User talk:The Wordsmith

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 7 as User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 6 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

WIKIPEDIA FOREVER

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 6 months and 11 days.

“ 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.

”

Civility and Discretionary Sanctions

Should comments like this be encouraged? For context, Masem recently returned to the topic after being driven away by offsite and onsite bullying. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Removed Edit RevDel'd and user warned. Grossly unacceptable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Masem is a good editor. It bothered me to see him bullied. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor seems understanding and has reworded their statement. On an unrelated note, for some reason I thought Masem was female. Now I'm not sure. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe he's a he. I have my own opinions on SPAs editing that article but that's for another time. Thanks again. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Block or ban me

You needn't bother to threaten me on my talk page, while you ignore Prioryman and the rest of the anti-Scientology gang and their flagrant violations of Wikipedia policy. But policy doesn't matter when it applies to your friends, right? Go ahead and block me or even ban me. Doesn't matter anymore. I already said I gave up, and with my cancer, you needn't worry that I'll be a problem to you, Prioryman and your friends. I've been on Wikipedia since 2007 and I tried my best to do right by Jimmy Wales and his dream of a truly neutral resource. But never you mind, go ahead and make some more threats. Doesn't matter. I'll be dead soon. Thanks, Laval (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't intend to block or ban you. However, spandex doesn't suit you, and you're really making a spectacle of yourself. I bear no ill will towards you, and I certainly didn't threaten you by telling you I was choosing not to block. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Status of a topic ban

With this edit of the DS log case you strike out the 5.1 but where do you announce there is a continuing topic ban? I only see it in your edit summary. Shouldn't you also post on the editor's talk page to let them know the status? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That was the offer I made several times during the appeal, but it is also logged under the Discretionary Sanctions log in addition to the 5.1 log. I'll modify the wording as appropriate, and let him know. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It is funny there is a 'remedy 5.1 log' which is still on the WP:ARBSCI case page and is in a different place from the DSLOG. Probably one of those things nobody will ever find a way to fix. But now it looks better, and I am no longer confused. Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What is?

User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC and why is it in user space? NE Ent 22:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See User talk:The Wordsmith#GMO RfC above as well as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admins requested for moderated RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but it doesn't actually answer the question. Is an RFC, or a draft on an RFC that will be posted in project space, or what? NE Ent 23:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

NE Ent, the page is a draft, not a final version, of what is going to become a community RfC in mainspace when the drafting is finished. The subject matter is extremely contentious, so you will see a lot of evidence of dispute when you look at what is there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This was the temporary home of the moderated RFC suggested by Arbcom as an alternative to a case, while it was being drafted. It is now closed for final tweaks and getting Coffee up to speed on everything, and then Monday afternoon it will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, unprotected, and formally initiated and published as a proper RfC. If you'll notice, it has the correct templates etc at the top, just nowiki'd until it is time to open. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Maybe stick a {{draft}} on top? since it's been discussed elsewhere. NE Ent 01:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point, I've updated it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

that is all I have to say at this point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

"The uploader has not made this video available in your country. Sorry about that." Yeah, sounds like a pretty accurate summary :P The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting - usually Australia is stricter than elsewhere....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

GMOs

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I just did this to put to rest, once and for all, the claims that there isn't the authority under DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Just going to piggyback here, but is the RfC officially open for comment now? I probably won't be able to comment for a few days, so I'd like to post this afternoon if I can. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I sure hope it's open, having been unprotected and entered into the RfC system. I just commented, so if I jumped the gun, The Wordsmith please revert me with my apologies. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it has been opened and is being published. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks to you and Coffee for all of this. Please let me suggest that you and Coffee might want to consider making Archive 1 of the talk page of the RfC page, and archiving at least some of the older discussions to there. (I do hope that you don't feel put upon by my filing of that clarification request, but now, you have Arbs saying point blank that you have authority under DS, and I hope that will shut down some of the attempts to derail the RfC.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll discuss that with him; there wer some genuinely useful discussions going on when I locked the page down. Regarding your ARCA request I was hoping not to end up there, and I chose not to respond yesterday because nobody wants to spend a rainy Sunday afternoon dealing with Arbitration. I do understand why you did it, though. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry about your Sunday. I'm tempted to say welcome to my world. But I think that you have good control over how things are going as the RfC opens, and that's the most important consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that the page notice at the top of the RfC page says 1RR, per what ArbCom previously decided, but the edit notice that Coffee created (which, by the way, I think is very good) instead says 0RR. One of you ought to change the top of the page to 0RR too, to avoid confusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, but I'm not sure how to change it (or if there even is a way to). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing would be to delete it and replace it with a duplicate of the edit notice. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

And from the department of me barraging you with talk page messages about stuff I just noticed, I see that the RfC bot displays the notice in a rather messy way at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. One way to simplify it would be for you to sign the lead sentence, the one that starts "This is a Request for Comment, conducted under...". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

All of the above has been fixed, thanks, and I think that it looks very good. Could you or Coffee please take a look at the RfC statements by Petrarchan47 (possibly off-topic about the process and relitigating past disputes) and David Tornheim (possibly making aspersions about "PR" based on the Monsanto website)? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)