User talk:The Wordsmith

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 10 months and 11 days.
Immediate requests      Purge Entries
Candidates for speedy deletion 14
Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages 0
Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations 0
Requests for unblock 31
Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests 36
Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests 53
Wikipedia template-protected edit requests 8
Wikipedia fully protected edit requests 2
Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests 67
Requested RD1 redactions 4
Open sockpuppet investigations 36
Click here to locate other admin backlogs
Contentious Topics awareness templates


A TARDIS for you

A rouge TARDIS (or the closest thing I could find on Commons), for having made a closure so Rouge that its effects travelled through time and were being challenged before you even issued it.
. . .
But to be serious, I appreciate that you undertook to close, and closed so thoughtfully, such a large and complex discussion even as it was getting international attention and pushback. Someone had to do it; the discussion was open for so long as to suggest no-one wanted to do it; I appreciate you doing it. -sche (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@-sche, CommunityNotesContributor, Chetsford, and Starship.paint: Thank you for the kind words, I'm just glad the discussion is finished and we can move on (at least until the next challenge). I'm sure co-closers Tamzin and Theleekycauldron feel the same way. If you've got any recommendations for something more fun to read than that RFC (admittedly not a high bar) I could use a palate cleanser. Otherwise I think I'll pick up The Hobbit again. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hobbit sounds like a great palate cleanser! I was reading his Sea-Bell the other day and learning about the neat words Tolkien coined or resurrected in that and other writings (which might interest you, as a wordsmith, if you don't know them already), like ruel-bone and wikt:eucatastrophe. :o -sche (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, the Wordsmith.... Project Hail Mary. starship.paint (RUN) 01:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just bought it for my Kindle. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: Thanks for the recommendation, it made excellent beach/pool-side reading. I haven't finished it yet, but I hope to sometime this weekend. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re welcome! Interesting to have ‘horror’ story reading at the beach! starship.paint (RUN) 05:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amaze The WordsmithTalk to me 18:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for all the work you've done at SPI the past couple days! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey, I have a special interest in improving articles with the 'written with advertisement like language' tag, or similar tags, especially corporate articles written in business talk instead of encyclopedic language. Do you know how I can find a list of such articles, or if there is a wikiproject focused on that? JoeJShmo💌 23:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) As far as I'm aware, there isn't a WikiProject dedicated to that specifically, but Category:Articles with a promotional tone sounds like what you're looking for. There's 22,000 articles in the category so you shouldn't have a lack of things to do. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Maybe I'll make a wikiproject eventually ;) JoeJShmo💌 19:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, there is WikiProject Cleanup that might be of interest though it doesn't focus specifically on promotional articles. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great idea, and Clovermoss is right about that category. Fixing promotional articles is a great way to dive in and make a difference. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

policy question

Hey wordsmith. Hope all is well. I have a question relating to a case I'm involved in. Can a topic ban ever be justified because of a perceived lack of experience and/or policy knowledge? Per ARBPIA, an editor must be EC to edit in certain topics, however, is it up to an admin to determine, even after an editor reached EC, whether that editor has enough experience to be able to edit in that topic? JoeJShmo💌 21:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gotten back from a vacation, but it seems like this issue was hashed out elsewhere. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Hi, about this SPI case you handled: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PakistanHistorian/Archive#24 June 2024. You had temp blocked 2407:D000:F:0:0:0:0:0/48, 92.40.0.0/16 (?) but these still appear to be quite active with the sock network and disrupting quite a lot of pages. Can the block be extended here again?

Thanks Gotitbro (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share a few examples of the disruptive edits from this range after the block expired? I'll check to see if there would be any collateral damage, too. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well here is the latest one (needs PP for socking), mere hours after a previous IP sock was reverted. Others that I recently reverted include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. [Most of the recent edits from 2407:D000:F:0:0:0:0:0/48 are from the sock network.]
From the 92.40.194.0/23 range, these include: [9], [10], [11], [12]. The 'census update' edits from the range are also likely the same sock. Gotitbro (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing much risk in blocking the IPv6 range for a longer time, so I'll softblock that one. For the IPv4, it looks like there would be a ton of collateral damage there so it would be a bad idea to block the whole thing. What I can do instead is break it into smaller ranges that exclude most of the legitimate edits, I can do Special:Contributions/92.40.194.0/25 and Special:Contributions/92.40.195.0/24. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding SPI

Hi, I see that you've noted that sockpuppetry was a strong possibility in the recent report of AraxesTheThief, but without technical evidence (as CU was declined), you can't be confident to place a block. Can I rerequest CU on that basis, as declining it may potentially let long-term sockpuppetry pass, which you've noted as a strong possibility? Aintabli (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not possible. All the known socks are already stale, so the Checkuser tool won't be able to provide any evidence which is why they already declined it. If there's future sock-like activity from that account or others, a new SPI can be opened and the new behavioral evidence can be evaluated as well. Or if their edits are disruptive, that can be handled through the normal channels. The WordsmithTalk to me 13:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. We'll have to wait and see then. Thank you for the explanation. It wasn't clear to me that CU wouldn't be useful either way. Wish you a great Friyay. Aintabli (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly the Checkuser tool is more limited than a lot of people think it is. Unless there's another account to compare it to that's edited en.wiki in the last 90 days, the tool is unlikely to show anything except maybe sleepers. After 90 days, IP data for logged-in accounts is generally discarded by WMF policy. For those, behavioral evidence is all we have to go on and we need to be confident in our findings to avoid blocking an innocent editor. Sometimes that unfortunately will result in illegitimate users avoiding blocks, but in my experience they often slip up and give us enough evidence to block sooner or later. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom-inc

Thanks for closing the Wisdom-inc SPI. He is still active today on one of the reported IP ranges - Special:Contributions/143.58.176.0/24 10mmsocket (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hope

I am happy to see you changed Great Britain into US. A foolish mistake by a nitwit.Taksen (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Perhaps you can change born in 1704 very childish.Taksen (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Also the category 1799 deaths is a mistake.Taksen (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this is about. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is about Thomas Hope (banker, born 1704).Taksen (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was reverting a sockpuppet who was adding inaccuracies into articles (especially around estimated dates of birth/death). If you're willing to take responsibility for the edits, you're welcome to make the changes again. Though since Henry Hope's son (also named Henry Hope) was born in Massachusetts, it seems like him moving to the US is correct. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massive disruption

Hi, can you have a look at these IP ranges? I think they belong to Anujror as they originated from the same geographical location(Pakistan) and have an obsession with manipulating the result of a page move discussion on Talk:Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty just like the last range that you blocked[13].

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CaseofGoliath SPI

Hi The Wordsmith, did you review the evidence I sent to the en-paid queue regarding Elianaisaac? Link WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCaseOfGoliath/Archive. S0091 (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to that queue, but whoever does is free to take action independently of SPI if they determine it is warranted. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I wasn't sure if you had access of not. Because it was an open SPI with a CU request, I think they left it up to the CU to review (got a standard response a couple weeks ago before the check) but I will double check. I will be opening up a new one for new socks I found anyway but was waiting until the weekend in case I came across others and might include Elianaisaac again depending on the response I get. Thanks for all the work you do, The Wordsmith. S0091 (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christine-dark

CU is positive and so is behavioral evidence.[14] Hope you can block as soon as possible. Capitals00 (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately SPI is extremely backlogged at the moment. Somebody will get to it as quickly as we can, but if there's vandalism or urgent disruption then the normal venues like WP:AIV are also available and usually have a faster response time. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
  • A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re. future sockpuppet cases

Hello; given you closed the sockpuppet case I had opened [15], for future reference, what is the threshold of evidence needed to support a finding of IP addresses being used as sockpuppets? The timing and nature of the IPs' actions seemed quite suspicious to me, even though there weren't many instances to point to.

(Also sorry about all the edits). JSwift49 21:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The timing is questionable, but not enough by itself. As far as the thresholds for evidence, "more likely than not" is usually enough to at least open an SPI case for either an account or an IP. In addition, the sock or IP needs to actually be doing something forbidden in WP:BADSOCK, rather than something allowed in WP:GOODSOCK or WP:EWLO. Administrators will do their own investigation or ask you for more evidence if needed, but for a positive conclusion the standard is obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sockpuppetry is occurring. Essentially, if there's another reasonable explanation then we generally need to WP:AGF in the absence of technical evidence.
One other thing that filers don't often ask themselves before opening a case is "What is actually being gained by sockpuppetry here?" In this case, it was two minor rephrasings of a small amount of text, switching from a paraphrase to a quote. It doesn't seem controversial at all, especially in comparison to many of the other contested edits on that page. The IP also has a history of edits, which doesn't have any real overlap with Superb Owl. If he had (for example) been warned for edit warring or approached WP:3RR before the IP started editing, that would be much stronger evidence. As it stands, the more likely explanation is that two people have a similar opinion on how that information should be presented. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it; appreciate the explanation. My rationale at the time was: I had thought the pattern of both IPs (cosmetic edits on random articles, but substantive edits seemingly only on the Electoral fraud or similarly politically charged articles) could be an obfuscation attempt. And I thought they would have something to gain from these edits, as we have devoted a lot of time to disputing phrasing in the article where differences seem relatively minor.[16] JSwift49 13:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Asphonixm

Hi, could you please review on my recent SPI report on Asphonixm? If you don't have the time to do so, could you at least check whether the report was correctly opened? I'm a bit worried because I messed up the previous one, which was malformed and not properly opened. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to fully review the case right now, but it looks like it was opened properly. For the previous one, it was missing the {{SPI case status}} template. That template automatically adds it to the categories that put it on the SPI dashboards.
Personally I think filing SPI cases by hand is too fiddly and unreliable, but it's a complex process so it has to be. WP:TWINKLE has a module that fills in the case request for you; I use that so I don't have to deal with all the manual bits. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 10, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 12:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft refund for Mayor's Cup (Missouri–South Carolina)

Hello, you closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayor's_Cup_(Missouri–South_Carolina).

I'm requesting a DRAFT of this article restored to Draft:Mayor's Cup (Missouri–South Carolina) for further development and the addition of new citations to establish notability of the trophy. Will move to article space only upon significant improvement to the article and ensuring it meets GNG.

Significant coverage of this trophy exists that was not discussed in any previous AFD:

Thanks, PK-WIKI (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The WordsmithTalk to me 18:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Middlebrook

Thank you for your sensible action on the AfD for Peter Middlebrook, and particularly for the note on the AfD page + page protection. I think that should probably handle the disruption. Apologies (also to Izno) if my SPI report was a little bit of a mess. The 1 week timeline at AfD puts some time pressure, but I should've at least requested CU. I'll try to do better next time! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, SPI is a complicated process even for what should be a pretty straightforward case. You didn't do anything wrong with it! Your filing was fine (better than a lot that I see) and had all the evidence available. I think those accounts are either socks and or were canvassed by the article subject or someone very interested in them, but since the CU was negative the 1-2 edits from each don't give me enough behavioral evidence to prove it. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPI investigation clarity

Hi! Wondering if my earlier report on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geminiwebchickenwing/Archive before the last user's report was too detailed - it's the first one I'd submitted and felt like I might have overdone it! Thanks, originalmesstalk 07:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think your report had the right amount of detail. It gave the evidence I needed without me having to spend ages digging up evidence on my own. If all SPIs were that well done, there probably wouldn't be such a backlog at SPI. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to know! It took me a lot of time so it makes sense why there's such a backlog. Thanks for the feedback, appreciate it! originalmesstalk 22:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Min968_unban_request. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, The Wordsmith. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:45, 18 November 2024 (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.

Spicy (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your tireless contribution at WP:SPI. Maliner (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The WordsmithTalk to me 19:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HammerHead (company) deletion

Hello Wordsmith, regarding the deletion at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 18#HammerHead (company), what was the argument that tipped you in favour of deletion? The last comment did say If SRAM Corporation#Hammerhead exists it remains a reasonable target,.. and it does exist. The only delete vote was based on the nom which was about a gaming company and a different target. Jay 💬 05:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Imakuni? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Imakuni?, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imakuni? (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]