User talk:The Wordsmith

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 6 months and 23 days.

Contentious Topics awareness templates

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the Arab–Israeli conflict Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts abortion complementary and alternative medicine post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles climate change COVID-19, broadly construed Eastern Europe or the Balkans governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan post-1978 Iranian politics pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour He should not be given alerts for those areas.

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 Wordsmith^{Talk 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 Wordsmith^{Talk 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 Wordsmith^{Talk 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	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]

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 Wordsmith^{Talk 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wordsmith^{Talk 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

• Ian.thomson
• Modussiccandi

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

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 Wordsmith^{Talk 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 Wordsmith^{Talk 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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].

• 182.191.136.0/21 see
• 116.71.12.0/23 see
• 94.20.88.173 see
• 182.191.128.0/21 see
• 116.71.14.0/23 see Ratnahastin (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Also if possible, can you please semi protect the talk page too? Ratnahastin (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've applied semiprotection to the talkpage. Those IP edits are probably Anujror or a similar sock drawer, but they seem to be one-offs. Blocking them would probably not have any effect as he's probably already moved on, and it looks like there are a bunch of legitimate users on those ranges. Protection is usually the better option in cases like this. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wordsmith^{Talk 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]

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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Pppery

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Oversighter changes

Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

• Courcelles
• GeneralNotability

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

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

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 Wordsmith^{Talk 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]

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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]