User talk:The Wordsmith

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 11 as User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 10 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 3 months and 3 days.

Immediate requests	Entries
Candidates for speedy deletion	11
Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages	0
Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations	0
Requests for unblock	159
Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests	35
Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests	25
Wikipedia template-protected edit requests	6
Wikipedia fully protected edit requests	0
Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests	138
Requested RD1 redactions	20
Open sockpuppet investigations	168
Click here to locate other admin backlogs

Contentious Topics awareness templates

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Appreciate your remaining even-keeled in resolving the NFL draft dispute. —Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Operation Torpedo and Operation Dark Huntor redaction

@The Wordsmith @The Wordsmith: I have reviewed the redactions that you made to the two listed articles. I want to continue to work on these to bring them up to the necessary standards that were cited in the discussion/violation about using court documents as primary sources for living persons. I was unfamiliar with the ability for somebody to utilize a tool that could take a revision out of reach of normal editors, so did not make any backups. The work that you redacted represented the only copy of more than 100 hours of work.

• 1. Some of what you redacted was not done surgically, and easily met the standards of wikipedia or at least were not part of the alleged violation. As such they should not have been removed from revision control and placed out of reach of wiki editors for review or revision.
• 2. The parts of the article that you unilaterally decided met the requirements for the violation are now placed out of my reach to correct, or find the requisite secondary and tertiary sources that are required to make the primary sources relevant or reliable enough for use.

As such, I would like you to provide a way to access a copy of the revision so I can continue to work on them, at least to surgically restore the parts that were not in violation, and to rework or bring up to WP standards. If none else, so that I can have the benefit of the 100+ hours of work it took to curate the material so that it can be used in some way external to wikipedia. I also will not use the material to restore the tables or other names of living persons without first bringing it up for discussion/review.

Disclaimer - the intent of the work wasn't to dox or draw undue attention to any living person, but as stated in the discussion to focus on the operation, the laws that surrounded it and new case law that was developed as a result of the novel law enforcement operation. Thus, the work isn't the work of a zealot wishing to further harm the individuals that were members of the cases associated with the operation, which was potentially the concern of the discussion that resulted in the redactions to begin with. eximo (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm certainly sympathetic to your perspective, I would hate to have hours of my effort wasted too. Revision Deletion is a tool that Administrators have, which can hide revisions from non-administrators when it contains serious policy violations. It's very possible that some of the material could meet Wikipedia guidelines, but with an issue like that we don't have the luxury of waiting for it to be fixed. WP:BLP is our most important policy, and including criminal allegations sourced only to court records is a serious issue that had to be handled immediately. In addition, the names of the people arrested/charged should probably not be on anyway, at least not without significant coverage in secondary sources.

I'm sure your intentions were good, you just misunderstood Wikipedia policy and happened to be working in a topic area where enforcement is unusually strict out of necessity. I'm willing to email you a copy of the material you wrote, as long as you agree not to post the names or personally identifiable information on-wiki. If you'd like to later set up a draft in your own userspace (with names redacted), I'd be happy to review it before you move it into live articles. Let me know if you agree to that condition and I'll send them via email. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith:

I agree to the terms; thank you for your understanding; I'll certainly reach out to the community to figure out the best way to document these important operations. eximo (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit

Good day. I saw that you partially actioned HaughtonBrit's SPI-[1]. However, the other sock Dazzem is unblocked, I believe owing to DatGuy's statement: "Dazzem (talk · contribs) is Possible, but hasn't made enough edits for a behavioural block. I've blocked them for a week for other loutsocking." I'd like to address this, the whole situation is so convoluted because of HB's brazen sockpuppetry, gaslighting, and frequent oscillation of IPs (both IPv6s, v4s and proxies) that it's head spinning. I will try my best to reiterate my case for Dazzem being an obvious sock of HB.

Just to get this out the way, HB's MO on Wikipedia is to aggrandize and augment Sikh military achievements on Wikipedia, since the Sikhs were historically involved in major conflicts with the Afghans, HB tends to be active in Sikh-Afghan conflicts, but also Mughal-Sikh, Anglo-Sikh, Maratha-Sikh conflicts and more. He edits from Pittsburgh or other nearby places in Pennsylvania-[2]. Bbb23 commented-"In addition, MehmoodS has demonstrated by their own admitted use of IPs in the past that they edit from Pittsburgh, and the IPv6s noted in the diffs geolocate to Pittsburgh.". After his accounts Javerine and Ralx888 were blocked, this user has been hounding me non stop with various 2601:547 and 2600:1016 IPs which geolocate to Pittsburgh, or occasionally with different Pittsburgh IPv4s. See block logs-[3], [4], [5]. I listed some of the harassment on the SPI page as well.

In March, a user KamalAfghan appeared, making edits aggrandizing the Afghans. HaughtonBrit immidiately began a campaign against him- for example you can see Javerine (HB confirmed sock) reverting KA-[6], and then HB 2601 IPs hounding him after Javerine was blocked-see 11 HB IP edits editing in close proximity to KA-[7]. More hounding: [8], you can see 14 HB IP edits editing in close proximity to KA-[9]. 8 edits (from both HB's confirmed sock Ralx888 and 2601:547 IP) here-[10]. 12 edits in close proximity to KA here-[11]. You can also see the 2601:547 IP trying to recreate a deleted battle that HB made, which was later declined due to sockpuppetry-[12]. Eventually HB started approaching admins just before KamalAfghan was blocked on May 18 discussing the possibility of sockpuppetry-[13] and [14] (you can note that these messages were made on the same day KamalAfghan was blocked). Somehow, Ponyo caught wind of this and promptly blocked KamalAfghan.

Since then HB has frequently been posting to Pnnyo's talk page regarding KA's sockpuppetry- [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

[30] (here Ponyo locked her talk page meaning that if HB wanted to canvass, he'd have to do it with an account)

You can see the 2601:547 IPs and the 71 IPv4 geolocate to Pittsburgh, and some of them are FedEx ISP proxies. HB has been abusing a certain proxy network that provides IPs that have a listed ISP of FedEx for years now. [31] + [32] when I filed a SPI on him on Jan 2023 which led to MehmoodS's unblock request being denied, I pointed out how he was using these FedEx proxies to block evade. He has been abusing these proxies since 2020, there are hundreds of diffs of him using them to evade his block and engage in edit warring without an account so he could avoid punishment, but this example is the most glaring- HB was having a disagreement on the page Battle of Saragarhi, making numerous edit both through accounts as well as these 192 and 199* FedEx proxies; he was engaged in a discussion with an admin utcursh-[33]. To troll and gaslight his disputant, he made an account impersonating utcursh, which he pointed out: "Pretty silly of you to create an account impersonating me (User:AtmaramU). The latest sources that you've added are not great either." and [34]-"After posting here, the anon (192 and 199 FedEx proxies) created an account impersonating me (User:UAtmaram), and added a few other sources to the article." and [35]. AtmaramU is a confirmed Hb sock.

You can see on KamalAfghan's SPI, with the exception of Maplesyrupsushi, all of them were filed by HB's FedEx socks-[36]. Dazzem makes the same post on Ponyo's talk page-[37] regarding KamalAfghan despite being a brand new editor. And this was right before HB's confirmed 2601:547 Pittsburgh IPs were harassing Leviathian12, whom HB believed to be a KA sock-[38]. In fact, the most current KamalAfghan SPI report is by the confirmed 2601:547 HB sock-[39]. Just goes to show this user tries to gaslight and be as outlandish as possible, so that anyone who reports him seems like they're exaggerating or being overzealous because no one would act that absurdly.

You can also note that 170* and 199* FedEx proxy who filed the SPI on KamalAfghan and were canvassing on Ponyo's talk page was also on Courcelles' talk page trying to get me blocked by saying I'm a sock of PrinceofRoblox-[40] and [41], [42]. Which is basically what Finmas (now blocked HB sock) was doing [43].

I'm sorry- I know this is pretty convoluted, but Dazzem is 110% a sockpuppet or at the very least meatpuppet of HB, it isn't even a matter of suspicion or plausible deniability. Their behaviours match 1:1. If you want me to clear anything up or have any questions, please let me know, I think it's imperative that a a brazen block evader and gaslighter like HB be shut down swiftly. He has been harassing and hurting people and disrupting Wikipedia for far too long. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

After checking this additional evidence, I've gone back and blocked Dazzem as well. Thanks for following up. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I recently updated the SPI concerning RangersRus, I also added a TLDR timeline which sort of condenses everything. I believe the connection between the two accounts is very strong or at the very least there's an enormous red flag here. I would appreciate it if you took a look a it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I've seen your update, and it is definitely more concise which was needed there. As far as moving it forward, I'm not a Checkuser or Clerk so I can't do anything there until one of them takes a look and decides whether to run the check. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand and I appreciate you looking into this, however the comment "The evidence seems pretty thin to me" is on the SPI and I'm worried that a CU/clerk will look at it and be more dismissive of it. It's happened in the previous 2 reports even though the accounts listed were clearly socks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

SPI

You're on a roll. Did you want to single-handedly bring the backlog under 100? 28 more to go and then you can retire. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Every once in a while a good hyperfocus lines up with something that's actually productive. If you'd like to help, could you possibly take care of this SPI? It's the last Non-CU case from January, and too messy for me to make heads or tails of it (more than most India-related SPIs). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No, thanks, I'll let some clerk earn their keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Tyciol

Hi, The Wordsmith. Thank you for your work at SPI. You blocked Special:Contributions/70.29.157.201 locally on the English Wikipedia. Would it be possible to also globally block that IP? Tyciol is a cross-wiki sockpuppeteer; for example, you can see his IP socks in the history of Wikiquote's "Lolicon" page [44] and Wiktionary's "parthenophile" page [45]. Cheers, gnu57 18:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Global lock(s) requested [46] The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Not stale

I disagree with your closing comments here. This ban evader is not stale and he is still trolling other editors.[47][48] Range block is still needed. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the main /64s being used for disruptive editing, but I took a look at the whole range and a block big enough to encompass all of it seems to catch too much collateral damage. Unfortunately that's a common problem with IP addresses in India. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Dasht Tehsil

Hi, I had tried to fix most of the issues with the page Dasht Tehsil which just got deleted as G5 (and, at one point, it looked pretty good, although I'm not sure if the page was still in that state when it got deleted), would it be possible to ask for undeletion if I took responsibility for it? Thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 06:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done, sorry I missed your edits to it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

SPI reconsideration

I really think you should reconsider the RangersRus case.

I find it exceedingly unlikely that a user whose first edits to Wikipedia were two hours after HB's confirmed sock-[49] & [50] and had the exact same nature.

Who voted to delete an article, making the exact same arguments as HB's IP and proxy socks-[51],[52], [53], [54], [55] and this is after HB made 14 edits on the talk page (5 in April 2023 + 9 in Jan 2024)-[56]. Abecedare even striked one of HB's Pittsburgh IP edit writing "[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit|Sock]]."

Who only began their AFD voting spree, on the same day, just three hours after I made my first AFD nom in 2024 and made it clear that I was going to starting nominating poorly written/sourced articles that HB has proven over and over again to use any tactic to keep these articles-[57] + [58]. Should also be noted that 14 Jan, HB was up to this-[59] , [60], [61], could be anything but HB .

Is it not at least a little unusual that RangersRus made his first AFD 3 hours after my AFD nom (that too on a topic HB was/is extremely fixated on) when he had almost 1000 edits up to that point and then began voting in AFDs incessantly right then and there? I think it's fair to say that this HB watches my each and every move on Wikipedia-[62],[63],[64],[65], [66], [67], [68], [69] and that's not even counting the hundreds of times he's followed to me pages that I edited within hours, so this absolutely seems like HB tacitly trying to vote in my AFDs and the large volume of AFD votes seems like a way to evade scrutiny. He's done so before-[70].

I think admins' apprehensions stem from the fact that RangersRus made a lot of edits on unrelated pages + they're unfamiliar with HaughtonBrit's editing patterns and underestimate his sheer persistence and bizzare nature. I really, really, really think that at the least an admin who's involved in South Asian topics and familiar with HB, like RegentsPark or Abecedare should at least take a look at this SPI before it's closed. I've also been chastised and spurned by admins before when it came to HB's sockpuppetry but my suspicions were correct or the accounts I reported were unquestionably HB-[71], [72], [73] (concering Javerine) + [74], [75]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but RangersRus's first edit was two and a half months after that confirmed sock you linked in your first set of diffs, not two hours. That IP was blocked on 3 June 2023, RangersRus was created on 21 August. As far as the AFD !votes, discussing the reliability of sources is what editors are supposed to do at AFD. His first AFD !vote wasn't to an article you nominated, it was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Udgir. Your AFD was the tenth he voted in. His rationales seem pretty reasonable; the fact that his first (in an unrelated AFD) was 3 hours after you nominated a different one isn't solid evidence. What you refer to as a "spree" doesn't mean anything; we maintain WP:DELSORT lists to group open AFDs by topic, and most of these were in the India category. Behavior like that is very common among legitimate AFD participants.

I normally don't say much about what behavioral evidence I find in sockpuppetry cases, for WP:BEANS reasons (too much detail can tell sockmasters how to avoid being caught next time). In this case, I'll make an exception. There is a degree of overlap in topics edited, but that's not unusual for somebody interested in Indian history and culture. Many of these India-related articles have 2-4 different sock farms, sometimes fighting each otehr and reporting each other. The topic area is a mess. There are also tons of legitimate editors who sometimes have similar opinions to the sockmasters. Looking at RangersRus's participation in internal project areas, I see a natural progression that's common to legitimate new editors. His early edits have a few mistakes that are common to new editors but not seen in the HB socks I checked. As far as their writing style, I see a lot of grammatical and stylistic differences from previous HB socks. I picked up a few quirks that RR has that I didn't see in HB socks, and RR has a much less aggressive/confrontational tone.

In short, I'm not going to change my decision. I see solid behavioral evidence that this is a different person, and I'm not seeing any of HB's disruptive tactics. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but RangersRus's first edit was two and a half months after that confirmed sock you linked in your first set of diffs, not two hours. That IP was blocked on 3 June 2023, RangersRus was created on 21 August."

The 24* IP was indeed blocked in June, but it should be noted that this is an IPv4 which means that, unless it's a public or proxy IP, it is assigned to one person. If you look at the IP's edits, it's clearly ALL HaughtonBrit, you can see in April, this IP canvassed on Ronnie Macroni's t/p , asking him to create an article which detailed a Sikh victory, in order to counter the creation of an article in which the Sikhs endured a defeat. I actually vividly remember this IP, because HB was using them right after his account Ralx88 was blocked, that was the first time where HB had drastically ramped up their use of IPs to block evade. You can see that Ralx888 was blocked on 28 April 20:18, and the 24* IP becomes active on 21:58 on the same day. Take a look at the history for the page Battle of Kashmir (1814) in which the 24 IP was active in-[76], you can see a bunch of Ralx888 edits, attempting to hinder KamalAfghan, and the subsequent locking of the page by Abecedare for HB's sockpuppetry. You can also see during this time frame of April 2023, Abecedare was particularly active in countering HB's sockpuppetry-[77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]. The subsequent 24* IP's edits are obviously HB as well-[83]. The 24* IP's edits on Sikhism in the United States are undobutedly HB, HB made all these edits beforehand-[[84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90] and you can see that his other sock accounts were active in various Sikhism in X country articles-[91].

You can also see for example, this 50* IP that resubmitted MehmoodS' unblock request after his t/p access was revoked-[92] and [93]. The IP was clearly used by HB to block evade while MehmoodS was blocked-[94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], which is one reason why MehmoodS' unblock request was denied. You can also see the exact same 50 IP socking on the page Assasination of Rajiv Gandhi-[100], [101], leading to the page being protected. You can see the 50* IP being used to edit war along with oscillating Pittsburgh IPv6s in July 2023 on the page Sikh Empire ( a page in which HB has made over 50+ edits if you include accounts and IPs)-[102]. You can see that the 50 IP was blocked in April 2023 for block evasion-[103] despite the resubmission of MehmoodS' unblock request taking place in July 2022.

The main point here is that just because the IPs were blocked at certain times, doesn't mean that the edits made by them after the block, cease to be HB. These IPs are operated exclusively by HB, and there is undeniable behavioural and technical evidence to support that.

So the 24 IP that made the edits on the page Sikhism in the United States on 27 August 2023 was done by HB, and RangersRus came in two hours and made the exact same type of edits. Also the 24 IP removed Abecedare's block notice on his talk page in between his edits on Sikhism in the United States-[104].

" His first AFD !vote wasn't to an article you nominated, it was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Udgir. Your AFD was the tenth he voted in."

I did not say that RangersRus's first AFD vote was to an AFD I nominated, I pointed out that his very first AFD vote was made 3 hours after my nom. Also his first two AFD votes aren't exactly unrelated, they are both to delete battles in which the Marathas were involved. The Battle of Udgir-[105] was apparently a decisive Maratha victory according to this mirror source-[106]. His second AFD vote overall was also related to the Marathas-[107]. I pointed out how while his primary motive on Wikipedia is to aggrandize Sikh military achievements, this concomitantly includes vitiating historical adversaries like the Marathas and Afghans, the former being particularly anathema to him. I included many diffs in the SPI which detail HB's fixation with the Marathas. MehmoodS, alone, made hundreds of edits on various pages just removing honorifics on the most prominent Maratha leader- Shivaji, who often has the honorifics "Chatrapati" and "Maharaj" prefixed and suffixed to his name on Wikipedia, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. He made dozens of edits logged out even after his account was blocked pertaining to the Marathas. Any admin involved in South Asian topics could take a look at HB's accounts and confirm this to be the case unequivocally. RangersRus's first few edits was also on a page where he removed content of the Marathas conquering a fort and the Sikhs being defeated by an Afghan ruler-[108].

While these early edits to the page Sikhism and the United States 2 hours after his confirmed IP sock was editing it and Maratha related pages on their own don't mean much on their own, when you take in the AFDs and all the intricacies, they all are a dead givewaway. RangersRus up until Jan 14, had 990+ edits on Wikipedia and zero AFD votes, on the very day when HaughtonBrit was on major evasion spree-[109], openly deceiving admins and filing SPIs against competing sock farms-[110], [111], with the intention of aggrandizing his co-coreligionists. The day I made my first AFD nom on a battle in which the Sikhs were (erroneously) depicted as victorious is when RangersRus made an AFD vote to delete an article involving the Marathas-[112] (20:34 14 Jan) [113] (14 Jan 23:52).

His subsequent AFDs such as this one on 15 Jan-[114] is a page which HB has been fixated on for months-making 14 edits on the talk page of the article, 9 edits as Ralx888 and an IP on the article itself, and 4 edits logged out on the AFD (again the evidence for this is on the SPI). You can also note that RangersRus and the 4 anon votes have the exact same argument. He then goes on to make 60-70 AFD votes in less than 2 months, which is anything but natural and screams cover up. He votes in 2 of my AFDs since then, and I forgot to mention this but on my most recent AFD-the Battle of Rohilla[115]-is a page HB edited 7 times before-[116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122]. What's also unusual is that RangersRus votes to keep the Battle of Rohilla in which the Sikhs were victorious despite the sources only having a small, vauge paragraph on it, whereas he voted to delete the Battle of Akhora Khattak in which the Sikhs were defeated, arguing that the sources did not have enough coverage on the battle.

The sheer volume of edits prior to his first AFD votes, the unusual timing of it being just after my AFD nom, and it being related to the Marathas, the fact that he edited in close proximity to HB's confirmed socks, not just once but twice (Sikhism in the United States and the Battle of Akora Khatta AFD), the fact that he made 60+ AFD votes since Jan 14 (which you have to admit is a lot) which points to minimizing scrutiny, the fact that he voted to keep a battle in which the Sikhs were victorious despite the sources clearly having insufficient coverage yet voting to delete an article in which the Sikhs were defeated arguing about insufficient coverage from sources, the fact that HB himself used to edit the exact same way RangersRus is doing by interspersing religious edits in between a bunch of random movies, and the fact that HB has been following me on hundreds of pages and messing with me in all sorts of ways either tacitly or overtly, including on an AFD I nominated in 2023, seems to me to be a clear indication that RangersRus is being used by HB to tacitly vote in my AFDs to hinder me from deleting articles in which his co-religionists are aggrandized.

Again, I really think it's a good idea to have an admin who's familiar with HB and South Asian topics to at least take a look and pass judgment, I don't see what the rush is when Wikipedia doesn't have any deadlines, and this is a case which involves a lot of extensive sockpuppetry being done through various means and a user who has displayed extreme persistence and deception and idiosyncratic behaviour to further their cause. There's just so much context and history a layman would miss because this involves 4+ years of sockpuppetry and thousands of edits across hundreds of pages. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not have deadlines, but it does have backlogs. SPI is one of them, and I've been helping to clear it out. We don't need a scarlet letter hanging over the head of this user for months until somebody gets around to reviewing it a second time. You've already pinged multiple other admins and written on Abecedare's talkpage asking for a second look. There's nothing stopping them from doing so, but I've noticed you have a habit of doing this which comes across as WP:OTHERPARENT. Admins and Checkusers have limited time available, and it isn't always possible to just wait for your preferred admin to get around to looking at it. I'd suggest giving it a rest for a while, they don't seem to be doing anything disruptive. If that changes, it can be handled via the normal methods. If they start doing more sock-like things, you can always file a new request. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you but in the meantime, can the report be unclosed/reopened? Closing the report doesn't allow any other admins to review it, and the SPI already alerted the user, so he's almost certainly going to try to avoid the certain AFDs/behaviour which previously implicated him, thus making the prior report and any possible valuable CU data stale and likely unactionable. Shouldn't a user who has numerous confirmed sock accounts and thousands of logged out edits, who made 4 votes on a AFD just a month ago be investigated as soon as possible? Again, I am very confident that RangersRus is a sock account, as much as I was convinced about Finmas and Dazzem and Javerine. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It also seems the report was also closed based on fundamental misunderstandings of my arguments, notably "Correct me if I'm wrong, but RangersRus's first edit was two and a half months after that confirmed sock you linked in your first set of diffs, not two hours. That IP was blocked on 3 June 2023, RangersRus was created on 21 August. " and "His first AFD !vote wasn't to an article you nominated, it was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Udgir. Your AFD was the tenth he voted in. His rationales seem pretty reasonable". This really does not seem fair. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Asphonixm

Hey, The Wordsmith. Thanks for handling SPI. You've blocked Special:Contributions/SoilMineo39, but could you revisit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asphonixm? There's a new account, Barstain, with similar editing patterns to the blocked sock, and two others seem to have been created solely to comment on Afd, with their first edits on WP being on Afd discussion.IMO, It's unusual for new accounts to make their first edit on Afd discussions unless it's WP:SID. Thanks again. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

GENDERID RfC close

Hey, (hopefully) quick question while the close is still fresh in your mind. I was wondering, if there was a slight majority favouring the proposal, why did it fail to find consensus? I can't figure out from the close if you're implying that the oppose arguments were stronger policy wise, or if there was some other reason. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Since RfCs are WP:NOTAVOTE, the numbers don't outright determine the outcome though they can be a factor. I prefer to mention the numbers in discussions that attracted a lot of opinions just to have it notated, but it isn't crucial to the consensus-finding process. As far as the strength of the arguments, they were roughly even. Discussions like this are a little non-standard, because proposed alterations to a policy, guideline or MOS aren't always going to be based in existing policy just due to the nature of it. Proposed changes like this need to have a solid, affirmative consensus in order to be successful and overcome the status quo, and I just didn't see it here. I don't like no consensus closes to RfCs, and I can often find at least a partial consensus to pull out of the flames (often opposers will agree on some parts of a proposal), but in this case I didn't see any other option. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No I get that they're not a vote, however it's rare that when an RfC has a numerical majority for either a consensus to be found against the majority, or for there to be no consensus found. I've closed plenty of RfCs and discussions myself so I'm familiar with the process. When determining the consensus we do weigh the contributions based on the relative strengths of their policy based arguments, and that's why I asked if the oppose arguments were stronger. Basically I'm trying to understand the why of the close, rather than the what of the close. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the percentage of support was roughly 53-55% depending on how the weak !votes and a couple odd ones were weighted. In most discussions of this type, a simple majority isn't enough unless backed up by arguments that were stronger than the opposers. In this case, they weren't. I didn't see the Support !voters adequately demonstrate that the existing wording was a problem that this proposal would resolve, and it wasn't enough to overcome the Oppose argument that the existing policies and guidelines are enough to handle this issue. Where the arguments are equally strong, there isn't consensus and the status quo remains. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Subject: Page Redirection Issue

Dear Administrator

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to inform you about a technical issue regarding page redirection on the website.

When attempting to access the page titled Assessment of Potential TikTok Ban in the United States users are being redirected to a different page titled Restrictions on TikTok in the United States Although the topics are related, the content on each page differs.

Could you please investigate this matter and ensure that the redirection is corrected so that users are directed to the appropriate page?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards, Syed Shahveer Syed Shaveer (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Assessment of Potential TikTok Ban in the United States

This Page Syed Shaveer (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Help:Designing infoboxes#testing feature failure

@The Wordsmith

Looking to get an admin's attention on an infobox development question. The Talk page shows at least 3 users that are having an issue using the best practices methodology for initial testing of a new infobox. Whether it's because the feature is broken or because the language describing how to perform the task is too sparse....unknown. However, I've done due diligence in looking into the history of the Testing section, and it hasn't been edited in over a decade. The first person identifying a problem on the talk page is from 2021.

Can you look into this, or point me to your favorite admin to see if we can get this feature working or better explained? eximo (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that needs an admin specifically, but the Help page does seem to be missing a step. After you get to the blank page in your Userspace, you would need to actually create the template. If you're using a pre-existing infobox as a starting point, this can be done either through copying and pasting the code of the existing template (remembering to provide attribution in an edit summary), or editing the page with {{subst:Infobox Example}} to copy the code directly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

SPI close

Hello, you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kcosip but you didn't actually archive it. Please archive it. Cheers, —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Only an SPI Clerk can archive the cases, one should be around to do that when they get a chance. Unfortunately SPI is severely backlogged, so it could be a while. There's no harm in just leaving it closed for a while. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

AE

Hi The Wordsmith,

I was wondering if you'd had a chance to take a second look at this.

Thanks, JBL (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I got distracted by something shiny. I've taken another look and responded there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Shiny things are the worst, especially tinsel ;). Thanks for taking a second look. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Help..

Hello, currently on the visa policy pages for countries around the world.. an editor is editing using multiple accounts.

He is [User:DENOSIO] and his puppets, who have already been blocked several times.

When looked at their history, he wrote a lot of inaccurate information, which caused friction with other editors.

First of all, I ask you to block the accounts that appear to be his puppets.

1. Stars678

2. JapanNipponTokyo19

3. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:6062:6ccd:6241:a643

4. 2401:7400:c806:5aa7:287a:c99e:499d:e34e

5. 203.168.xx

6. 203.81.xx

Their speaking style and editing style are similar to the puppets that have already been blocked several times.

If the above measures are difficult, please set the 'VISA POLICY' pages of all countries in the world (198 countries) to allow only long-term certified users to post.

At least I think there will be less writing done by DENOSIO's puppets.

Since I also violated WIKIPEDIA while 'defending' DENOSIO, I am 'prepared' to be punished for it and am posting a message to the administrator.

Thank you. Lades2222 (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this sockmaster, please file a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and it will be looked into as soon as someone is available. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi, I am Barr Theo. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my "insane streak of creations for March", which is also the reason why I did not answer Chaotic Enby. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat).

Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use "unauthorized bots", I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used "unauthorized bots"; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing.

Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness.

Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by "bot-like activity", I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today).

Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this).2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)