User talk:The Wordsmith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user helped "White Night riots" become a good article.
This user helped get "Pirate Party (United States" listed at Did You Know on the main page.
This user helped get "Council on Religion and the Homosexual" listed at Did You Know on the main page.
This user helped get "Doria Atlas" listed at Did You Know on the main page.
This user helped get "Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline" listed at Did You Know on the main page.
This user helped get "The Right Stuff (blog)" listed at Did You Know on the main page.
Don't click on me
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least fifteen years.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.79.205.162 (talk) at 19:47, 12 May 2017 (→‎Hello Wordsmith - Would you be willing to comment on an RFC?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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, 2 months and 10 days.
Status: Online.







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)[reply]

(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. ~ Rob13Talk 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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? CassiantoTalk 01:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
I object to your refusal to say sorry, Mike V, but we don't always get what we want, do we? CassiantoTalk 01:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. CassiantoTalk 01:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was in reference to your support of the proposal. Mike V • Talk 01:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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? CassiantoTalk 06:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, Mike V responded at AN before initiating this thread. ~ Rob13Talk 01:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance is bliss. It was a nothing comment which could've been written differently. CassiantoTalk 06:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 WordsmithTalk to me 14:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 WordsmithTalk to me 19:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 WordsmithTalk to me 19:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 WordsmithTalk to me 19:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 WordsmithTalk to me 20:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 WordsmithTalk to me 20:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 WordsmithTalk to me 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't. It's a risky business... ;) CassiantoTalk 23:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good idea. I have so noted on the editor's user talk. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't know, I got in trouble for saying tit [1], so watch it. EEng 00:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Well, maybe you shouldn't have been such a boob then. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HughD sock editting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 [[2]]. I was one of the most vocal editors complaining about HughD’s behavior [[3]]. 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[[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] (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.[[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] after I requested a sock investigation [[17]]. 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 WordsmithTalk to me 07:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 WordsmithTalk to me 16:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[18]], [[19]].

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" [[20]]
(HughD)"Thank you for your astonishingly prodigious contributions" [[21]].
(IP)"Exclusion of the proposed content is grossly non-neutral. "[[22]],
(HughD)"Thank you for your contribution. The article is grossly non-neutral..." [[23]]

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

(IP)"Our policy of due weight compels inclusion of the noteworthy..." [[24]],
(HughD)"as per our project's guideline WP:SIZERULE", [[25]]
(HughD)"our project's due weight policy", [[26]]
(HughD)"the basis of our project's due weight policy", [[27]]
(HughD)"We agree our article's coverage of " [[28]].
(HughD)"Our article may not demonize", [[29]]
(HughD)"Our article should not say ", [[30]]
(HughD)"I know you will agree that our first priority in our project is neutrally conveying " [[31]]

In the GM Chapter 11 posting [[32]] IP 35.165 uses a typical HughD practice of including many (excessive) hyperlinks in a talk post. [[33]].

Finally, IP 13.112 specifically references a previous edit of mine[[34]]. HughD was involved in the talk discussion related to that edit.[[35]]

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, [[36]]. 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)[reply]

  • 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) [[37]]. 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 [[38]], [[39]], [[40]], [[41]],[[42]], [[43]], [[44]], [[45]], [[46]], [[47]], [[48]], [[49]], [[50]], [[51]]. Springee (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.[[52]]. Again, I don't think this is just a coincidence. Springee (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like much stronger evidence than you presented the first time. I'll contact a Checkuser to see what the available options are. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


And it continues: [[53]]. 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):

[[54]], "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 "
[[55]], " 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)"
[[56]], 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"
[[57]]: " 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 [[58]].

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 [[59]], Dec 30th [[60]], Dec 29th [[61]]. The IP editor has clearly dug back through my history.

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

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. [[62]] 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 [[63]]. 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)[reply]

@Springee: I've spoken with a Checkuser, and they're going through and putting rangeblocks in place as we speak. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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.
1) Is it a requirement for a user to sign in to their account name to edit?
2) Is HughD a banned editor? @Springee: is saying that the mention of a mass shooting in a gun article is squarely within HughD's ban on American political topics. However that is such a broad definition that it would include vast swaths of Wikipedia articles. I think he is stretching it too far.
3) My concern is that Springee is "criminalizing" otherwise acceptable behaviour, reverting useful contributions, and being more disruptive than HughD and/or the IP. Felsic2 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Felsic2, it seems as though you are trying to derail any sock investigation as a way to gain support for the IP editor who has agreed with you on a number of occasions. For example, trying to cast aspersions on my recent sock investigation request here [[64]]. To answer the above question (and apologies to the owner of this talk page), first, no it isn't a requirement but there are limits. When an IP editor constantly changes addresses, even after the old addresses are blocked and when an proxy address votes in a RfC after previously commenting on the talk page with a different address, it becomes a problem. Second, HughD isn't currently edit blocked but he is topic blocked and some of these edits are in gray or out right banned areas. Also the IP editing started when HughD was edit blocked thus block evasion. Third, this isn't just something only I'm concerned with but since the IP editor has followed me to many articles I have just concern. Other also are concerned. Look at the number of editors who struck the IP's remarks from the M&P15 talk page. You seemed to note an issue with the IP editor here when the IP ignored your question for specific changes vs boiler plate BS [[65]]. Springee (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I'd like to hear what The Wordsmith has to say. Felsic2 (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for the SPI to be concluded before commenting extensively, but the fact that the IP began editing while HughD was blocked, and that the IP seems to be stalking Springee's edits, is a significant problem. Assuming that the IP is HughD, which I believe is the case, getting dinged for block evasion generally resets the clock. In addition, blocked users do not have the privilege of commenting on Talk pages. When an editor evades and comments, their remarks can be removed. However, that being said, the best thing to do would be to temporarily pause things while the SPI is ongoing. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that further actions, including deleting or striking out comments, should be paused until the SPI reaches a conclusion. I'm not aware that HughD is blocked.[66] Felsic2 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wordsmith, an IP that is likely HughD is still editing the GM article talk page even today [[67]]. This is another Amazon web host. Would you please block it. Thank you Springee (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And a new Amazon IP address. [[68]] 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)[reply]
Give me a specific list of articles that are affected, and I'll apply semiprotection. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Recently it has been these two threads, General Motors, and [[69]] as well as the associated talk pages. As yet further evidence that the same editor is behind the large number of Amazon proxy edits, note that 34.207.97.139, the IP that replaced the previously blocked IP at the M&P-15 article (linked above) corrected part of 13.112.65.233's post on the GM talk page. Here is an earlier example (currently not blocked) of an Amazon IP editing both the GM chapter 11 page and the Smith and Wesson M&P15 page [[70]]. I think it's clear this is a single user who has been making these edits over the past few months. This started when HughD was still edit blocked and a few of the topics either blaitantly are probably are violations of his climate change and post 1932 politics (broadly interpreted) topic band. Additionally it is clear this IP editor is trying to be obnoxious and stir up trouble. Here are current examples of improper RFC notification[[71]] and potential canvasing [[72]], [[73]]. Do you have a suggestion for how we might get this behavior officially attached to HughD's account so that in the future it would be easier to deal with additional IP sock edits by this user? Thank you Springee (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

100% wack a mole with this one... yet another IP [[74]] Springee (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC) And another one... [[75]] Springee (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Returned now with a Chicago based IP [[76]] Springee (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC) And a new Amazon IP [[77]]. The material added is clearly political since it involves the 2016 election. Springee (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

  •  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 WordsmithTalk to me 21:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did not seek any consensus... blanked entire sections. {{Minnow}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: Well, that didn't work out as well as I'd hoped. Reapplied the semiprotection for six months. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 WordsmithTalk to me 22:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
 Done The WordsmithTalk to me 15:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Precious

"the carrot sometimes works better than the stick"

Thank you for quality articles such as White Night riots and Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, for uploading images, for trying to mediate - lighthearted and reflected - even without a cabal, - wikidragon, repeating (6 March 2010): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closed sock investigation

The Wordsmith, I wanted to know if you have any suggestions as to how I might proceed. The SPI was closed as more or less stale or perhaps not a problem [[78]]. I've asked the closing check user to reconsider based on the recent disruptive behavior. [[79]] Is there an official way to request a reconsideration? Even with intervention I suspect HughD will continue to pester but at least with an official ruling it might be easier to get action taken to deal with the disruptions. Thanks Springee (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The socks return. [[80]], [[81]] Despite the evidence the SPI admin simply closed the investigation. Do you have any suggestions? Would an ARE be appropriate in this case? Springee (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised it got closed without investigating. I'm talking to a sockpuppetry specialist who might be able to give a more definitive answer on whether they're the same person. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Springee (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Things are being handled. The conclusive determination and evidence will be up sometime tomorrow. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard any updates? Thanks. Springee (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a slight delay due to real life schedules. It hasn't been forgotten, I got an update this morning. A thorough investigation like this one can't be rushed. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood and thank you for making sure it gets due consideration. Springee (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly the only hint the IP has taken is that Amazon based proxies will be blocked right away. He appears to be sticking to Chicago based IPs now. In the last few days we have three new ones [[82]], [[83]], [[84]] Springee (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After a thorough investigation, we've determined that these IPs are the same person and likely HughD. However, there isn't strong enough evidence to mark it as confirmed. So, the investigation is being closed. My advice to you is that if the IP is stalking your contribs and being disruptive, to treat them as any other stalking and disruptive IP would be. I'm sorry that I can't be more help, but I have to go where the available evidence takes me. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted before, I will restore edits reverted by Springee solely for being performed by an IP he alleges to be banned. Felsic2 (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel it is wise to support disruptive IPs.
The Wordsmith, is there a way to increase the strength of the case. The new batch of IPs are all Chicago area based (same location as HughD) and we have more "HughD" phrasing in the edits over the last few days. Alternatively, can the IP editor be declared disruptive and thus even if the IP isn't ruled HughD, the edits can be treated as vandalism/sock and we can go from there? Also, can the results of the investigation be added to the HughD sock investigation page? [[85]] If other contextual evidence comes up it would be good to have the existing evidence etc in a single location. Thanks Springee (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to increase the strength of the case is to have technical evidence, i.e. if HughD starts editing again. Since he's been inactive for so long, his IP data was purged after 90 days and there's nothing technical tying Hugh to the IP editor. And sure, the IP can be declared disruptive. If he's disrupting things to the point of being block or ban worthy, that can be handled through the normal channels like WP:ANI. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you think the editor has been disruptive enough for a block at ANI? Certainly if this were ruled to be HughD we would have several grounds on which to block. As an IP we have someone who has edited tendentiously as well as is likely a sock. Would that make a sufficient case to request a block? Of course blocking a single IP is pointless in this case. Would a ruling allow editors to remove posts as vandalism? Springee (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't see it accomplishing much, as many of these events are stale. If its disruptive in the future, then report just like we do with anyone else. That's really all I can say on the matter, and I'm not planning on handling this personally until the end of time. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, undoing good quality edits just because of a feud is disruptive. I haven't seen any edits made by the editor that are grounds for sanctions, in and of themselves. Felsic2 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The edits aren't quality but you support them because they support a POV you are advocating/pushing.
OK. I'm sorry that we can't do more but I understand the concerns about sanctioning a user who hasn't logged in recently. I was worried that as the IP keeps shifting it's kind of pointless to block. I will request page protection again. Thanks for all of your help! Springee (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What was so disruptive about all these edits?[86] Felsic2 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it odd that you are accusing the editor of hounding you, but then you've been following him around.[87][88] If you don't want to deal with him, then following his edits is a bad way of doing that. Felsic2 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
After watching you navigate the recent discussion at AE, build a consensus among editors that at first appeared diametrically opposed to one another, and civilly close a contentious discussion I am thoroughly impressed and grateful for your time, skill, and dedication. It is my distinct pleasure to present you a well earned Barnstar of Diplomacy. Thank you for all you do, Mifter (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. look for carrot above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRM AE

I do not disagree with the substance of your close and am not challenging it, but might it not have been better to let someone who wasn't involved so deeply in the discussion make the call on whether there was consensus? Mainly only slightly miffed I didn't have time to shift my position myself after this, which pretty much hit all the notes I wanted to see hit. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I understand your position, but a participant in the appeal closing it is fairly commonplace, and very few admins are actually willing to close something like this. The whole discussion needed to be put out of its misery with decisive action, or it would have continued to circle the drain and cause increasing bitterness and resentment on all sides. You shifting your position was actually one of the major factors I considered in determining that consensus now existed, since all the criteria under which you would support an unblock were unambiguously met. The WordsmithTalk to me 13:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, The Wordsmith. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sir Joseph (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday March 26: Action=History Wiki-Hackathon @ Ace Hotel

Sunday March 26: Action=History Wiki-Hackathon @ Ace Hotel

On the last Sunday of every month, the Boardroom at Ace Hotel New York hosts Action Equals History — a unique opportunity for New Yorkers to learn hands-on in a technology training/workshop session about the mechanics, practices and benefits of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects. This is an opportunity for all to gather, share and work collectively towards a more robust account of history.

For this month, and following on the recent Art+Feminism campaign, we'll focus on building better edit-a-thon tools for a variety of different thematic campaigns, and user-testing them with the community. Towards a goal of advancing these tools for wider use with diverse local groups.

Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

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

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drama

Are you just begging to see the drama unfold? I implemented a reasonable solution with the backing of WP:NPA that improves the project. Reverting that is silly and really just trying to help ignite the drama.--v/r - TP 18:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a diff to an opposer pinging someone else who opposed, and a short statement saying they were canvassed (which does seem to be the case, if a very minor form of it) is not a personal attack. It is attacking the legitimacy of the !vote, not the person. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to bother with this as any further reverting on my part isn't going to help deescalate the situation at all. But, I do firmly disagree with you. Tagging someone you're speaking about in a conversation is a courtesy. It is not canvassing. And accusing someone of canvassing when it's not is a PA.--v/r - TP 19:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David D. Hertz

Hi Wordsmith, Looks like you deleted this page for a speedy deletion request, after it had been contested. Please advise. BTW, I was actually in the middle of editing to add maintenance tags to it. Thanks. -- IsaacSt (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just dropped a note on your talkpage. You did not actually contest the G11 tag that was placed (unambiguous promotion). You contested A7, saying that a claim of importance was made. That's great, but an article making a claim of importance still meets G11 criteria if it is blatantly promotional, which it was. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. WP:G11 reads "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." -- IsaacSt (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Preferable isn't definitive. That's why we have WP:TNT. Aside from that, as The Wordsmith pointed out, you removed a tag as a declined A7 when it was tagged as G11. In any case, you've been asked by numerous editors to stop assessing speedies, so you may want to consider that for the time being.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@IsaacSt:If a subject is notable" is an important distinction that needs to be made. While a claim of importance was made, and it could arguable be credible, notability has no been established. That clause is intended to mean that if there is a topic who clearly and obviously meets our notability guidelines, for example a Fortune 500 company, but the article is just written with a PR-like tone, it should be rewritten. That argument doesn't work where the BLP subject is unlikely to meet the GNG at all. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday April 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants.

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 137 West 14th Street

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Followup

Following this AE ruling you made, I was wondering if you consider this acceptable behavior? Note the labeling of other editors and gratuitous Nazi comparisons that serve no purpose other than to inflame. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipitously, there's also this, with some more examples of the same kind of behavior. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your first diff is unacceptable, but nearly six weeks old. I'm reviewing the thread you posted. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's the issue with the first example being 6 weeks old? You now have several examples over several months, including the original complaint, which as you can imagine, was not the first. This unacceptable behavior has been going on for years. You said you were going to do something about it if it happened again. It did. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy this weekend and haven't checked in. The issue is that blocks and sanctions are intended to be preventative, not punitive. An old diff can help to establish a pattern of ongoing disruption, but a one-off diff six weeks old where the issue did not persist proves that the issue is not ongoing, and thus issuing a sanction would be the very definition of punitive. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How many diffs of similar behavior would you need? Over what timeframe? I can give you practically as many as you like going back years. There is an ongoing problem. This was mentioned in the AE you closed with "You go back to editing your articles, and I keep track of the people I would have sanctioned. If I see those names again with fresh examples, then the banhammer comes down". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a little taste of the sort of ongoing problem other editors have to deal with. Note how it's rife with personal attacks, generalizations about whole groups of editors, a whole list of irrelevant stuff inserted for no other reason than to provoke, etc. This time there is no Nazi comparison that I can see, but I have plenty examples of those if you're interested. To be fair, I don't think you are in fact interested so feel free to tell me to get lost. You won't be the first admin to decline to take action against this ongoing abuse. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how old anything is, but I have warned Nishidani in the past about his condescending behavior. Even on the ANI thread, he states that the people who are "against" him are not interested in truth but are nationalistic pov pushers. It is unacceptable that he can continue to insult others with almost every edit of his. In many cases, his insults are lost in his paragraphs of words, which is a shame. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me explicitly that you're not interested in pursuing any evidence relating to this issue so I can move it from my followup list to my disappointments list and move on? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this thread slipped my mind. I'll enforce our policies, if you bring evidence of ongoing disruption and incivility. There's nothing I can do with weeks and months-old diffs without evidence that it is continuing, and that a sanction is necessary to prevent more disruption. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You closed an AE with a warning about certain behavior, declining to take action at the time but saying you would if it happened again. It happened again. I supplied a diff of similar (probably even worse) behavior after that AE and the warning you issued. Now there's a new hurdle. It's obvious this guy can get away with constantly treating other editors like shit, I just wish the admins would be more honest about why they allow it. Anyway, thanks for your time, I won't be bothering you again with this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before...

...you close the latest I/P AE request, you may want to familiarise yourself with one of the recent ANI threads related to this. With particular attention to the comments by Kingsindian. There is a longterm issue of POV-editing with particular editors in the I/P area which he (Kings) has clearly laid out and the latest issue is just symptomatic of the wider problem. AE etc are generally very bad at handling long-term POV-pushing across articles, and given this particular editors editing, a 'warning' is largely pointless as it does nothing to address the underlying push in pro-Israel/anti-Palestine material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the links you presented, but I have no intention of closing the thread just yet. I want to see more opinions from administrators first. If you have evidence that this editor is a habitual problem, then please present it on the AE and I'm open to stronger measures if the evidence warrants it. The case as it was presented was a simple 1RR issue, not something more long-term, so that's what I based my opinion on. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTD maintenance

Hi, thanks for your edits on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 25. Please be advised that when you take out articles for maintenance reasons, that you stick them in the Ineligible section, otherwise nobody will remember that they used to be here and vet them again a year from now. Regards, —howcheng {chat} 03:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. I'm still learning the ropes of Main Page stuff. The WordsmithTalk to me 13:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Philip

First off, thank you for placing full-protection on the log. Two minor bugaboos, though: you forgot to add Template:pp-full to the article and you forgot to provide a rationale for the full protection (presumably the death rumors?) pbp 04:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith, is this really the appropriate protection level, given only a single edit before the protection? Partly playing devil's advocate here, but I'm not entirely sure. Brianga (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Brianga. I think mop only is an overreaction to a single IP vandal edit. Surely a-conf or x-conf would have sufficed unless there was a contrary indication by a vandal. Per WP:NO-PREEMPT: allowed in situations where blatant vandalism or disruption is occurring and at a level of frequency that requires its use in order to stop it. Matthew Thompson talk to me! 06:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, semi would have been the better level. I meant to do that, but it looks like I selected the wrong option. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at the social media reaction to the big Buckingham Palace meeting, I actually think you did the right thing by full-protecting. Had you not, there would have been massive IP editing claiming (unsubstantiatedly) that Philip had died. pbp 14:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89:, semi protection prevents IP editing while still allowing registered users a few days old and a couple of edits. Extended confirmed is also available - 30 days and 500 edits (prevents 99% of vandals). Full protection is not applied preemptively as it restrains good faith editors from making genuine edits. In high profile cases where even experienced editors get into edit wars (Trump's inauguration comes to mind), then full protection is sparingly applied. Anyway, The Wordsmith, it's no big deal - everyone makes mistakes and oversights. Matthew Thompson talk to me! 10:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wordsmith - Would you be willing to comment on an RFC?

Hi,

There is a minor disagreement over at Controversial Reddit Communities. Would you be willing to take a look? Cheers! 76.79.205.162 (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Wordsmith&oldid=780072247"