, and then we're caught in a months-long Arbitration case that everybody hates and nobody can end swiftly (I think you probably are familiar with this situation too). It will be much easier on the community if we can all cool off and approach it with a level head. There is precedent for the Community holding a discussion about an advanced permission holder (historically an RFC/U, but we can manage without that), coming to a consensus, and then the Committee desysopping by motion. If the community truly believes that removing tools to be the best option, then the second path is going to be far less divisive and quicker than the first. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm much less concerned over Mike being desysopped and de-functionaried than I am over making sure his error in citing me for an IBAN infringement is overturned. That's all I asked from day 1, and I guess it's probably the blue touchpaper that's caused all the rest of it. If Mike didn't like being challenged on that and couldn't retract from his position, I suppose the rest was inevitable given he went on a vendetta to get me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm also looking into precedent for redacting log entries. I'm not sure if there is one, but given the community's strong feeling I'm certain the warning will be overturned with little hassle. Thus far I think I've treated you fairly (please point out if I haven't), I'm just asking for a little patience. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue at all with you or your actions. Indeed I was mildly disappointed that you held me in such low regard as I'm not sure we've interacted much at all. Any way, I have patience, just not for when all venues for discussion are rapidly closed down when outstanding issues persist. That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't dislike you as a person. I think you do a lot of excellent and thankless work. I take issue with the way you express yourself, which is often unnecessarily harsh. I understand why you're so passionate and emphatic about getting it right, but if you want help from competent people (indeed, if you want others to stick around long enough to be competent in understanding how the main page works), the carrot sometimes works better than the stick. I watchlist Talk:Main Page and WP:ERRORS, have for a while, but the way you speak to people dissuades me from jumping in. I'm sure others feel the same. If you would tone down the language, I'd be happy to stick around long enough to learn the finer points and I'm sure others would too. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Accepted, but ironically the Arbcom sanctions have made the task of keeping the main page 100 times more challenging, and has actually opened the lid on the fact that many, many admins are not actually competent enough to edit the encyclopedia, or simply not interested in doing so. I was hauled away by a band of individuals who dislike me personally for my style (over the last 11 years) and of course, no consideration at all was given to the positive contributions. I suppose once you hit around 140,000 edits, if 1,000 of them are shitty, (i.e. less than 1%) you still get shown the door. Perhaps like eBay where anyone with a seller rating of less than 100% is a fraud. Anyway, I took my meds and I kept trying to keep the place clean and tidy, then Mike V misinterprets a question to the Arbcom candidates as an IBAN violation, and we're stoking up the fires once again. I regret becoming so escalated, but it's 100% down to Mike V and his false accusations and refusal to retract them. I should be the better man, sure, but being accused of lying, twice, is like being spat in the face, twice, especially after 11 years of service. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I do understand where you're coming from. The Arbcom case was...well, terrible for everyone and should have been kept within the community. An RFC/U might have been able to sort it all out adequately. There's been a lot of poor behavior on all sides, and now we're in this situation where things can only escalate. How about this: I'm going to continue trying calm things down, I'm going to continue working out the best way to take care of your log entry within policy (and maybe a dash of WP:IAR), and then when I have some free time I'll come help out with small things in the Main Page area while you show me the ropes. Is that acceptable? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd be delighted. Although there are nuances between each of the separate sections, it's all about the primary goal of keeping errors off and interest on! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

After this saga I'm taking the weekend away from Wikipedia, but as promised I'll start poking around the MP areas on Monday. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It's a risky business... ;) Cassianto^Talk 23:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Any suggestions on where to get started with Main Page maintenance? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick one

You've just struck through Mike V's IBAN infringement warning in totality, and I have no issue with that at all, but you might be well advised to let the other party know that too. After all Mike's interpretation was a tit-for-tat, and if I didn't "tit", then the other wouldn't have "tat"ed, so if it's okay with you, please let them know. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. I have so noted on the editor's user talk. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

In case you don't know, I got in trouble for saying tit [3], so watch it. EEng 00:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@EEng: Well, maybe you shouldn't have been such a boob then. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

HughD sock editting

The Wordsmith, I’m writing to ask for ask for your input. About 6 months back you imposed a 6 month block on HughD as well as an indefinite topic ban [[4]]. I was one of the most vocal editors complaining about HughD’s behavior [[5]]. I believe HughD is sock editing two articles I’m involved with as a form of harassment thus I wanted to state my case and ask for advice.

The two articles are Corvette leaf spring and Eddie Eagle. In both cases, we saw a series of IP edits by IP addresses in the Chicago area[[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] (a quick look at HughD’s user page and it’s clear he is a Chicago based editor). In both cases the IP editor switched to Amazon Technologies IPs from around the world.[[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] after I requested a sock investigation [[19]]. I didn’t realize checkuser can’t be used to match IP addresses to users so the investigation didn’t proceed.

IP involvement with the Corvette article started in November (and I didn’t notice for 2-3 weeks). The Eddie Eagle involvement started about 3 days after my second edit to the article. In addition to being suspicious IP addresses the edits follow a pattern that was typical of HughD.

The Corvette article edits are generally annoyance/harassment types and follow a pattern that was typical of HughD in such cases (I can provide example diffs). Starting in November we see a series of requests for references or other tagging for minor/non-existent issues with the article. The edit summaries are similar to the verb-subject phrasing HughD used. Each IP address was used only once and for one article only but some of the edits were timed relatively close together.

The Eddie Eagle edits are more like the edits HughD tried to add to political topics (and were part of why he was banned from that subject area after a time). Typically, we have a quote from a source, often with hyperlinks to the name of the newspaper, journal etc, basically a bit of peacocking. They we have a disparaging quote taken from the article and move on to the next source. Effort to put thing into context doesn't matter. All that is important is to add negative information.

Based on the patterns of behavior, text and edit summaries, the Chicago based IP addresses (followed by using Amazon to mask the IP locations) I believe that this is HughD and he is targeting articles I’m interested in because of my involvement with the complaints that lead to is topic blocks etc. Do you have any suggestions for dealing with this issue? I’m sorry this is as long as it is but I would be happy to provide some example edits to illustrate the similarities between HughD’s behavior and what we are seeing out of the IPs. If nothing else would it be possible to get both articles semi-protected for several months? Do you have suggestions for putting together a more solid case to deal with the sock editing? Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs)

I'll spend some time looking at the diffs. If they're convincing enough I may just block per WP:DUCK, or if its more borderline it might be easiest if I requested Checkuser assistance. I should be able to have a more firm answer for you tomorrow. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I can find a series of digs for you if it will help. In this case Hugh didn't previously work on these articles but the edit pattern is consistent with his actions at other articles. Springee (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I've done a spot check of the IP contributions. Inconclusive as to whether the edit summaries are similar enough to make an ID, and from looking I don't see how those IPs are being terribly disruptive. The few that were tagging might be a slight annoyance, but a number of the contributions seem to be filling out information on existing refs. Can you point to two or thre that show significant disruption needing semiprotection? Also, Hugh's block expires sometime in the next few days. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wordsmith, I believe HughD is still sock editing and using Amazon proxies to mask his edits. At this point his block has been lifted but the edits started while the block was in effect. Two recent Amazon IP's have appeared at relatively low traffic article talk pagess I recently commented on [[20]], [[21]].

35.165.116.166 is using typical HughD boiler plate comments. We have high praise for those whom he agrees with,

(IP)"Thank you for your prodigious research" [[22]]

(HughD)"Thank you for your astonishingly prodigious contributions" [[23]].

(IP)"Exclusion of the proposed content is grossly non-neutral. "[[24]],

(HughD)"Thank you for your contribution. The article is grossly non-neutral..." [[25]]

Note the use of "our" when describing Wiki articles or projects

(IP)"Our policy of due weight compels inclusion of the noteworthy..." [[26]],

(HughD)"as per our project's guideline WP:SIZERULE", [[27]]

(HughD)"our project's due weight policy", [[28]]

(HughD)"the basis of our project's due weight policy", [[29]]

(HughD)"We agree our article's coverage of " [[30]].

(HughD)"Our article may not demonize", [[31]]

(HughD)"Our article should not say ", [[32]]

(HughD)"I know you will agree that our first priority in our project is neutrally conveying " [[33]]

In the GM Chapter 11 posting [[34]] IP 35.165 uses a typical HughD practice of including many (excessive) hyperlinks in a talk post. [[35]].

Finally, IP 13.112 specifically references a previous edit of mine[[36]]. HughD was involved in the talk discussion related to that edit.[[37]]

We have a whole series of single purpose IP accounts that seem only interested in the articles I'm editing. They started with Chicago related IPs (HughD's location) then switched to Amazon proxies, [[38]]. We see similar posting and now a specific reference to 2015 edit HughD commented on. I think it's clear this is Hugh and he was editing while blocked. No, the edits for the moment aren't overly disruptive but block evasion is block evasion. Also, if these topics are at all covered by his indef block on post 1932 political topics then it's again a violation. Sorry for the length. Thanks, Springee (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, for got about another example of a random IP (Amazon based) showing up after I commented on an article. I commented on the GM Street Car Conspiracy article on Jan 2nd (it had been dead for a while) [[39]]. Short time later we have 14(!) new, Amazon IP editors show up. Typical HughD, tag many things in the article and dump a long list of references in the talk page (he did the same with the Pinto article). Here are the users, note all are single purpose accounts using Amazon IPs. Since I haven't taken the bate we see no continuing edits [[40]], [[41]], [[42]], [[43]],[[44]], [[45]], [[46]], [[47]], [[48]], [[49]], [[50]], [[51]], [[52]], [[53]]. Springee (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• One more that I didn't add earlier, here is another Amazon IP editing an climate change article. The edit is minor but notice that the article has very little traffic and HughD pushed for GA status before he was blocked.[[54]]. Again, I don't think this is just a coincidence. Springee (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems like much stronger evidence than you presented the first time. I'll contact a Checkuser to see what the available options are. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And it continues: [[55]]. Again an Amazon IP editor just happens to joint a backwater article I'm editing. This one also has HughD type language. From the IP editor:

Thank you for your patient efforts to address the neutrality and completeness deficiencies of this article. The above offered advice on this talk page from our colleague offers a way forward

The quote ends with my HughD hyperbole. As examples of similar phrasing from HughD (in addition to the "thank yous above):

[[56]], "Our colleague had a good idea. Why don't you add it? Hugh (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2015 ", "I see that in reaction to our new colleague's attempt at a contribution, you are scrambling, including moving all mention of heroin out of the "History" section. May I ask, is that an attempt to immunize content... Hugh (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2015 "

[[57]], " It is hoped these two sentences will clarify some not uncommon misreads of WP:IRS and so will promote collegiality at article talk pages. Thank you your support of this reasonable measured and helpful clarification of our project's guidelines for identifying reliable sources from news organizations. Hugh (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)"

[[58]], In two subsequent replies, "This content was recently restored by our colleague Srich32977. This content is discussed here at article talk, above. ... Hugh 15:48, 1 July 2015", "As you know, our colleague Srich32977 and I disagree with you about the neutrality and reliability of Al Jazeera, and in any case, may I humbly repeat Srich32977's earlier salient point, ... Hugh 16:47, 1 July 2015"

[[59]]: " May I ask, do I understand you deleted a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague, including all four new sources, because you felt it was over-cited? Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016", "Sorry, I'm confused. Please explain how you feel WP:COATRACK applies here in justifying your deletion of a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016", "I am confused by your strenuous objection to mention of Lyndon B. Johnson, sufficient to delete a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. ... Hugh (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2016", "If you deleted a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague because it gave undue weight to US President ...Hugh (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2016 ", "of a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2016".

A few more "colleague" examples here [[60]].

The IP editor is pushing for the inclusion of gun politics. I would assume that is covered by HughD's indef US politics block as well as the issue that the IP activity started when the block was active.

• I would like to ask that HughD be blocked as a sock.

I also found these where, yet again, an Amazon IP just happens to visit three different very low traffic articles I have edited, some articles with low traffic but several years since I was there. Dec 29th [[61]], Dec 30th [[62]], Dec 29th [[63]]. The IP editor has clearly dug back through my history.

Sorry to make this so long. Springee (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor is at it again. Here we have an Amazon IP tagging the General Motors article with requests to fix the lead. When asked what was wrong the reply was boiler plat gibberish. [[64]] The gibberish included HughDisms like thanking editors who agree with him. Note the total lack of actionable suggestions. Note this request isn't a violation of HughD's topic bans but one has to wonder why he wouldn't want to log into his account.

More troubling is an Amazon IP who just happened to joint a talk page I'm involved [[65]]. So the IP is trying to add crime discussions to a firearms article. That would be firearms politics and thus a violation of HughD's post 1932 US politics topic ban. The IP editor again shows behavior that is similar to HughD's disruptive RfCs over the past two years (If needed I can generate a list of diffs this evening). Can we please note that these IPs clearly appear to be HughD socks and thus we can delete the entries as SOCKs avoiding a topic block. Thanks. Springee (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Springee: I've spoken with a Checkuser, and they're going through and putting rangeblocks in place as we speak. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, what is the basis for blocking this editor? Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎Personal attacks against an RFC poster. Unless this editor is banned I don't see why personal attacks on him are relevant to an RFC. Is he a banned editor? Felsic2 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Can you make sure they block the IP address associated with the recent GM edits as well, 13.112.65.233. Thanks Springee (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I don't see anywhere that The Wordsmith has confirmed that this IP editor or editors is the same person as HughD. Am I mistaken? Felsic2 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Felsic2: There are two issues in place here. The first is that the IP is from a webhost, which has now been blocked per our usual policies. The second is that the behavioral evidence linking the IP with HughD is extremely strong. Aside from the pattern of pages he's been editing, certain grammatical quirks that HughD uses are unmistakably present. While I'm not a Checkuser myself, I'm fairly experienced in sniffing out socks and I'd say they're they same person beyond reasonable doubt, per WP:DUCK.

• The Wordsmith, an IP that is likely HughD is still editing the GM article talk page even today [[66]]. This is another Amazon web host. Would you please block it. Thank you Springee (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And a new Amazon IP address. [[67]] The IP is also running around thanking those who agreed with his pov. This was another common Hugh behavior. Would you please semi protect the topic? Springee (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Give me a specific list of articles that are affected, and I'll apply semiprotection. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

People v. Turner

I request that the protection on that article be removed now. It has gone idle as far as publicity goes.--70.248.28.108 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Done I'll give it a chance. Please remember to seek consensus for all changes that may be controversial, and keep in mind our policy on WP:BLP. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Did not seek any consensus... blanked entire sections. {{Minnow}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Well, that didn't work out as well as I'd hoped. Reapplied the semiprotection for six months. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the close, but...

Would you mind making the change exactly as I indicated in my last post?

Simply striking the IBAN rather than removing it outright still leaves my name in there, and leaves me open to the same abuse I've been putting up with for the last week. I've already emailed an uninvolved admin about talking to the user who has been abusing me over it, but I'd still rather my name be removed entirely so that "Ctrl+F"ing my name wouldn't bring it up.

No rational Wikipedian would read it after your amendment as implying that I am under a restriction for my disruptive behaviour, but the same was true before your amendment, and I've given up assuming other Wikipedians will behave rationally when they are trying to find an excuse to disagree with me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the convention is for partially overturning a community sanction, and if it is possible to just remove that portion. I'll look into it, and I'll see what I can do about accommodating your request. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the previous discussion in 2015 basically answered your question. I asked for a change in the wording, one other user suggested a further change to the wording (based on reasoning that "instigated" is just a more neutral word for "fabricated"), a few other users supported, and the wording was altered accordingly. The change was more radical than the one I asked for last week.

That said, if the 2013 wording were restored, I might not have a problem. Assuming good faith on the part of the user who instigated the recent discussion, then if they knew that the 2013 incident was a fabrication (read: that I had never violated the ban -- an admin had been tricked into thinking I had) I might have never thought it necessary to ask for the wording to be changed.

Now, if the admin I emailed (Boing, for what it's worth) agrees to talk the user in question out of repeatedly trying to game my IBANs to shut me up or shut me out of community discussions, the whole issue may be moot, but I really would rather never have to deal with this again, and the user in question isn't the first one to try.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration

As you where present in the discussion concerning Mr. Yiannopoulos and the placing of a category indicating descent, could you kindly join in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#RudiLefkowitz. More the merrier. Thank you. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Schooloutcomes RFC closure

There is a draft in your email. I'd appreciate it if you would take a look and give feedback.

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC closed

I have put up the closing statement at the RFC. It is awaiting your countersignature. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser/networking experience?

An editor was recently blocked for editing from the IP address: 127.0.0.1 while his/her account was blocked. It is not technically possible for anyone to edit from this address without direct access to the wikipedia servers. If you have a chance and you're familiar with checkuser and/or networking can you look into it? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

On the advice of Doug Weller I have posted this incident to Village pump (technical) James J. Lambden (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)