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, 1 month and 7 days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi The Wordsmith,

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

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

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

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

Sorry for coming back to this, but I wonder if you can give some advice: following your second comment, the thread was archived for inactivity. Seraphimblade kindly rescued it from the archive, but it has now received no comment for an additional 5 days, and will probably be auto-archived soon. Aside from adding a "bump" every couple of days to keep it alive (which seems silly), do you have any suggestions for appropriate ways to attract additional attention? (It is not so much that I am invested in how it turns out at this point, but rather that I would like it to be disposed of one way or another.) Thanks for your time, and sorry for the bother. --JBL (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised it hasn't gotten any attention from other admins, but if it doesn't then I'll just take action on my own. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

1. Stars678

2. JapanNipponTokyo19

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

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

5. 203.168.xx

6. 203.81.xx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responded on user talkpage, /64 blocked 1 week for block evasion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's Barr Theo again. I have answered your final question. I did it at 18:59 and you made edits at 19:20s, so I am assuming that you probably just missed the notification.

Sorry for block evading again, but you yourself said that you didn't care because I am not actually being evasive.

Anyways, I have answered your final question. I cannot stress enough the urgency of this situation. I need to be unblocked today. Do not wait for other admins, just do it yourself.

Kind regards. 89.214.148.253 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Wordsmith! Since you are active on SPIs these days, can you take action on this case? SPI is so much backlogged that these cases are getting no attention. Thanks. Orientls (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing another sock account of Asphonixm. Moving forward, could you kindly review the account Nida Suryani? I suspect it might be another sock puppet of Asphonixm. This account created the article "Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin," and its name is derived from one of Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin's daughters, which aligns with the behavioral patterns of this sockmaster, such as user:Rita Puspa. Once again, thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the Asphonixm SPIs are now completed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to annoy you again.. but he is back. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asphonixm. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You G5-CSDd that page. I seem to remember I had edited the page and added sources, but maybe I am wrong. Anyway would you please oblige me by sending me the text in my userspace/or create a Draft so that I can rework it and try to make it acceptable?. Thanks a lot. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article to User:Mushy Yank/Richard Allan (actor). Since you're willing to accept responsibility for it, please make sure all the content is compliant with our policies before moving back to mainspace. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and now its back in mainspace, neatly side stepping the AFD which you kindly closed with a G5 speedy nomination on 4 April.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That AFD seemed to be heading for a relist or no consensus. A few sources have been added since the AFD was opened, but if you still believe it qualifies for deletion there's no prejudice against re-nominating it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... but if it was a G5 then, isn't it still a G5 candidate? Same history, same originator, same sock-puppet? I am not going to argue this at any length - I will bow to your longevity on Wikipedia! Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of, but there's an exception for allowing edits that are useful to be restored on a case-by-case basis. Aside from the question of whether the new content from Mushy Yank is "substantial" (which would invalidate a G5 rationale), the longstanding practice is that if a contribution by a banned user is useful and an editor in good standing is willing to accept responsibility for it, it can be reinstated at an admin's discretion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your recent work on the NicolePunch SPI. I wonder if you could help me with a point that has a bearing on one element of that case.

As mentioned by Justlettersandnumbers, the accounts listed on that SPI seem to be linked in some way to a PR company.

The Lubham13 account appeared relatively soon after user NicolePunch received the last of their COI warnings for promo edits (NicolePunch was presumably very close to being blocked at that point). Undisclosed promo edits resembling those of NicolePunch continued under the Lubham13 account before that user declared a COI. Then, after Lubham13 failed to install promo material on the Legal & General article through a 24/2/24 edit request (I can’t provide a diff as the edit was revdeled for copyvio), the same material appeared [1] on the article of Legal & General's CEO via an edit by an IP address. That IP address appears to be associated with the activity of user NicoleReuthePunch, which is (I am quite sure) a sock of NicolePunch. So, I must say that I’m not convinced that those accounts are really stale (or at least the end user behind those accounts is apparently still active). This IP activity is the most recent edit made by these accounts on the relevant articles, and surely is not stale?

This chain of events also suggests that the declared COI under the Lubham13 account is not a sign of this user "trying to do things by-the-book" (as you suggested at the SPI). It looks to me more like a failed attempt at doing so before a return to UPE business as usual to get the material into mainspace.

There has been a long history on the affected articles of edits from a succession of COI accounts, with new accounts being set up after warnings are received, so the recent activity is in accordance with how things have been running here for some time.

On a related point, the Lubham13 account seems to be a shared account, on the basis of (a) the following quote: ‘Main edits that we are proposing are […]’ (unfortunately I can’t provide a diff as the edit was revdeled), and (b) the fact that the PR company apparently involved here is based in a town called Lubbenham.

The shared account issue is a separate issue, but I’d be grateful if you could get back to me on the SPI issue. I accept that not all COI problems are covered by an SPI and that the continuing issue of promo edits on these articles will ultimately have to resolved through other means. However, I'd be grateful for your input on your thoughts regarding the above.

(Also copying in dormskirk as they have also been active on these articles.) Axad12 (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few things here. Yes, sockpuppetry and/or UPE is the most likely scenario here. There's almost enough to block the others, but the disclosure put a wrench in that. Since the Lubham13 account was warned and added the paid editing disclosure properly, I'd need to see more UPE by that account after the disclosure to justify a block on that basis. Regarding the IPs, when I refer to them as "stale" I mean that the person using them has probably already gotten a new IP, so blocking the old one would have little effect. I've gone ahead and blocked 81.144.179.114, which wasn't listed in the SPI. I see 81.144.179.144 was listed, so that might have been a typo. It might be stale (it's borderline), but the contributions from it go back long enough that it could be a static IP so I've blocked it 6 months. I've also added a 6 month semi-protection on the three articles that are being targeted, which is usually more effective than playing IP Whac-A-Mole. If we start to see new accounts gaming autoconfirmed and then popping up with promotional content on that set of articles, that would make a much clearer case for blocking the whole lot including the stale accounts. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help here. Yes, I agree 100% with everything that you've said (and the 114 vs 144 was a typo on my part, for which my apologies). Thanks again. Axad12 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]