Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 08:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 18:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 11:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
• The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
• An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

• A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
• The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
• A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

---

Where can I read the top 100 ANI bangers? That sounds fun. Sennalen (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no list, and creating one would have no purpose but reopening old wounds. Some of my old personal highlights would be the Climate Change wars, GMO battles and Gamergate nonsense, all of which I helped patrol and clear out disruptive influences. The interpersonal conflicts between established editors got pretty wild as well. Those areas seem pretty quiet now, but then again most of the community thankfully seems calmer than it was in the old Wild West days.

I do have a list of "landmark" Arbcom cases, RFCs etc I need to refer to often that helped shape the policies we have today, some of that is interesting reading. It can be found at User:The Wordsmith/Useful Links. The mass deletion of unsourced BLPs was an especially interesting time for the project, its what led to the Arbcom quote at the top of my user talkpage. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

aww. (Wasn't actually a serious question.)

I have noticed things are slower, but I'm not sure that's a net positive. Fewer adults in the room also. Sennalen (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, I am genuinely confused about your comment. What does POINTy mean in this context, and do you feel that I've cast aspersions? I appreciate that it is an unproductive thread, but I often find it difficult to be concise when responding to this editor. In that thread, after I stated that they had engaged in tendentious editing, I suspected that they were indirectly accusing me of TE by moving goalposts, shifting sourcing requirements or misstating the positions I had taken in discussion. [1] And when I asked for clarification they obfuscated. At Talk:Gender they repeatedly falsely accused me of moving goal posts [2][3], and the gaslighting accusations were all about claims that I had misstated my positions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

My reading of it was that Newimpartial had previously improperly accused others of gaslighting and psychological abuse, and that you were now doing so to prove a point about how inappropriate it was, rather than you actually believing you were being psychologically abused (which is a serious accusation). I'll admit that my reading could be off because there's been so much noise and so many diffs and accusations thrown around on all sides, but could you clarify if that isn't the case? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

There has been a misunderstanding. I really have felt psychologically abused and gaslit. I think the false accusations I've received are more straightforward evidence of abuse, but the more subtle forms I guess I have to speak of in terms of what I've felt because I'm not sure if it can be proven. Just on that ANI page I felt like I was receiving abuse. It's difficult on Wikipedia to be able to talk about how we feel when there isn't clear cut evidence, but that needs to happen in some form. BTW, are you still an administrator? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That's fine then, sincerity doesn't always come across over text. Especially at ANI; there's a good reason it has redirects to it like WP:CESSPIT, WP:ALOTOFDRAMA and WP:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES. I apologize for the misunderstanding and I'll strike my comment, though I would suggest that if you're experiencing a psychological impact from that topic area then it might be a good idea to take a break, or edit something boring for a bit to reset your mental state. Like an article about a rock, or train station or something. You can also reach out if you're having issues and I'll do my best to help.

As for my adminship, I was desysopped at the end of December for inactivity. Since my return I've been taking some time to get reacquainted with the community and work out how policies and processes have changed since I was last active, but I have requested my mop be reinstated. After all these threads, it's clear that this topic area needs some heavy cleanup, and I do have experience with clearing out disruption and BLP issues in controversial areas like this. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; that's very generous of you. I feel like what's most distressing is the community's inability to recognize editors' behavior beyond the surface. And it feels like there's a culture of silence preventing us from talking about our perceptions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers might want the context at User talk:Levivich#1815 unreferenced BLPs
I know that when you nominate an article for AfD, it's not a good idea to remove content. I'm a bit concerned about Laisa Digitaki, an article I've prodded, though. This is the first time I've tried to do so (and I'd rather be sure I'm getting the process right instead of going on some sort of mass edit spree where mistakes could cause problems fast) but I'm concerned about just leaving some of the content there due to BLP implications. My question is if WP:BLP would overrule the faux pas associated with removing content on an article you think is worthy of deletion. I'm inclined to think it would but I don't want to make anyone upset, either. I'm also worried that maybe my first try at BLPPROD isn't actually applicable? A second opinion would be valued. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ouch, I see what you mean. In general, if there's a clear BLP violation it should be removed whether or not the article is being considered for deletion (until there is consensus for its inclusion). The relevant policy is WP:BLPDEL, which takes priority over most other norms. In this case, the article was almost entirely contentious information and had been unsourced for years. I did a spot check of some of the links that used to be in the article, and they all seemed permanently dead with no archive available. The BLP violation was clear enough here that I just went ahead and summarily deleted it per that same policy. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

So if I see something like that in the future... is there anything I can do as a non-admin other than blpprod? Or should I just bring attention to the article to an admin like what ended up happening here? You're right that the article was essentially full of contentious unsourced information... if I went back in time, should I have practically blanked it because of that? I just want to know what exactly I should've done. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The way you handled that was perfect. There were a couple sources in older versions of the article which could normally disqualify it from BLPPROD, but the article creator removed them in 2015 because they were permanently dead with no archive or possibility of recovery. Before doing a BLPPROD it makes sense to check the history and verify that sources weren't removed by vandals, but that's not relevant in this case. And yes, if an unsourced BLP is that bad but doesn't really qualify for G10, then asking an admin to check it out is fine. I wouldn't normally recommend blanking, but other options include restoring it to an old version that was unsourced but not awful, or reducing it to a stub while the normal deletion process kicks off (and making a note of it on the talk page, AFD, etc). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

So I found another article like the previous one by the same creator at Samuela Matakibau. The article did contain sources at creation (although it's currently unsourced) so it's a similar situation. I used the regular PROD process this time since it did have sources at one point, even though they're not currently accessible from what I can see. My concern is that the article in pretty much its entirety seems to violate WP:BLPCRIME. Should I just wait or is this another case of "ask an admin what they think"? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've killed that one as a G10. In this case, the applicable deletion template would be Template:Db-negublp since there really wasn't any content there that wasn't negative and unsourced. I also left a note for the article creator, asking if he might be able to check his other creations to see if there are other BLP vios to delete. He's created 677 pages in mainspace,[4] so it could be quite a mess. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I considered G10 but I made a mistake with speedy deletion yesterday and was trying to follow Ritchie333's advice that stuff that's been around a long time likely wouldn't be an uncontroversial deletion. That's why I mostly just wanted a second opinion. As for the creator, he hasn't actively edited in quite awhile, so I'm not sure your talk page message will be seen. He's also an adminstrator. [5] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep I checked his editing history, which is why I'm not too concerned with discussing deletions with him beforehand. I don't really expect him to join in, but asking him anyway is just good manners. I did see that he's an admin and has been for some time. If it turns out that there's a nightmare of BLP violations in his contribs (or if he uses the tools to reinstate them etc) it might be worth taking it to AN/ANI, but if only a few of his creations from ~2007 are a problem it won't be worth the drama. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

G10 sounds fine for Samuela Matakibau - all revisions of it had the same unsourced WP:BLPCRIME violating content. For an example of a controversial G10, consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Deletion of Micaela Schäfer Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked out that article, and I think that was a good deletion and a good restoration to fix. I don't think it necessarily qualifies as G10 (borderline), but I would have invoked summary deletion per WP:BLPDEL and then opened the same discussion you did. It seems clear that the subject meets criteria for an article, just not the article that existed at the time. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

... There's also veiled ass Persians and unnecessary ass Persians (scroll down at WP:ASSPERSIANS). EEng 03:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

How could I forget? I was considering making up a custom one for that ANI thread, something along the lines of "Ass Persian Territory" with the third being something like File:Achaemenid Empire 500 BCE.jpg, but the aspect ratio was off and I couldn't be bothered fixing it. Anyway, thanks for helping bring some levity to WP:DRAMABOARD. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Re this edit: Yes it did. I hadn't thought of Kurt in years. And I was the one who started the thread to ban him after his similar ArbCom candidacy, where he promised he would vote to dismiss every case brought to it since he thought it was illegitimate, led to four !votes suggesting as much. After which he pretty much left ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That was definitely an interesting time, and I recall him being allowed to continue for months because one oppose wasn't such a big deal. I only came back recently and I'm surprised by how much has changed, and how much of a furor these two dumb opposes set off on an RfA with 99% support. Maybe this is why we don't have any more RfAs. Sometimes I do miss the old "Wild West" days. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that at the point that Kurt quit Wikipedia, he realised how disruptive he'd been and apologised for his conduct. So it sounds to me like a young editor who simply grew up and matured. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Polska (internet celebrity), 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/Polska (internet celebrity) 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) 01:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The desysop proposal you made at WP:AN/I is nothing short of brilliant. In one fell swoop you are cutting right through the gordian knot of all the proposed and failed de-adminship processes. If it succeeds (and I suspect it will) it will be a landmark decision. Even if it doesn't succeed, or ArbCom beats it to the punch, it will still be pointed towards in the future as a way to deadmin someone. Bravo!! There's one potential fly in the ointment though; if ArbCom doesn't pass the motion to desysop, then sending this to ArbCom (assuming it passes) isn't going to do anything. I would recommend that if that should happen that a indefinite block be applied. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the vote of confidence. I'm positive there was a similar case somewhere in the deep history of enwiki, where either AN/I or an WP:RFC/U resulted in a consensus that the admin shouldn't have the tools and Arbcom swiftly desysopped by motion when the request was made. One thing I did notice about all the previous attempts at community desysop proposals was that they were prescriptive, where much of our current policies and guidelines started as descriptive when somebody wrote down the things that we were already doing because someone just started doing them one day.

Assuming a clear consensus does materialize with no room for doubt, I don't think Arbcom would refuse. The current composition of the Committee seems pretty sensible, moreso than some previous iterations I've seen. Refusing would upset a lot of editors, and I don't think they want to kick over that particular hornet's nest while they have a decent amount of goodwill. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it was a good idea, particularly as it doesn't try to end run around ArbCom. FYI, I've asked Barkeep49 a question (and pinged you), but I plan on asking ArbCom about this somewhere once the Dbachmann dust settles. I'll let you know when and where. But the more I think about this, the more I like it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, something quite close to your proposal is now very likely going to pass (as you saw). Ok you didn't propose this on VP, but it's your proposal. Bravo :) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I've already commented on it, thanks for the notification. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to your closure comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bob Morley & Arryn Zech. You stated that "the allegations of cheating/abuse should not be included" and noted that the policies WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPPUBLIC are relevant, while noting that "all the sources are citing the now-deleted claims published on Zech's social media", and saying that Daily Dot is questionable on its own, and saying the same for Popculture, while noting that The Girlfriend Magazine article is unreliable, as is Distractify and The Daily Planet. I obviously, as you know from the discussion, supported keeping the accusations/allegations, and different views of the sources.

However, like any good Wikipedian, I'll abide by the consensus. I can understand that the "sources should be excluded" and actually think your view that "for matters of sexual orientation and gender identity, we typically allow self-identification through social media or interviews" is good, as it could help verify sexual orientation and gender identity more easily, so that's a positive. All in all, although the discussion didn't end the way I would have preferred, I think something can surely be learned from the discussion by all of those who participated. As for me, I'll probably be more wary of adding anything deemed "controversial" in the future, in hopes of avoiding future discussions. Also, thanks for closing the discussion at Talk:Bob Morley, where I proposed some compromise text, but there was sadly no consensus for it. Historyday01 (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for remaining civil throughout that discussion. In general the rule for BLPs is that we keep controversial material, especially negative, out of articles until the sourcing is strong enough. In cases where the sourcing is marginal, it is usually better to keep controversial claims (especially based on gossip or self-published claims) out until there is stronger sourcing. Even while the contentious text is being discussed, we need to keep it out until there is consensus to include (a reversal of the way things normally work). It can definitely be confusing at times, but it does seem like you were participating in good faith. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I'll definitely keep that mind. I tend to edit biography pages less than other pages, but I still edit them, and create them, from time to time. Historyday01 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This was not eligible for soft deletion. Please revert the close of the AFD and relist it. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NOQUORUM, If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to [snip] soft deleting the article. My reading of that indicates that even though soft deletion isn't the default for these, it is still eligible for soft deletion at the closing administrator's discretion. If I'm misunderstanding the guideline please point out where I'm wrong and I'll undo my closure. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Liz had noted it was not eligible for soft deletion. Liz, do you have some thoughts here? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, can you restore and relist it for another week? Since it was recently closed, it is better than going through another AfD as probably that is what the nom may be looking to do by requesting undeletion. Jay 💬 04:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why the nominator (who wanted the article deleted) requested undeletion, but per request by you and UtherSRG I've reverted my close, relisted and restored the article for now. I still believe that WP:NOQUORUM considers my original closure valid, but I'll check the talk page there and potentially open a thread/RfC to clarify the wording there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! What I have seen based on past requests, when there is a soft delete, the nominator wants to get it "hard" deleted, by undeleting and renominating, and we don't have a cooling period before one nomination and the next, for a soft delete. Jay 💬 07:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Coming late to this discussion, I just note on an AFD discussion page when articles under discussion have been PROD'd or been to AFD before. I do not know if the closing administrator's discretion can overcome the general prohibition against Soft Deletions under those conditions so I don't have a definitive answer here. But when I am challenged like this, I typically do relist a discussion to garner more opinions to make a closure more decisive. Having closed discussion regularly now at AFD for three years, I've discovered that things are less black and white as they appear to be in policy pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, after I requested Wordsmith for relisting, he obliged within 24 hours, and now the AfD is in a position for a possible "hard" delete having received additional delete votes. Jay 💬 09:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Notating here that I've started a discussion to clarify this issue at WT:DELPRO#Clarifying NOQUORUM Soft Deletes. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Could you please help me in relation to the piece "Resisting AI" - you kindly note it should be polished, and I am keen to do it but in which way? Now that the secondary sources seems to have passed the threshold, what kind of improvement should be made? Thanks a lot for your help. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The main issue I see is the style/formatting, and sections missing that I'd expect to see in an article on a non-fiction book like information about its development/writing/publication, critical reception, other works that reference it etc. The best way forward is usually to check out Good or Featured Articles on similar topics, and see what coverage they give and how they are formatted. As an example of a random non-fiction book rated GA, there's Fifty Years of Freedom. WP:BOOKS also has a style guide that may help you; it can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, The Wordsmith,

I just deleted this page as an orphaned talk page. Typically when I delete pages, a notice is sent to the page creator, which is you, but Twinkle didn't do that this time. Your edit summary said it was part of a Merge but there was no accompanying article page. Of course, feel free to recreate it if there is an article on its way. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. That page was created accidentally by XFDCloser as part of an odd AFD, I must have forgotten to clean up after myself. The page isn't needed for anything so it can stay deleted. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent removal of Discission tag, I want to ask about the remained "Undisclosed paid" tag, the user who placed the tag mentioned that "I work for a media agency and it mentioned on my profile". But I want to clarify that's not media agency, that's my own News media company, we run only news websites under that News media private limited company. We don't to any kinda agency work.

If you are agree with my clarification than kindly remove that tag also. @The Wordsmith iVickyChoudhary (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you or your media company have any sort of relation with Rizwan Sajan? Why did you choose to write about this person? Many of the sources used seem to have been sponsored, which can give the impression of paid editing. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and determine if any parts of those policies might apply to you and your Wikipedia editing. If not, then we can possibly remove the tag. I apologize if my questions seem aggressive, that's not my intent. Undisclosed paid editing is an unfortunate problem here, so it does need to be rooted out. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I or we don't have any relation with him, he's a millionaire-billionaire from UAE. It's almost impossible for people like us to reach or meet them :D I was searching something related to Filmfare Awards then I come through an article regarding Filmfare Awards middle east. There I come to know about this man then I searched it on wikipedia to know more about him as I usually do to know about someone famous, but I don't found his article here so one day I decided to make article about him.

Choosing topics randomly created problems for me in the past also:/ some fellow contributors think as paid editing. I read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and determined that any of these doesn't applies to me or my work. Don't need to apologize for aggressive questioning, you are doing your work <3

I'll surely disclose if I got paid for any article in future. If you feel right then remove the tag. <3 @The Wordsmith iVickyChoudhary (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I wanna ask one more thing, what if someone asked my help (the subject of article or any person related to the subject) to make any changes without any payment, do I need to also disclose that ? iVickyChoudhary (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith Any comments on this? iVickyChoudhary (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Any sort of external relationship could cause a conflict of interest even without monetary payment. In general, if a BLP subject has asked for help with their article you want to disclose that. I can't think of any good reasons why someone might want to keep a relationship like that hidden. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot, I'll surely keep that in mind for future work.

Anything about the current Tag on Rizwan Sajan ? @The Wordsmith iVickyChoudhary (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith... iVickyChoudhary (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I got distracted by other things. I've removed the tag for now. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It's ok <3. thanks for you kind words. :) iVickyChoudhary (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm replying to you here because threaded discussions are not allowed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. I hope this is acceptable. I reviewed WP:EEML and while I agree that summarizing the evidence in a way that doesn't compromise privacy is possible, I wanted to note that this case is quite different:

1. There were no indefinite topic bans or blocks in this case. 2. The editors were accused of canvassing others and disruptive editing, not for being canvassed, which seems to be a far lesser offense.

Given those differences, I think citing this as a precedent is not entirely accurate. Please let me know if I'm missing something. Marokwitz (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Several editors were topic banned and site banned in that case, and both topic and site bans have been proposed during the current motions. Additionally, the LTA who allegedly coordinated the meatpuppetry was already banned. Regarding being canvassed, I'd encourage you to look at the Findings of Fact in that case closer. The individual users were noted has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed. Regardless, this was the first big landmark off-wiki coordination case that I can remember. Even if not all if it is identical, there are enough similarities that it can be looked to as a source of precedent in how related issues are handled. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Was there a user in that case who was sanctioned only for having "participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed"?

I can see the similarities, but it seems that the accused people there were all neck-deep into disruptive editing, edit warring, actively canvassing others, sharing their passwords. And none of them were indefinitely banned or blocked. I think for completeness and fairness to the accused editors in this case, it would be good to mention those difference in your statement. Marokwitz (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, nobody was sanctioned only for participating after being canvassed. It was listed as sanctionable behavior, however and I never said it was the exact same situation. I'm see no need to add to my statement at this time; other editors and Arbs can read the case and determine for themselves how much of it applies. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll raise that point. Marokwitz (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That actually does seem like it might be a viable topic, when it comes to "famous Internet animals".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be, but not yet. The coverage I've seen so far all seems like WP:DOGBITESMAN. If it ends up going viral and being covered elsewhere on a more ongoing basis, there might be something there. Someone is bound to try creating it, so I'm tempted to create an R with possibilities if I can find a good target for it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello :) I am referring to your deletion of the article (Wikipedia:Articles to be deleted/Timișoara Award for European Values). I am still quite new to Wikipedia and have definitely learned a lot for my first self-published article, even if some of the criticisms were linguistically very disrespectful, inappropriate and politically motivated. I would now like to make a new attempt at uploading, now that the award has been presented and the international media landscape is sufficient to prove the relevance of the award. I would also like to adjust the way I write to avoid WP:PEACOCKs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeneEfimero (talk • contribs) 12:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to rewrite the article so that it can meet Wikipedia's standards, it is highly recommended that new editors use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. Additionally, the guide at Help:Your first article has a lot of great information about the article writing process, as well as things to be cautious about when writing. Good luck with your article! The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Your signature contains the CSS style properties font-family:Courier New;font-size:3. As I understand the spec, the value for the font-size property shouldn't be dimensionless. In my browser, I believe this is causing an issue I see with the visual diff feature, with your user name displaying at what seems to be a 3-pixel size in diffs. Could you consider modifying this? As the obsolete HTML font size of 3 is equivalent to the base font size, I think it can be omitted as your signature hasn't set any different font sizes previously. Alternatively, you could use the medium value. I appreciate any consideration you may give. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

My signature is pretty old. If it is causing problems I'm happy to update it, but I don't use that feature so I haven't noticed it. What's the name of the "visual diff" feature/gadget/preference? And if you could screenshot what you're seeing, that would also be helpful. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems the visual diff feature is now available to everyone (it used to be a beta feature). When viewing a diff, near the top of the page, there is a selector for "Visual" or "Wikitext". You can also link directly to a diff in a specific mode, so for example adding &diffmode=visual to the end of a diff URL will use visual mode. This link shows your previous post in visual diff mode.

I've been trying to track down the reason why the smaller font size is only appearing in the visual diff and not the displayed text below the diff (or on the talk page), but haven't succeeded yet. Firefox will display the diff with a normal font size; Chrome, Edge, and Opera (all based on the Chromium codebase) show your username with a 3-pixel font size in the diff. Using the web developer tools, both Firefox and Chrome show that the font-size:3 property has an invalid value, and thus the rendering engine is ignoring the value, but for some reason with Chrome the computed font size is different in the diff versus the text below. (I did test that by manually editing the page to remove the font-size property, the user name displayed correctly with a normal font size.)

I understand if you are reluctant to alter your signature, given that this problem doesn't affect how your signature appears on the actual page, and doesn't show up on Firefox. isaacl (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do some experimenting and see how I want to modify my signature. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey.

Re this revert, are you sure? Footnote a in WP:ELNEVER#1 states that a URL to a full copy of a copyrighted work, including those in citations, is a copyright violation. The edit I undid, and revision I highlighted in that copyvio-revdel template was to a full copy of The Internet of Garbage, which per its first page is copyrighted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Resolved per Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)#PDF of Jeong's The Internet of Garbage is not a WP:COPYVIO. Sorry for the hassle. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I can absolutely see how it looked like a copyvio at first glance. I thought the same thing until I took another look at the URL. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, from the URL I thought it was maybe something that had been found on a Libgen or Scihub mirror. Glad we were able to resolve it though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to The Internet of Garbage, that version was published by Vox and the link went to Vox's content delivery network. An e-book publisher publishing an e-book on their own servers is expected behavior. The work might be copyrighted, but linking to an authorized published copy of a work is allowed the same as linking to a newspaper article published on the newspaper's website. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

	A bathrobe for you!
	I saw the top of this page and how could I not do this? QueenofHearts 19:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dear Administrator,

Please teach me on how the guidelines were interpreted in deleting the Page Mariya Rusalenko. I am here to learn, and most of debates of page were not properly answered. I have always detailed everything.

If the experienced users feel not to explain things, It is very difficult to contribute. Existence Leesaaisath 09:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The consensus on that discussion was clear that the subject didn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Some of the sources were sponsored, and others did not give significant coverage of Rusalenko. If better sources exist that weren't presented, I might suggest going through the Articles for Creation process. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like your assistance in the issue I have tired highlight. I think we can make wiki better everyday with diversity.

1. Not recognizing cultural and various local language sources when we write about individuals from those areas.
2. Editors who have language barriers make decisions on subject language and related articles.
3. Short answers without explaining new users and cold form of answers when given some.

I have worked in Maldives and later in Belarus/Russia, ( As journalist major), and I have come across these issues in both countries. Many sources that are major accredited sources are disregarded without research by experienced editors and lot of work and research goes to waste.

I am here for for over 4 years and keep on trying to develop myself with rules and guidelines. Its like having a fog in the work when aforementioned issues arise.

As an administrator, I hope you will assist users like us and provide a road to navigate and learn in a good respected environment. I will again work on the page, hope to have your assistance in that too. Existence Leesaaisath 21:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I think relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taka N'Gangué probably would have been better than closing "delete" on the 1k-2d discussion considering that almost half of the discussion had occurred in the past few hours. Just noting. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I took a second look at the timestamps, and you're right that much of the discussion was very recent. I've reverted my closure and relisted for now. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I also think it may have been beneficial to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Binkley (3rd nomination) open a bit longer rather than closing "keep". I recognize that the number of !votes was very visibly in favor of the "keep" side, but at least in my view as someone who didn't fall into either the delete camp or the keep camp, the weight of the arguments on both sides was not balanced and there were enough !votes against keep to warrant keeping it open a little longer. Indeed, the "keeps" outnumbered the "not keeps" 2:1, but a not insignificant number of "keeps" relied on impermissible arguments. The last comment on that AfD before closure was an inquiry in which I requested some of the keep !voters articulate how the page is sufficiently notable, as many !votes fell into arguments to avoid territory e.g. "other stuff exists" votes or simple assertions of notability without elaboration. Or worse, simply mentioning how many votes the candidate received or pointing to the age of the page as an argument it should be kept. I think giving !voters some time to respond to the inquiry could have given the keep side time to give some more weight to their positions. Or, if nothing else, it would have been appreciated if the closing comment offered a more detailed breakdown that took the strength of the arguments into consideration, rather than simply reading "The result was keep." Thank you.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've given that one a second look as well, and I stand by my close. The numbers weren't a significant factor in my close,^{(though as long as we're counting, the ratio was closer to 3:1)} and several non-keeps were weak as well. Ultimately what it came down to is that the Keep !votes demonstrated significant coverage of the person in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and there was no convincing counter-argument. The only real argument for deletion/redirection was WP:BIO1E/WP:NOTNEWS, which wasn't a strong policy-based argument. Considering a period spanning from April 2023 to (so far) January 2024 which encompasses coverage of multiple independent events and the subject's role in them as "one event" stretches the policy beyond what was ever intended. I saw a clear consensus to keep, and closed it as such. I won't be reverting this one, but as always WP:DRV is available if you would like to pursue it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed that a number of your edits involve articles for deletion. I'm wondering if you could have a look at an article recently moved from draft, Anthony D. Viazis. I have found little coverage of this person online, but there are other accomplishments listed in the article. Can I get your opinion about the notability of this article? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I do plenty of work in deletion, but academics are not a topic area I touch very often so my opinion might be of limited use. Based solely on the article content and sources, it might scrape by WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1. That really depends on whether 1500 citations is "highly cited" for the field of orthopedics/orthodontics, and how noteworthy those journals are. The Fastbraces thing also might count for Criterion 1b but the article doesn't currently demonstrate that, and we don't have an article on the technology itself. My instinct is that it doesn't meet the criteria. The only real source is the Ritz Herald one, but I've got some concerns about their reputation or lack thereof. No Wikipedia article on them, no discussions about them at WP:RSN, and essentially nothing online that's been written about the newspaper itself. Their X account has 11,000 posts, but ~2400 followers and their posts are seen by an average of 20 people. They're a news/press release aggregator, and the article looks like a press release. Honestly the whole thing looks like a G11, but I might be inclined to send it to AFD instead in case I'm wrong about the subject not meeting WP:NACADEMIC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I looked around for sources to improve the article, but found little. I might AFD. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems an easy overturn:

• First, the three RfC precedents you cite in your close. [6] did not change any article titles but clarified MOS language. [7] was done at Kyiv, a page which had already gone through an RM and was simply asking if other pages using the name "Kyiv" should also be changed (a usual practice unusually brought to an RfC but, importantly, at the relevant page). And [8] a request to clarify guideline language about two video game naming options in an RfC at the topic-relevant "Naming conventions (video games)". Unlike any of those, or probably unlike anything in the history of RfC's on Wikipedia, your NFL Draft close will likely be used as a reason to move hundreds of page titles, which will lead to further debate and contention as an admin has already said they would reverse any such action.
• Many editors commented that this RfC was in the wrong venue for a Requested Move, and so did not comment on its merits. Since the question itself did not contain anything about moving pages, but was simply an opinion poll, these editors did not leave their opinions other than correctly state that this was not a recognized RM.
• Not one of the hundreds of pages which some editors may try to title-change because of the close were notified about this RfC, not even the readers of the centrally important National Football League Draft article. This seems way too inside-baseball and amounted to purposely hiding hundreds of asked-for name changes in a backroom of Wikipedia. This is fine for discussion purposes, but not for an RM.
• A panel of at least three experienced closers was asked for. This was ignored (although you said within the discussion that if others materialized they could join in but, if not, you were going to close alone). Shouldn't you have reached out and/or waited until two other experienced closers were recruited?
• Just one more point so as not to wall of text this. A most unusual thing in this unusual RM disguised as an RfC, you extensively interacted with one of its main proponents within the RfC while it was in progress. This was done, of course, in good faith, but shouldn't that be disqualifying in any RfC?

In light of all of that, and much more that can be articulated, I respectfully request that you overturn your close and instead ask participants to take the question to an RM at the National Football League Draft page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I'm going to have to respectfully decline your request. If another admin has pledged to move war against consensus, that's on them and any conduct issues can be handled at that time. It doesn't change what the consensus actually was. Regarding your framing of the RfC as an opinion poll, I'm well aware that's how you see it. The phrases "opinion poll" and "opinion survey" collectively appeared 16 times on that page, and 14 of them were you (the last two were SMcCandlish quoting you in response). A panel was requested by two editors, and there were no other volunteers. This RfC was very long, but not actually that complicated. Nothing that can't be handled by a single experienced administrator. Who is it that I've "extensively interacted with"? Granted I interact with a lot of people, but I don't recall anything that would call WP:INVOLVED into question. Of course my memory isn't the greatest, so if I missed something please do point it out. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You did not address how this RfC is so very dissimilar than the examples you used to justify the close. I thought that your interaction with SMcCandlish in the section asking for a panel of closers may or may not be disqualifying, which is why I asked. The coming edit war is not really an edit war, just a disagreement if this outlier RfC can take the place of an RM - you think it can and others reasonably take the opposite view. I'll ask that you please study the three examples you gave with the focus on checking if they had anything to do with replacing RM's (I'm not reading them as doing so). Taken that there is no precedent for replacing an RM with an RfC in such a way, I think I correctly read the wording of the nomination as asking for opinions. It was not made clear in the nomination wording that the RfC would replace an RM, and many editors did not offer an opinion on the merits because they too did not view the venue as an appropriate substitute for a real RM which would change titles at hundreds of articles. I'd again ask that you reconsider after studying the "precedents" you used as foundational to your close. A last question, do you think it would be appropriate to take your close to a move review (murky water, that)? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) re-ping after name fix Randy Kryn (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant to touch on your point about the other precedents, but got distracted so I can address that now. There were several more examples given, but I singled out those three as a few of the most relevant here. They were all examples of RfCs that were not directly an RM, but sought to clarify how a set of pages should be named to comply with the MOS and other policies. With the consensuses (consensi? consenses?) reached, pages were moved as a natural consequence. The circumstances were obviously slightly different, but they were the same from the perspective of "Can a centralized RfC result in page moves for several articles?". I don't think there is an intent here to replace RM with RfC, but as I mentioned in my close WP:CONSENSUS suggests RfC and the Village Pump for seeking a wider consensus when discussions have been contentious. Regarding my interactions with SMC, I've taken another look at them. My two direct replies to him were confirming that I had seen points that he raised, encouraging all participants provide all the policy-based arguments they had, and encouraging civility/discouraging bludgeoning. Those seem to fall squarely within the purely in an administrative role line of WP:UNINVOLVED, as well as Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. As far as going to WP:MRV, it does not seem like that venue is equipped to handle a discussion like this. According to that page, the sidebar, and WP:PROCESS#Formal review, the appropriate venue for seeking review of the closure is WP:AN. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'll be honest, I don't see how there possibly could have been considered a consensus there. So. Many. Issues. That discussion was a disaster. Wrong place; not enough appropriate notifications (e.g. there were no notices at the top of any relevant page as is necessary per WP:RM); many felt that this wasn't really a proper proposal and did not comment (e.g. many of the contributors from the very recent RM on this isssue, such as Jweiss11). Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, one of the most active and interested places on this topic, was never notified. Dicklyon and SMCcandlish (Randy to an extent as well) literally BLUDGEONED THE HELL out the discussion, discouraging many from contributing. The amount of editors actually !voting was like a fifth of the discussion because of all the nonsense side-discussions. Everything–This was a complete wreck. It needs a do-over. That was no consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion certainly was messy, with tons of bludgeoning, aspersions and assumptions of bad faith. Several editors bludgeoned the crap out of it, both on the Good Forum/Lowercase side and the Bad Forum/Uppercase side (Side note, of all the people who took positions on both the RfC legitimacy and the capitalization, there were zero examples of Good Forum/Uppercase or Bad Forum/Lowercase. It didn't play any part in the closure, but an interesting statistical anomaly nonetheless). I made every effort to ensure that the quality of the argument, and not how many times it was repeated, was the basis for the closure. WikiProject College football wasn't specifically notified about the RfC, but they were notified about the Village Pump discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Village Pump discussion, concerning the NFL Draft while that discussion was open, a few days prior to the RfC opening. Notifications were also sent to WikiProject National Football League[9], WikiProject Ice Hockey[10], WikiProject Baseball[11], WT:MOS, WT:NCCAPS, and the talkpages of the last several years of NFL drafts as well as the main Talk:National Football League Draft. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's still not enough notifications - college football has many interested editors who would have had interest in the proposal; the vast majority of relevant draft pages had no notifications at all, let alone a notice at the top of the article page (where its more likely to be viewed, and is required by WP:RM), none of which had that. The discussion was perhaps the most disastrous discussion I have ever seen; like half the people thought it wasn't even the proper forum! Many editors were discouraged I'm sure by the bludgeoning in response to everyone that did not agree with Dicklyon and SMcCandlish (to a lesser extent the other side as well) – such a disaster cannot possibly produce a consensus any way. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  100% agree, I don't envy anyone who had to close that mess of a RFC, but it's incredible that a consensus was pulled out of the wreckage. It seems like this kind of close that just encourages overzealous bludgeoning and badgering. Nemov (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think this sanely could have closed any other way. Those who refuse to drop the stick should get on with their WP:AN thread, which will close for endorse, so we can put this to bed and get on with something more productive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think that discussion sanely could have closed in favor of any way. It was improper in just about every way one could think of. Don't think you're in the best position to accuse of not dropping the stick when you and Dicklyon have been trying for years through rejected proposals, non-consensus based moves against the rejections, and then more rejected proposals until now when you finally get your way through bludgeoning the hell to drive everyone away who doesn't agree with you. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Both of you, kindly chill out. This page isn't the place to attack each other and continue rehashing arguments. Continued assumptions of bad faith and accusations regarding sticks, horse-shaped bloody spots on the ground, bludgeoning and the like are not likely to be productive. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Sure. The community coming to a decision BeanieFan11 doesn't like isn't a conspiracy. It's just doing what it does with the available WP:P&G (especially MOS:CAPS and WP:CONLEVEL) and independent instead of primary sourcing. If someone thinks MOS:SPORTCAPS is somehow wrong, or the entire lead of MOS:CAPS is, and that it should say something like "WP will capitalize anything found capitalizd in 50.000001% or more of the sources", that's a proposal they can make at WT:MOSCAPS. Good luck with that, since it would result in orders of magnitude more capitalizations, across at least hundreds of thousands of articles, and the community does not want that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Alright, c'mon now, that's definitely not chilling out. There's no need to relitigate this here, I'm confident Wordsmith can handle this themselves. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

    Not relitigating anything. Various people think the guidelines should be different. I've told them where and how to try to make that happen. I've also predicted with good reason that a consensus in favor of the proposal will not happen. But it remains the proper process for trying to get what they want.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW - 'The National Football League Draft' page has moved to lowercase. I don't know if that's what the RFC closure calls for? But it's been done. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably better as an RM, citing the RfC result.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: - Seeking clarification. Is your decision, giving the 'green' light for National Football League Draft to moved to National Football League draft? GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC) - Copied here from the RFC page. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

My determination was that there was consensus that the pages should be moved to the lowercase titles. That doesn't mean it has to happen all immediately in a mass pagemove; care should be taken to make sure we don't break templates, categories, transclusions, double redirects etc. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the movement of the core page (not done by you) in the RFC-in-question, might be problematic. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Do the steps at Wikipedia:Cleaning up after a move cover the potential breaks you refer to? As far as redirects after a move, I sometimes see arguments that those don't need immediate fixing per WP:COSMETIC, though I suspect editors will eventually want to change the prose too, not just the titles. —Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I expect to have to make changes to a number of lists I've promoted and the two I currently have at FLC. If we're going to downcase there's a lot to be done. I'm fine to handle the templates and may start chipping away after the individual drafts are downcased. Or are we waiting on something? Hey man im josh (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Those steps sound about right, I just don't handle complex page moves often so I figured I'd leave the exact process to the people who know it better. One thing I don't see listed there is that especially in sports-related articles, WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION is sometimes used to copy statistics or tables between multiple pages, and I'm not sure offhand if that can be affected by page moves. I don't think we're waiting on anything specific, but of course there's WP:NODEADLINE so there shouldn't be any harm in taking a little time to plan it out and avoid breaking things. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay, @The Wordsmith: Does this question added at the RfC page after the close merit a formal update to the close, or can it be safely removed as being addressed here? —Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Would've preferred that The Wordsmith had updated the RFC closure message, in response to my concerns, for clarity sake. If this were done, then I'd have no complaints, if my question were deleted from there. GoodDay (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added that to the end of my close per your request. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That was a bear of a discussion. Thank you for responding to the request for closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• You see what I mean about insufficient notifications? One of the most prominent and active football editors: When and where did that consensus happen? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm concerned that a precedent may have been set, that an RFC can over-ride any RMs. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm certainly sympathetic, but the page Jweiss11 put that comment on is one that was specifically notified about the RfC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Though, Jweiss participates almost exclusively at the college football project, which was not notified. The discussion likely would have been much different if proper notifications had been issued, and it had taken place at the correct venue. smh BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11: It looks like the college football WikiProject was notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Village Pump discussion, concerning the NFL Draft. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh: That was about Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_189#Over-capitalization_of_NFL_Draft, which was a separate discussion before the proposal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Worth seeing this comment as well / this discussion. The fact that a number of the relevant editors didn't even understand the terms of the proposal or that it was even taking place shows just how truly flawed it was. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is no way to inject awareness and interest directly into people's heads. The discussion was widely advertised, even on WP:CENT for a while, with highly non-neutral, downright alarmist, notices canvassed in various places as well, so there is little more that could have been done to involve more editors who might care. Hell, there was still a big pointer at VPPOL to the RfC until just now (I archived it since the RfC is long close). Most of us have lives, and do not spend every waking moment poring over Wikipedia minutiae. Consensus is gauged among the editors who do show up; we can't second-guess every decision because someone after the fact pops up to complain about the result or about not partipating back when the discussion was open. As for whether there was something confusing about the discussion (despite it being titled 'RfC on capitalization in "NFL Draft"/"National Football League draft" etc.', and before that as 'Over-capitalization of NFL Draft' – both unmistakably about whether to capitalize this), there clearly was, namely a text-wall of attempts to deny the community the ability to examine the question, before the question itself was visible. When we want an RfC to be clear and to include particular slices of the community, the thing to do is to leave neutral notices in appropriate places, and put the question up-front and succinctly. What happened here was people in the best to position to know who might care to participate didn't leave notices in some of those places, probably because they were too involved in a campaign to prevent VPPOL and RfC from being used to touch "their" topic. A saying about reaping and sowing comes to mind.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I really don't see this as a helpful comment, it's more or less saying "too bad" and making bad faith accusations including canvassing (post diffs of it or don't make these statements please). Editors made valid comments about the pages not being tagged, I think that's relevant. You can argue semantics if you want but the downcasing occurred due to a lack of consistency in sources, which, by default, favours downcasing, not due to a consensus determining that "this clearly is not a proper noun". What makes a proper noun is difficult to define and that's why we have the policy we do, to do our best. However, the policy is written in a way that there are going to be "mistakes" made where names of things are downcased. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• As someone with a sort of mixed opinion I just read the close and I thought you did an excellent job of both describing the discussion and working everyone through your logic in determining whether there was consensus, nice work. SportingFlyer T·C 09:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• I wanted to note as someone who saw, but neglected to !vote in, the RfC that I think your close was unimpeachable as the obviously correct reading of P&G-based consensus. I don't see how any admin who is truly uninvolved with the topic could have closed it any other way. JoelleJay (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Executing and cleaning up

I agree there's no rush, but I went ahead and asked for the main page to be moved, at WP:RMTR, and that was done. GoodDay and others had expressed the opinion that that would be a prerequisite for other changes. I'll chip away at it, but I'm pretty busy, traveling in Australia, for the next couple of months. And I won't be able to do major cleanup until/unless I get JWB permission back. I'm happy to work on moves, or RMTR filings to ask for moves. And I'm happy to collaborate with anyone else who wants to help. If there are template issues that I need to be careful around, I might need help realizing that and doing the right thing. If people who reverted some of my changes before want to chip in by reverting their reverts (including those in other drafts with no reason for capitalization), that would be cool, too. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wordsmith. I think it might be prudent if you clarified at the RFC-in-question, your decision covers only NFL Draft/draft related pages. For example, pages like USFL Draft, CFL Draft, NHL Entry Draft etc, won't be lowercased without going the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I did reply on those other pages you posted to, but I'll copy it here to keep everything in one place. As the RfC closer, I can confirm that the close applies only to pages related to the NFL draft and has no impact on other leagues or sports. There was some discussion of them at the RfC, but was unrelated to the RfC question or the consensus reached. Anyone trying to use it to bypass discussion on other articles is not interpreting the close correctly. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone changing "Draft" to "draft" using the close, and those admins who don't change it back, are engaged in a site-wide use of WP:IAR (the close ignored WP:RFCNOT even as it tried to address it). The WP:RM process has been broken, and move requests can now be taken to and decided either at RM or at an RfC on the Village pump policy page. A couple questions, since the remedy for a disputed RM is a move review, and for the RfC is an AN review, can an RM move dispute also be taken directly to AN (and what is the next step if a review is sought after each)? And since the moves after the close were IAR, can someone justify how they "improve or maintain" the encyclopedia (the requirement for IAR). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I reject the premise that those edits are done through WP:IAR. The close considered WP:RFCNOT as a legitimate argument, but was outweighed by other legitimate arguments. My first draft of it recommended starting a discussion at WT:RFC about that section and how it came to exist, but I cut it because it was branching too far away from the actual issues discussed. I do plan on raising the issue for discussion there so it can be clarified with more community input, but it wouldn't have been proper to do while the RfC was ongoing. I also dispute the notion that this has created a new avenue for debating moves parallel to WP:RM. Our standard processes work fine for most issues, but occasionally consensus is hard to reach after multiple discussions especially on contentious issues that people have strong feelings about, even if everyone participates in good faith. Request for Comment has always been an avenue for seeking wider input to resolve those content issues, just like WP:CONSENSUS suggests. Regarding your process question of WP:RM being taken to WP:AN, I don't participate in them often but I think WP:MRV is fine for most cases. If there have been severe issues like misconduct on the part of the closer, sockpuppetry, disruptive editing by participants etc, I have seen that go the AN/ANI. The general idea is that the "wider" venues like AN, other noticeboards, RfC, Village Pump etc handle the issues that have a larger scope or that the "routine" processes are unable to adequately handle for some reason. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• FYI for everyone here that I do intend on starting up a close review soon to check if the close was right. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• I have brought it for close review at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_review_of_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Capitalization_of_NFL_draft_article_titles. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to respond. But, I think if you were to reverse your closure & the page moves (since that closure), then call for an RM to be held at National Football League Draft? It would be for the best. I'm confident that most individuals would respect & accept the decision of such an RM. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• I support that idea. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, but I'm not going to do that. The close review will play out as it will; I believe my closing statement will be endorsed, but if consensus ends up overturning it there's no shame in that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:41, 19 February 2024 (U-->

IIRC, Taivo[ the ]Linguist keeps ahold the idea no borscht but beetroot borscht is relevant to English Wikipedia. That's why he keeps reverting "place of origin:..." label back to "...Ukraine". All while being part of a Wikipedia project on Ukraine (see the userpage). Hope this helps. 2A00:1FA0:2CF:194E:0:2D:9ED7:4701 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding the warning: no need to reply and thanks for reading my words scuffed the worst way imaginable.

2A00:1FA0:2CF:194E:0:2D:9ED7:4701 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure what this means, but if there's a question or request here please rephrase it and I'll see if I can assist. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to this:

[12]

~

2A00:1FA0:4134:474D:17B5:DC17:FA3E:6310 (talk) 2A00:1FA0:4134:474D:17B5:DC17:FA3E:6310 (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for draftifying, that was dumb of me. Qcne (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries, we all have an occasional brain fart! The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I believe I'm already up against the word count limit on my AE filing. Could I request an extension of 500 words to add four more diffs illustrating the problem (~260 words), with the remainder (~250 words) reserved for any replies or clarification necessary to admins? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, requests for extensions really should be made at AE itself. But yes, I'll grant the extension and make a note of it there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, requests for extensions really should be made at AE itself I agree, but I don't think that's actually formalised anywhere within the AE structure. I've also personally had bad experiences trying that on the AE page in the past, with extension requests being unacknowledged. I don't know what the ideal solution is here unfortunately. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the location is an explicit rule, but it does make it easier to keep things all visible in one place. I definitely understand that the requests can sometimes get lost. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Oooh, idea now that I'm eating some food. So the whole AE request structure is basically a preloaded template. What if we added a dedicated section to that template for non-admin participants to briefly (in as few words as possible) request word limit extensions? That way they're less likely to get lost in lengthy or busy subsections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

Thank you for your note. That makes it easier, because now I won't explain in detail what else was wrong with the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@The Wordsmith:

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

Good day. I saw that you partially actioned HaughtonBrit's SPI-[13]. However, the other sock Dazzem is unblocked, I believe owing to DatGuy's statement: "Dazzem (talk · contribs) is Possible, but hasn't made enough edits for a behavioural block. I've blocked them for a week for other loutsocking." I'd like to address this, the whole situation is so convoluted because of HB's brazen sockpuppetry, gaslighting, and frequent oscillation of IPs (both IPv6s, v4s and proxies) that it's head spinning. I will try my best to reiterate my case for Dazzem being an obvious sock of HB.

Just to get this out the way, HB's MO on Wikipedia is to aggrandize and augment Sikh military achievements on Wikipedia, since the Sikhs were historically involved in major conflicts with the Afghans, HB tends to be active in Sikh-Afghan conflicts, but also Mughal-Sikh, Anglo-Sikh, Maratha-Sikh conflicts and more. He edits from Pittsburgh or other nearby places in Pennsylvania-[14]. Bbb23 commented-"In addition, MehmoodS has demonstrated by their own admitted use of IPs in the past that they edit from Pittsburgh, and the IPv6s noted in the diffs geolocate to Pittsburgh.". After his accounts Javerine and Ralx888 were blocked, this user has been hounding me non stop with various 2601:547 and 2600:1016 IPs which geolocate to Pittsburgh, or occasionally with different Pittsburgh IPv4s. See block logs-[15], [16], [17]. I listed some of the harassment on the SPI page as well.

In March, a user KamalAfghan appeared, making edits aggrandizing the Afghans. HaughtonBrit immidiately began a campaign against him- for example you can see Javerine (HB confirmed sock) reverting KA-[18], and then HB 2601 IPs hounding him after Javerine was blocked-see 11 HB IP edits editing in close proximity to KA-[19]. More hounding: [20], you can see 14 HB IP edits editing in close proximity to KA-[21]. 8 edits (from both HB's confirmed sock Ralx888 and 2601:547 IP) here-[22]. 12 edits in close proximity to KA here-[23]. You can also see the 2601:547 IP trying to recreate a deleted battle that HB made, which was later declined due to sockpuppetry-[24]. Eventually HB started approaching admins just before KamalAfghan was blocked on May 18 discussing the possibility of sockpuppetry-[25] and [26] (you can note that these messages were made on the same day KamalAfghan was blocked). Somehow, Ponyo caught wind of this and promptly blocked KamalAfghan.

Since then HB has frequently been posting to Pnnyo's talk page regarding KA's sockpuppetry- [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

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

You can see the 2601:547 IPs and the 71 IPv4 geolocate to Pittsburgh, and some of them are FedEx ISP proxies. HB has been abusing a certain proxy network that provides IPs that have a listed ISP of FedEx for years now. [43] + [44] when I filed a SPI on him on Jan 2023 which led to MehmoodS's unblock request being denied, I pointed out how he was using these FedEx proxies to block evade. He has been abusing these proxies since 2020, there are hundreds of diffs of him using them to evade his block and engage in edit warring without an account so he could avoid punishment, but this example is the most glaring- HB was having a disagreement on the page Battle of Saragarhi, making numerous edit both through accounts as well as these 192 and 199* FedEx proxies; he was engaged in a discussion with an admin utcursh-[45]. To troll and gaslight his disputant, he made an account impersonating utcursh, which he pointed out: "Pretty silly of you to create an account impersonating me (User:AtmaramU). The latest sources that you've added are not great either." and [46]-"After posting here, the anon (192 and 199 FedEx proxies) created an account impersonating me (User:UAtmaram), and added a few other sources to the article." and [47]. AtmaramU is a confirmed Hb sock.

You can see on KamalAfghan's SPI, with the exception of Maplesyrupsushi, all of them were filed by HB's FedEx socks-[48]. Dazzem makes the same post on Ponyo's talk page-[49] regarding KamalAfghan despite being a brand new editor. And this was right before HB's confirmed 2601:547 Pittsburgh IPs were harassing Leviathian12, whom HB believed to be a KA sock-[50]. In fact, the most current KamalAfghan SPI report is by the confirmed 2601:547 HB sock-[51]. Just goes to show this user tries to gaslight and be as outlandish as possible, so that anyone who reports him seems like they're exaggerating or being overzealous because no one would act that absurdly.

You can also note that 170* and 199* FedEx proxy who filed the SPI on KamalAfghan and were canvassing on Ponyo's talk page was also on Courcelles' talk page trying to get me blocked by saying I'm a sock of PrinceofRoblox-[52] and [53], [54]. Which is basically what Finmas (now blocked HB sock) was doing [55].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, The Wordsmith. Thank you for your work at SPI. You blocked Special:Contributions/70.29.157.201 locally on the English Wikipedia. Would it be possible to also globally block that IP? Tyciol is a cross-wiki sockpuppeteer; for example, you can see his IP socks in the history of Wikiquote's "Lolicon" page [56] and Wiktionary's "parthenophile" page [57]. Cheers, gnu57 18:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Global lock(s) requested [58] The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your closing comments here. This ban evader is not stale and he is still trolling other editors.[59][60] Range block is still needed. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I really think you should reconsider the RangersRus case.

I find it exceedingly unlikely that a user whose first edits to Wikipedia were two hours after HB's confirmed sock-[61] & [62] and had the exact same nature.

Who voted to delete an article, making the exact same arguments as HB's IP and proxy socks-[63],[64], [65], [66], [67] and this is after HB made 14 edits on the talk page (5 in April 2023 + 9 in Jan 2024)-[68]. Abecedare even striked one of HB's Pittsburgh IP edit writing "[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit|Sock]]."

Who only began their AFD voting spree, on the same day, just three hours after I made my first AFD nom in 2024 and made it clear that I was going to starting nominating poorly written/sourced articles that HB has proven over and over again to use any tactic to keep these articles-[69] + [70]. Should also be noted that 14 Jan, HB was up to this-[71] , [72], [73], could be anything but HB .

Is it not at least a little unusual that RangersRus made his first AFD 3 hours after my AFD nom (that too on a topic HB was/is extremely fixated on) when he had almost 1000 edits up to that point and then began voting in AFDs incessantly right then and there? I think it's fair to say that this HB watches my each and every move on Wikipedia-[74],[75],[76],[77], [78], [79], [80], [81] and that's not even counting the hundreds of times he's followed to me pages that I edited within hours, so this absolutely seems like HB tacitly trying to vote in my AFDs and the large volume of AFD votes seems like a way to evade scrutiny. He's done so before-[82].

I think admins' apprehensions stem from the fact that RangersRus made a lot of edits on unrelated pages + they're unfamiliar with HaughtonBrit's editing patterns and underestimate his sheer persistence and bizzare nature. I really, really, really think that at the least an admin who's involved in South Asian topics and familiar with HB, like RegentsPark or Abecedare should at least take a look at this SPI before it's closed. I've also been chastised and spurned by admins before when it came to HB's sockpuppetry but my suspicions were correct or the accounts I reported were unquestionably HB-[83], [84], [85] (concering Javerine) + [86], [87]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The 24* IP was indeed blocked in June, but it should be noted that this is an IPv4 which means that, unless it's a public or proxy IP, it is assigned to one person. If you look at the IP's edits, it's clearly ALL HaughtonBrit, you can see in April, this IP canvassed on Ronnie Macroni's t/p , asking him to create an article which detailed a Sikh victory, in order to counter the creation of an article in which the Sikhs endured a defeat. I actually vividly remember this IP, because HB was using them right after his account Ralx88 was blocked, that was the first time where HB had drastically ramped up their use of IPs to block evade. You can see that Ralx888 was blocked on 28 April 20:18, and the 24* IP becomes active on 21:58 on the same day. Take a look at the history for the page Battle of Kashmir (1814) in which the 24 IP was active in-[88], you can see a bunch of Ralx888 edits, attempting to hinder KamalAfghan, and the subsequent locking of the page by Abecedare for HB's sockpuppetry. You can also see during this time frame of April 2023, Abecedare was particularly active in countering HB's sockpuppetry-[89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]. The subsequent 24* IP's edits are obviously HB as well-[95]. The 24* IP's edits on Sikhism in the United States are undobutedly HB, HB made all these edits beforehand-[[96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102] and you can see that his other sock accounts were active in various Sikhism in X country articles-[103].

You can also see for example, this 50* IP that resubmitted MehmoodS' unblock request after his t/p access was revoked-[104] and [105]. The IP was clearly used by HB to block evade while MehmoodS was blocked-[106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], which is one reason why MehmoodS' unblock request was denied. You can also see the exact same 50 IP socking on the page Assasination of Rajiv Gandhi-[112], [113], leading to the page being protected. You can see the 50* IP being used to edit war along with oscillating Pittsburgh IPv6s in July 2023 on the page Sikh Empire ( a page in which HB has made over 50+ edits if you include accounts and IPs)-[114]. You can see that the 50 IP was blocked in April 2023 for block evasion-[115] despite the resubmission of MehmoodS' unblock request taking place in July 2022.

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

So the 24 IP that made the edits on the page Sikhism in the United States on 27 August 2023 was done by HB, and RangersRus came in two hours and made the exact same type of edits. Also the 24 IP removed Abecedare's block notice on his talk page in between his edits on Sikhism in the United States-[116].

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

I did not say that RangersRus's first AFD vote was to an AFD I nominated, I pointed out that his very first AFD vote was made 3 hours after my nom. Also his first two AFD votes aren't exactly unrelated, they are both to delete battles in which the Marathas were involved. The Battle of Udgir-[117] was apparently a decisive Maratha victory according to this mirror source-[118]. His second AFD vote overall was also related to the Marathas-[119]. I pointed out how while his primary motive on Wikipedia is to aggrandize Sikh military achievements, this concomitantly includes vitiating historical adversaries like the Marathas and Afghans, the former being particularly anathema to him. I included many diffs in the SPI which detail HB's fixation with the Marathas. MehmoodS, alone, made hundreds of edits on various pages just removing honorifics on the most prominent Maratha leader- Shivaji, who often has the honorifics "Chatrapati" and "Maharaj" prefixed and suffixed to his name on Wikipedia, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. He made dozens of edits logged out even after his account was blocked pertaining to the Marathas. Any admin involved in South Asian topics could take a look at HB's accounts and confirm this to be the case unequivocally. RangersRus's first few edits was also on a page where he removed content of the Marathas conquering a fort and the Sikhs being defeated by an Afghan ruler-[120].

While these early edits to the page Sikhism and the United States 2 hours after his confirmed IP sock was editing it and Maratha related pages on their own don't mean much on their own, when you take in the AFDs and all the intricacies, they all are a dead givewaway. RangersRus up until Jan 14, had 990+ edits on Wikipedia and zero AFD votes, on the very day when HaughtonBrit was on major evasion spree-[121], openly deceiving admins and filing SPIs against competing sock farms-[122], [123], with the intention of aggrandizing his co-coreligionists. The day I made my first AFD nom on a battle in which the Sikhs were (erroneously) depicted as victorious is when RangersRus made an AFD vote to delete an article involving the Marathas-[124] (20:34 14 Jan) [125] (14 Jan 23:52).

His subsequent AFDs such as this one on 15 Jan-[126] is a page which HB has been fixated on for months-making 14 edits on the talk page of the article, 9 edits as Ralx888 and an IP on the article itself, and 4 edits logged out on the AFD (again the evidence for this is on the SPI). You can also note that RangersRus and the 4 anon votes have the exact same argument. He then goes on to make 60-70 AFD votes in less than 2 months, which is anything but natural and screams cover up. He votes in 2 of my AFDs since then, and I forgot to mention this but on my most recent AFD-the Battle of Rohilla[127]-is a page HB edited 7 times before-[128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134]. What's also unusual is that RangersRus votes to keep the Battle of Rohilla in which the Sikhs were victorious despite the sources only having a small, vauge paragraph on it, whereas he voted to delete the Battle of Akhora Khattak in which the Sikhs were defeated, arguing that the sources did not have enough coverage on the battle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Precious

Seven years!

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Administrator

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

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

Assessment of Potential TikTok Ban in the United States

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

@The Wordsmith

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---