Misplaced Pages

User talk:The Wordsmith: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:36, 7 June 2010 editThe Wordsmith (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators15,437 edits →Wavepart: reply to WMC← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:03, 25 December 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,135,113 edits →The Signpost: 24 December 2024: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
<span style="position:fixed;top:50px;left:-0px;z-index:100">]</span>
{{User:Firestorm/Articles}}
{{User:The Wordsmith/Articles}}
{{User:Harej/Forever|text1=|text2=POUR UNE WIKIPÉDIA DURABLE}}
{{Archive basics
<div style="border:solid 1px black; background:lightblue; margin:5px; padding:5px; text-align:center; color:black">Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.
|archive = User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive %(counter)d
If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there. Please do not put a talkback template here.
|counter = 11
It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.</div>
|headerlevel = 2
{|align="right"
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}<!-- 14:52 May 19, 2016 (UTC), The Wordsmith added ] -->
<!--<CENTER>{{User:Harej/Forever|text1=]|text2=FOREVER|image=Bathrobecabalicon.png}}</CENTER>
]
-->
{|align="left"
|- |-
|{{archives}}
<!--|]

|- -->
|]
|-
|{{archive box|]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]}}
|-
|
|- |-
|{{User Wikipedian For|year=2005|month=3|day=4}} |{{User Wikipedian For|year=2005|month=3|day=4}}
|- |}


{{User:The Wordsmith/Backlog}}

{{cot|reason=Contentious Topics awareness templates}}
{{Contentious topics/aware|9/11|a-i|aa2|ab|acu|ap|blp|cc|covid|e-e|gc|gg|gmo|ipa|irp|ps|r-i}}
{{cob}}
{{Clear}}

<!-- =====DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE===== -->

== A TARDIS for you ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | A rouge TARDIS (or the closest thing I could find on Commons), for having made a closure so ] that its effects travelled through time and were being challenged you even issued it.<br/>. . .<br/>But to be serious, I appreciate that you undertook to close, and closed so thoughtfully, such a large and complex discussion even as it was getting international attention and pushback. Someone had to do it; the discussion was open for so long as to suggest no-one ''wanted'' to do it; I appreciate you doing it. ] (]) 16:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
|} |}


:{{yo|-sche|CommunityNotesContributor|Chetsford|starship.paint}} Thank you for the kind words, I'm just glad the discussion is finished and we can move on (at least until the next challenge). I'm sure co-closers {{u|Tamzin}} and {{u|Theleekycauldron}} feel the same way. If you've got any recommendations for something more fun to read than that RFC (admittedly not a high bar) I could use a palate cleanser. Otherwise I think I'll pick up ] again. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


::''The Hobbit'' sounds like a great palate cleanser! I was reading his ''Sea-Bell'' the other day and learning about the neat words Tolkien coined or resurrected in that and other writings (which might interest you, as a wordsmith, if you don't know them already), like '']'' and '']''. :o ] (]) 21:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


::You are welcome, the Wordsmith.... '']''. ''']] (])''' 01:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I just bought it for my Kindle. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 00:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::::{{yo|Starship.paint}} Thanks for the recommendation, it made excellent beach/pool-side reading. I haven't finished it yet, but I hope to sometime this weekend. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::You’re welcome! Interesting to have ‘horror’ story reading at the beach! ''']] (])''' 05:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::''Amaze'' <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)


== A barnstar for you! ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for all the work you've done at SPI the past couple days! <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 02:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
|}


== Question ==


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


:{{tps}} As far as I'm aware, there isn't a WikiProject dedicated to that specifically, but ] sounds like what you're looking for. There's 22,000 articles in the category so you shouldn't have a lack of things to do. ] ] 00:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks! Maybe I'll make a wikiproject eventually ;) ''']'''] 19:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Just to clarify, there is ] that might be of interest though it doesn't focus specifically on promotional articles. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:That sounds like a great idea, and Clovermoss is right about that category. Fixing promotional articles is a great way to dive in and make a difference. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 22 July 2024 ==


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-07-22}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 10--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1235814680 -->


== policy question ==
<!-- =====DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE===== -->


Hey wordsmith. Hope all is well. I have a question relating to a case I'm involved in. Can a topic ban ever be justified because of a perceived lack of experience and/or policy knowledge? Per ARBPIA, an editor must be EC to edit in certain topics, however, is it up to an admin to determine, even after an editor reached EC, whether that editor has enough experience to be able to edit in that topic? <span style="background:#636363;border:solid#636363 1x;border-radius:15px;">''']''']</span> 21:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
=="testicular fortitude"==
Can't say that mate its sexist. Otherwise suggest you ignore the side comments and continue to do whatever you judge right without worrying. And you are not "junior", you are amongst equals. --] ] 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
:Wasn't intended to be sexist, just a phrase I remember hearing long ago that stuck with me. I'm sure there are female admins that display the same (] fortitude, perhaps?). Also, in terms of experience I have less than most other admins. I do know that we don't have any sort of ], of course. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
::By the way, ... ++]: ]/] 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


:I've just gotten back from a vacation, but it seems like this issue was hashed out elsewhere. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Sockpuppetry ==
I have noted in the above enforcement request that the admin-only results section is for results, not for threaded discussion. If you wish to enage in threaded discussion, you are directed to do so where the plebians are able to respond to you. Thanks. ] (]) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi, about this SPI case you handled: ]. You had temp blocked 2407:D000:F:0:0:0:0:0/48, 92.40.0.0/16 (?) but these still appear to be quite active with the sock network and disrupting quite a lot of pages. Can the block be extended here again?
== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 17 May 2010 ==

Thanks ] (]) 13:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

:Can you share a few examples of the disruptive edits from this range after the block expired? I'll check to see if there would be any collateral damage, too. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 15:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::Well here is the (needs PP for socking), mere hours after a previous IP sock was reverted. Others that I recently reverted include , , , , , , , . are from the sock network.]
::From the range, these include: , , , . The 'census update' edits from the range are also likely the same sock. ] (]) 07:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm not seeing much risk in blocking the IPv6 range for a longer time, so I'll softblock that one. For the IPv4, it looks like there would be a ton of collateral damage there so it would be a bad idea to block the whole thing. What I can do instead is break it into smaller ranges that exclude most of the legitimate edits, I can do ] and ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 15:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – August 2024 ==

] from the past month (July 2024).
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">

] '''Administrator changes'''
:] ]
:] {{Hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}

] '''Interface administrator changes'''
:] ]


<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
| 1 = 2010-05-17
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 20
| 3 = 2010-05-10
| 4 = 2010-05-24
}}}}
</div> </div>
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0047 -->


]


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== Time to take a case? ==
:] ]


</div>
Hi Wordsmith. Do you have time to take a case for the MedCom? Candidates with pending nominations are by convention allowed to take one case as a "trial run" for the time they could potentially spend formally mediating for real. In your case I'd like you to take a case not because you have to prove your worth but because we're a little backlogged at the moment (in terms of available mediators, not caseload). :-) Would you be able to take one on? It's a quite informal and low-key case; nothing too intense, I shouldn't think. ] 22:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
</div>
:I assume you're referring to ], yes? If so, i'll take it. Is there any silly song-and-dance I need to do before commenting there? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


] '''Technical news'''
:: That's the case I'm referring to, yeah. There used to be some paperwork we had the parties fill out in order to ensure they agreed to have a non-Committee member take the case. I don't think we'll bother with it here, especially what with the low-key, amicable, and informal nature of the case. I guess that ]. Best, ] 00:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
* ] may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may ] when appropriate.
* Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via ]. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.


] '''Arbitration'''
== Topic ban ==
* The Arbitration Committee ] the following administrators to the ]: {{noping|Bilby}}, {{noping|Extraordinary Writ}}


----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1238586059 -->


== Question regarding SPI ==
My 2-week topic ban expires today, am I correct? ] (]) 18:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, your ban is now expired. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


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


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


== Wisdom-inc ==
*] used four times in one article


Thanks for closing the Wisdom-inc SPI. He is still active today on one of the reported IP ranges - ] ] (]) 21:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
*] Seventeen Times in one article


==Thomas Hope==
*] Seems to me to be considered a reliable source when attributed, which in my edits it was. There are hundreds of such refs btw.
I am happy to see you changed ] into US. A foolish mistake by a nitwit.] (]) 05:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Perhaps you can change ''born in 1704'' very childish.] (]) 05:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Also the category ''1799 deaths'' is a mistake.] (]) 06:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)


:I have no idea what this is about. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 20:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
] Used in the following articles as sources, please note he also passes ]
*]


Sorry, it is about ].] (]) 08:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*]


:Oh, that was reverting a sockpuppet who was adding inaccuracies into articles (especially around estimated dates of birth/death). If you're willing to take responsibility for the edits, you're welcome to make the changes again. Though since Henry Hope's son (also named Henry Hope) was born in Massachusetts, it seems like him moving to the US is correct. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
*]


==Massive disruption==
*] Seems to be considered a reliable source and again he passes ]
Hi, can you have a look at these IP ranges? I think they belong to ] as they originated from the same geographical location(Pakistan) and have an obsession with manipulating the result of a page move discussion on ] just like the last range that you blocked.


*]
] also passes ]. I honestly do not see how any of these sources can be considered as breaking my previous sanction. All are fully reliable. All were attributed, i request you lift this new sanction or it will now be impossible for me to work on new content. For instance over the last few weeks i have created the following articles, all of which deal with climate change one way or another. ] ] ] ] ] ] How am i meant to create articles or work on content if i have to ask permission to use a ref every time? ] (]) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
*]
*]
*]
*] <span style="font-family:'forte'">] <b>(])</b></span> 03:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*Also if possible, can you please semi protect the ] too? <span style="font-family:'forte'">] <b>(])</b></span> 03:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I've applied semiprotection to the talkpage. Those IP edits are probably Anujror or a similar sock drawer, but they seem to be one-offs. Blocking them would probably not have any effect as he's probably already moved on, and it looks like there are a bunch of legitimate users on those ranges. Protection is usually the better option in cases like this. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 00:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 14 August 2024 ==
:I will consider your appeal. If you have any admins or established editors willing to vouch for you, send them over here. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-08-14}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 11--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 22:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
== 2/0 ==
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1240033127 -->


== CaseofGoliath SPI ==
Hi. Are you discounting 2/0's opinion on GSCC due to your belief he is no longer an "uninvolved" admin? "Yes" or "No," will do. Thanks! ] (]) 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
:Short answer? No. Longer answer: I do consider him involved, but I still looked at and analyzed each and every opinion given in that enforcement request, even from the non-admins and involved admins. Where a handful of editors are allowed to filibuster or make irrelevant points, nothing will ever achieve consensus, so I took BOLD and decisive action, and did what I felt was the right thing. There wasn't consensus against a ban, either. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:: What has led you to believe 2/0 "edits the topic area?" If it turns out that you are mistaken, what about your behavior will you change in the future to prevent you from making errors of fact? If it turns out you are not mistaken, you will provide me with a 2010 diff of 2over0 "editing" in the topic area (as opposed to "adminstratoring"), on request, correct? I am concerned that you are making administative action based on off-wiki communication that is innacurate and misleading. ] (]) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi The Wordsmith, did you review the evidence I sent to the en-paid queue regarding Elianaisaac? Link ]. ] (]) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
== Request ==


:I don't have access to that queue, but whoever does is free to take action independently of SPI if they determine it is warranted. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 17:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
You'll have seen I imagine. I request you give NW permission to release the other half (your half) of the IRC log ] (]) 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::Ok. I wasn't sure if you had access of not. Because it was an open SPI with a CU request, I ''think'' they left it up to the CU to review (got a standard response a couple weeks ago before the check) but I will double check. I will be opening up a new one for new socks I found anyway but was waiting until the weekend in case I came across others and might include Elianaisaac again depending on the response I get. Thanks for all the work you do, The Wordsmith. ] (]) 18:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, I hereby release my half of the logs under CC-BY-SA. NW has my fill permission to post them. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


==Christine-dark==


CU is positive and so is behavioral evidence. Hope you can block as soon as possible. ] (]) 02:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I came by to ask you if you logged that outcome (and Marknutley's) ? I can't find it in ]. I have to say that on numbers WMC's probably got a point about WMC's ban from that article. It was the right outcome, to be sure, but the consensus apparently isn't there. I think another stern warning is about all that one could hope for. ++]: ]/] 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
:I logged both actions in the same edit, that edit is . <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


:Unfortunately SPI is extremely backlogged at the moment. Somebody will get to it as quickly as we can, but if there's vandalism or urgent disruption then the normal venues like ] are also available and usually have a faster response time. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 04:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
:By the way, when you logged the sanction on the Singer article, you didn't specify whether it applied also to the article talk page or not. Believe me, if that is the case then it needs to be stated. ] (]) 22:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::If this is not explicitly mentioned, then this it is not included for all intents and purposes. ] (]) 02:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – September 2024 ==
::I reviewed the Talk page and found that WMC's edits to it weren't all that problematic, so the ban does not extend to the article talk page. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


] from the past month (August 2024).
== Thanks for making the tough call. ==


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
:] ]
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For acting as a role model for other administrators by making important Misplaced Pages policies such as ] a priority on ]. ] (]) 06:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
|}
:I'll second this. Notice that SV was forced to expand the article because of the disruption. Look at what she was able to accomplish with it once the disruptive influence was removed. ] (]) 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
== Request ==
:] ]


</div>
I hope you agree that in retrospect, your closure of the RFE against me did not reflect consensus. You will have seen various admins agreeing that is so, and even Lar, abvove. I think the best thing is for you to admit this and withdraw your closure, in order to spare us all yet more dramah.
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


]
I hope you will allow me to epxress my disappointment at the way you have "closed and run". You knew that close would be controversial, yet you did not stay around to answer questions. This is regrattable.


] '''Oversighter changes'''
] (]) 09:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:] ]
*I would also note that I do not see the consensus, which I feel is required in a matter such as this. I would appreciate if you could comment on how you saw consensus. ] (]) 10:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


] '''CheckUser changes'''
I acknowledge that my close did not have consensus by vote tally, but consensus is not a vote. When I looked at the strength of arguments and weighed them carefully, I decided that the closure was the right thing to do. I could have also made the same close under ], if I wanted, which would have given me complete leeway to do the right thing. In addition, several editors have pointed out that a consensus of admins is irrelevant, as the general sanction states in part "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith." Thus, technically only one admin is needed.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}


</div>
As for the closing and running, some of us do have employment that requires us to work odd hours, and relationships that are more important than Misplaced Pages (in short, I had work and then it was date night, which had been on the books for a week). I am here now, and I will answer any questions.
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
As far as reverting my closure, I will make you an offer. I have been wrong before, and I have always been willing to reconsider my actions (See ] for an example of this). Go through the evidence against you, or at least a representative sample (the diffs I posted with your ban notice will suffice. Explain to me how those edits are valid and not a violation of our policies. If you can make a convincing argument that you do edit within our content guidelines, then I will reduce or revoke the ban. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
* Following an ], there is a new ]: ], which {{tq|applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past}}.
* A ] is open to discuss whether ] should be adopted as a ].


] '''Arbitration'''
: I'm not negotiating with you; I'm suggesting that your close was in error and you take advice to revert it. If you're determined to go through all the pointless mess of an appeal, then let it be so. I'll give you not-much-longer to indicate any change of mind ] (]) 16:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
* Following a ], ] (the topic and interaction bans on ], respectively) were repealed.
::WMC, please self-reflect on your editing in the Singer article. Do you feel you were right, why? Do you feel that you could have done better? Then say so. We take responsibility for our actions, learn lessons, and move on. This is especially true when our actions affect other human beings, which is why we have a BLP policy. ] (]) 17:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
* ] of the ] ("{{noping|Cinderella157}} German history topic ban") was ] for a period of six months.
* The arbitration case ] is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
] (]) 17:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
* Editors can now enter into ], an alternative for informal '']'' arrangements, to have a ] reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
* A ] is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. ]


----
I would appreciate greatly if you explained and discussed your actions at the RFE page, instead of being disrespectful to me on IRC. ] (]) 20:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1242830842 -->


== ''The Signpost'': 4 September 2024 ==
== Don't worry!!! ==


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-09-04}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 12--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
You are an admin, and thus you will always be wrong - even sometimes in the opinion of other admins (who of course are also wrong for opining you are wrong, in both fact and action)! It goes with the territory. CCPE, though, is really, really, hard to even begin to be considered as having the possibility of there being the potential of being not wrong. It's tough, because what appears to be simple isn't, and because the same players will be appearing on the bill over the coming days, weeks and months (or until the curtain is pulled down) all decisions need to be made with an eye to future requests and a mind to what has gone before. Also, the major issue with the Climate Change articles is that we want them to be edited by those very accounts that are brought up on Probation requests - just in compliance with policy. Believe me, this makes it almost impossible to be seen to be right. The point of all the above is that you may be more than a little dismayed to see me opposing your ban on WMC, but it is not anything personal - I think WMC should not edit the article but upon criteria more in relation to his recent editing of it, rather than historically - and I think you should really stay and help. If you stay long enough, two or three days would be my guess, you will likely have the opportunity to explain to me where I got it wrong. As I said, it goes with the territory. ] (]) 21:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1243735654 -->


== Your close, again == == Re. future sockpuppet cases ==


Hello; given you closed the sockpuppet case I had opened , for future reference, what is the threshold of evidence needed to support a finding of IP addresses being used as sockpuppets? The timing and nature of the IPs' actions seemed quite suspicious to me, even though there weren't many instances to point to.
I'm struggling to understand your close. You said ''I find the diffs presented by SlimVirgin and others to be highly disturbing. The fact that they come from three consecutive years turns it into a pattern. In 2008, there was the Mars nonsense in the lede. In late 2009, diffs have been presented by ATren of WMC sourcing content to RealClimate, which is wrong on several different levels. SlimVirgin's diffs come from 2010''. There appears to be general agrement that sanctions should be based on edits *since* the probation(] although edits before then could be "taken into consideration" perhaps. Having looked at the diffs provided by SV of edits *after* the probation, I can see nothing very exciting, but you say "SlimVirgin's diffs come from 2010". Could you provide a few - perhaps 2-3 - diffs *since* the probation that you consider BLP-threatening; or if you can't find any that bad, the 2-3 edits since then that are the wors, or the most "highly distubing" as you put it? This should be an easy task, because they should be chosable from the few that SV has already supplied ] (]) 11:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
*Please could you come to the Enforcement request page, re WMC's appeal, and answer the concerns there. I have no problem with admin's being bold, but I do feel there is a requirement for such actions to be discussed promptly where there are questions over the rationale. Should there be no response within a reasonable time, then I am constrained to open a discussion with the purpose of overturning your close and substituting it for one that satisfies the consensus between the admins (which, of course, you would be welcome to join). I hope that this will not be necessary. ] (]) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
**First things first, I unreservedly apologise for taking so long in notifying you of my actions - I think I edited every damn page involved except that of yours; that was remiss of me.<br>I have overturned the ban imposed by you on {{User|William M. Connolley}} on editing ], following my reading of consensus following WMC's appeal. Technically, Dr Connolley is correct regarding the application of BLP upon edits prior to the setting up of the Probation. I have re-opened the discussion regarding the appropriate manner of dealing with WMC's recent editing of the article, and you may wish to comment there. As I have been at pains to convey, please do not regard this as a criticism of your good faith efforts - it is simply a case of needing to be careful in applying the letter of policy since there are likely to be consequences in the future. I trust we shall see you again among the CCPE pages. ] (]) 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


(Also sorry about all the edits). ] 21:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Re my question - I too must apologise, because you did provide diffs on my talk page. I've examined the 3 that postdate the sanctions and find them unconvincing; we could discuss this if you like, but the matter may well now be moot ] (]) 20:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:I would like to talk you up on your offer to discuss your edits, but I think it would be best if we wait until the current situation re Singer is resolved. If the indefinite ban is not going to stick (which, at this point seems to be the case) then I would like for us to have a conversation and possibly come to understand each others' positions better. Perhaps IRC or any of the other popular messaging protocols, after the enforcement request is decided? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 22:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


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


== SPI Asphonixm ==
Please see ] where I have noted your previous preferred option and included it in the poll. I have done this action because you have noted that other interests rightly take priority over editing WP, and you may not have time to place your option before the poll closes. If you wish to certify (by subbing my sig with yours) or change or remove the !vote, please do so promptly. Thanks ] (]) 21:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you please review on my recent ]? If you don't have the time to do so, could you at least check whether the report was correctly opened? I'm a bit worried because I messed up the previous one, which was malformed and not properly opened. Thank you. ] (]) 07:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)


:I don't have time to fully review the case right now, but it looks like it was opened properly. For the previous one, it was missing the {{tl|SPI case status}} template. That template automatically adds it to the categories that put it on the SPI dashboards.
== ] ==
:Personally I think filing SPI cases by hand is too fiddly and unreliable, but it's a complex process so it has to be. ] has a module that fills in the case request for you; I use that so I don't have to deal with all the manual bits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)


== Arbitration case opened ==
Just a note that when nominating an article for deletion using Twinkle, it sometimes fails to transclude it to the right log. That seems to be what happened here so this AFD is still open. It was mentioned on ] and I added it to the ] so it should be closed soon. --] (]) 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by October 10, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 12:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
== Reminder ==


== ''The Signpost'': 26 September 2024 ==
] (]) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
: Hush your insults you. Wordsmith edits from a phone, so he may have forgotten to add the tildes—or he may have been unable to, and have hoped that SineBot or a colleague would add a tag for him until he reached a computer. ] 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
: What is this twaddle about templates, old fruit? ] (]) 08:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
:: :: (Old fruit is cockney rhymning slang for old fruit gum = old chum). --] ] 12:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-09-26}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 13--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
== ] ==
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1247736176 -->


== RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review ==
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
* ];
* ].


Hi there! The trial of the <strong>RfA discussion-only period</strong> passed at ] has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at ''']'''. Cheers, and happy editing! ] (]) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Theleekycauldron@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Mailing_list&oldid=1223231383 -->


== Draft refund for ] ==
==Chelo61 RfC==


Hello, you closed ].
Hello, this note is just to tell you that an RfC has begun regarding ]. Since you may have been involved with this user, your input is appreciated. ]. Thank you. ] (]) 19:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


I'm requesting a DRAFT of this article restored to ] for further development and the addition of new citations to establish notability of the trophy. Will move to article space only upon significant improvement to the article and ensuring it meets GNG.
== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 24 May 2010 ==


Significant coverage of this trophy exists that was not discussed in any previous AFD:
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">

{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
*
| 1 = 2010-05-24

| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 21
Thanks, ] (]) 06:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
| 3 = 2010-05-17

| 4 = 2010-05-31
:{{Done}} <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – October 2024 ==

] from the past month (September 2024).

]

] '''Administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}

] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}

] '''Guideline and policy news'''
*] are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to ] (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with ] from October 8 to 14, a ] from October 22 to 24, and ] from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at ].
* Following ], the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion ] to ]. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
* A ] is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an ] process.

] '''Arbitration'''
* The arbitration case '']'' has been closed.
* An arbitration case regarding ] has been opened.
* Editors are invited to ''']''' to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until ''23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC)''.

] '''Miscellaneous'''
* If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put ] and ] on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}} }}}}
<!--
</div>
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 03:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1248355798 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0048 -->


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


:No worries, SPI is a complicated process even for what should be a pretty straightforward case. You didn't do anything wrong with it! Your filing was fine (better than a lot that I see) and had all the evidence available. I think those accounts are either socks and or were canvassed by the article subject or someone very interested in them, but since the CU was negative the 1-2 edits from each don't give me enough behavioral evidence to prove it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 15:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Your proposed close is fine by me, I guess, but I suggest that "Polargeo is prohibited from commenting in the "Result concerning X" section," is less clear than "It is determined that Polargeo is considered an involved admin for the purposes of this page, untill such time as a (majority/consensus/specific number) of admins determines this is no longer the case." This makes it clear that the prohibition is not a punishment for bad behavior, but rather a ruling on involvedness. I further suggest you make an explicit Lar involvedness ruling, either way - in that, I'd ask that you explicitly state if he is involved or uninvolved with respect to WMC and Polargeo, in addition to generally. I bring this here instead of there to avoid the hangers-on, and would honestly like your thoughts. Thanks. ] (]) 17:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
:There are a few issues we're discussing here, so i'll try to separate them to the best of my ability:
##With regards to a note about overturning, your proposed change is reasonable. I had thought it was implied that consensus could overturn any part of a sanction, but if that is not the case I am willing to clarify that.
##For making a ruling on Lar's involvedness, i'm a bit more hesitant. The RFC on precisely that question will expire in just a few days, and with 25 endorsing SBHB's summary and 23 endorsing Lar's as of this comment, it seems that there is no hope of consensus. If we can't get consensus amongst the wider group of admins and editors that comment on RFCs, I doubt we can achieve consensus with the handful of admins that hang around here.
##If I did propose a statement about Lar, it would be made as a separate resolution so as not to drag the first few statements down with it. It would probably be something along the lines of "Lar is allowed to comment as an uninvolved admin, but is encouraged to voluntarily recuse himself from requests concerning WMC or Polargeo for the next 3 months." Would that be something you might be able to support? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


== SPI investigation clarity ==
::: My support dosen't count for beans, so I'll merely say that I appreciate your willingness to take my requests on board, and approve of any ruling WRT Lar - be it that Lar is totally uninvolved, banned, or whatever - I merely want someone to decide and get this behind us. I agree with your second point - perhaps it's unnecessary to cap it - my stronger point is to make it clear that it's a ruling on involvedness, not a punishment for edit-warring. ] (]) 18:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi! Wondering if my earlier report on ] before the last user's report was too detailed - it's the first one I'd submitted and felt like I might have overdone it! Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 07:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


:No, I think your report had the right amount of detail. It gave the evidence I needed without me having to spend ages digging up evidence on my own. If all SPIs were that well done, there probably wouldn't be such a backlog at SPI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I do realise that ] is probably not your most beloved article, but a very brief look at ] and the edits/behaviour of ] should demonstrate why a level-headed objective administrator is still required. Squash Racket has made some fairly controversial unilateral changes and is completely dismissing anything resembling a debate. I suspect he may be a child (I do not mean this as an attack, merely an observation made in earnest), making it extremely difficult to conduct a mature debate. His points, being so logic-defying as to almost be non-sequiturs have largely collapsed, yet I doubt this will have pulled the breaks on his fervour. Since I do not wish to edit war, a little informal mediation would be much appreciated if you have the time. —] 17:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


:: Ah, good to know! It took me a lot of time so it makes sense why there's such a backlog. Thanks for the feedback, appreciate it! ]<sup>]</sup> 22:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:The incredibly one-sided way of Happenstance's description of the problem ] is not a big surprise after he — among other attacks on myself — labeled my clearly constructive edits as "vandalism" before. Considering his constant civility issues I wonder how he has the guts to label others children.
:Among my "fairly controversial changes" I changed an ''interpretation'' of a politician's words ''into the actual words said during the speech'', I added referenced material etc. His main problem is that he wants to highlight the term ] as a controversial term, because his favorite Slovak politicians had done so. The media of both countries involved — Hungary and Slovakia — have rejected the "controversy" as a joke, Happenstance still wants to emphasize it. Talking of collapsing arguments...
:Since he doesn't wish to edit war after edit warring for a while, feel free to share your opinion on the matter. ] (]) 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
::I feel confident in allowing my contributions to the debate speak for me. Had you redirected half the effort you just put into that reply into trying to come to an agreeable compromise, there would have been no need to resort to requesting mediation. —] 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 19 October 2024 ==
It seems like the both of you could use ]. Editors would behave so much differently if they could all sit down and drink ] together, or perhaps a nice tasty ] if that is your style. I had a lovely blueberry ale from a local microbrewery a few days ago that would have made me want to work productively with Bambifan101 if he was there with me. Anyway, it seems that you are both reasonable editors with different opinions on what is best for Misplaced Pages. If you want my assistance, I can help you mediate this dispute. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
:There may just be some truth in that: were I able to discuss with my native Aussie accent, deliver my points laden with "mate"s and bursts of laughter, and use colourful local colloquialisms I'm sure I would appear less intransigent. Anyway, Thank you for offering to help, and any time you wish to step in on talk is cool. —] 02:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-10-19}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 14--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 11:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
The amount of content being edit warred over is increasing; any time you wish to step in would be great. —] 15:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1252022219 -->


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
:Yes, Happenstance removes material from ] and ] while adds irrelevant material making false comparisons between the situation in Quebec and South Slovakia. ] (]) 15:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello,
== A request ==


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
Hi WS, I responded today to something you posted on the CC probation about RfCs and filibustering, because I felt it was factually inaccurate. Then I noticed I'd posted it in the uninvolved section, so I removed it. Could I ask you to post something under your comment to the effect that I posted my disagreement, or strike through the part of your post that refers to RfCs and filibustering? I wouldn't normally bother about this kind of detail, but I feel strongly that article RfCs are one of the key tools in breaking down group-editing, for the want of a better term, and I wouldn't like to see anything discourage them. I can well imagine in future one of the players pointing to your post to put someone off posting an RfC. <font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
=="Anti-pedophile activism" Article Nominated for Deletion==
You have previously edited or commented on the article entitled "]." It has now been nominated for deletion. If you'd like to follow or contribute to the ] process, please visit the page created for this purpose: ]. Your input would be appreciated.
~ ] (]) 15:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC).


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
== ''The Misplaced Pages Signpost'': 31 May 2010 ==


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">

{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/{{#switch: 1
Kind Regards,
| 1 = 2010-05-31

| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 22
]
| 3 = 2010-05-24

| 4 = 2010-06-07
<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->

==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&nbsp;The thread is ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice--> ] (]) 22:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – November 2024 ==

] from the past month (October 2024).

]

] '''Administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}

] '''CheckUser changes'''
:] ]

] '''Oversighter changes'''
:] ]

] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following a ], the ] proposal that went for a trial to refine the ] (RfA) process has been discontinued.
* Following a ], ] is adopted as a policy.

] '''Technical news'''
* Mass deletions done with the ] tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. {{phab|T366068}}

] '''Arbitration'''
* {{noping|RoySmith}}, {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Cyberpower678}} have been appointed to the ] for the ]. {{noping|ThadeusOfNazereth}} and {{noping|Dr vulpes}} are reserve commissioners.
* Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the ].
* The Arbitration Committee is ] for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
] '''Miscellaneous'''
* An ] is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. ]

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}} }}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1254686817 -->

== ''The Signpost'': 6 November 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-11-06}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 15--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1255531917 -->

== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==

Hello,

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

Take the survey ''''''.

Kind Regards,

]

<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->

==You've got mail!==
{{You've got mail|subject=|ts=15:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)}}
] (]) 15:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 18 November 2024 ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-11-18}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 16--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 23:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1258243105 -->

== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div> </div>
</div>
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 21:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0050 -->


== half asleep == == A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Tireless Contributor Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for your tireless contribution at ]. ] (]) 12:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
|}


:Thank you! <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 19:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. Half asleep. Saw my name and thought kill! I think it is amusing that the least biased of editors is banned from acting as an uninvolved admin based on no real policy whatsoever :) ] (]) 14:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Also CC articles are not my main editing area, they never have been. There are no rulings by arbcom or anyone else preventing an editor from acting as an uninvolved admin because they have actually edited some articles in a very large topic area. The important thing is to be seen to be neutral and uninvolved in any particular case. I strongly feel the whole "you have actually edited some of the thousands of CC articles" to be a complete red herring in the whole debate but unfortunately one that Lar has gamed to his advantage. Still nobody has shown me the policy or arbcom ruling which applies here. ] (]) 14:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::One phrase grounded in policy that may apply is from ], saying "Administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." Since you edit global warming articles and participate significantly as an editor, as opposed to simply taking administrative actions on occasion, you are seen more as an editor than an administrator in the topic area. Therefore, you may not be neutral with regards to user conduct disputes in this area. Even if this is not explicitly spelled out in policy, I think ] applies. In addition, your contributions to the sanctions area lately have been rather POINTy, especially you filing an enforcement request against yourself. When that is factored in, it is clear that you could use a break from the area. I think it is everyone's hope that in three months you will have a new sense of perspective, and be able to act as a neutral, uninvolved admin. You do seem like you are capable of being a reasonable person, so I am willing to help you obtain said perspective if you ask for it. Just know that I have nothing personal against you; it was just necessary to end the drama. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I accept the pointy, accept the drama even accept a three month ban etc. but I do not accept that my personal editing of certain CC articles bars me from acting as uninvolved in all CC articles in cases where I do not have "direct involvement" in a particular issue. I know my RfC/U against Lar appears to have tied me to WMC but that is simply not the case I raised the RfC/U as a genuine concern I have had with Lar's bias which actually came to my attention because of some astonishing comments of his with regard to a previous case involving Stephan Schulz. I just got more and more amazed by Lar's bias the more I watched things unfold. Lar has not had to deal with me as an admin it has been me trying to deal with him and yet I now find he has the bulk of the support when he moves my comments after I have reverted his first move. Lar should not deal with me in his admin role, simply never. ] (]) 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Anyway. I accept the judgement regarding myself. I understand the complex reasons behind it and I sincerely hope that in three months when my ban ends it will be irrelevent as there will be no enforcement page, increased cooperation between editors and less tribalism. ] (]) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
==SPI comment==
Struck my mention of Lar. It wasn't intended as a swipe at Lar -- I thought it was fairly obvious that Hipocrite was giving Lar a taste of his own, which is why I mentioned his name (i.e., "we know why you're doing this, but knock it off anyway"). But I struck that bit to avoid any misunderstandings. ] (]) 07:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:I understand why you did it, and I thank you for striking that remark. I also hope you understand that I consider myself even-handed, and if Lar had taken a passing shot at you I would have made the same request of him. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 07:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
::No prob. Feel free to call me out whenever you think I'm out of line. I might not always agree with you, but I'll take your views on board. ] (]) 07:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


] from the past month (November 2024).
== Welcome to the Mediation Committee ==


]
It is my pleasure to inform you that your ] to the ] has been closed as successful. ], which you might like to add to your watchlist, is for co-ordinating our open cases; please feel free to take on an unassigned dispute at any time. I have also subscribed your e-mail address to the ], which is occasionally used for internal discussion and for periodical updates; feel free to post to this at any point if you need feedback from the other mediators. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to working with you! For the Mediation Committee, ] 20:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
== Arbcom Case Notice ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
|]
* ];
|]
* ].
}}
:] ]


] '''CheckUser changes'''
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
== Why is ] protected for being recreated? ==
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.


] '''Technical news'''
Hi,
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.
I can see the reasons why the article has been deleted, but why has it been protected for being recreated? I want to recreate it without any copyright infringements. - <font face="Kristen ITC" >] (]·])</font> 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:It was create-protected because after I deleted it, somebody else recreated the copyright violation. If you say you can rewrite it without infringing anyone else's copyright, then i'll unprotect it for now. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


] '''Arbitration'''
== Wavepart ==
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.


----
Unless I've missed something (in which case my apologies) you left Wavepart no block notice and have subsequently offered no apology. Why not? ] (]) 19:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->


== ''The Signpost'': 12 December 2024 ==
You are correct that I left no block template. That was an error on my part. I do not, however, intend to apologize as I believe that this user is a sockpuppet of someone. I stand by my block. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 22:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-12}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 17, manually published--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 21:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC) </div></div>
:]. Kind of an important part of proper reasoning. Enough said. ] (]) 02:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Bri@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1262352523 -->
::I don't plan to block you again unless you show more suspicious behaviour. Prove me wrong by being a productive editor and I won't trouble you. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 03:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 ==
:::Fine. I would hope that in the future you extend a little more good faith toward the next guy. That's honestly what concerns me most. The whole premise by which wikipedia operates starts to fall apart if fear of being blocked starts to influence legitimate content positions that editors can take. (It probably has already to a significant amount, but hopefully this can decrease.) ] (]) 04:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-24}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 18--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 00:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
OK, so we're getting somewhere. Why have you left no apology for the lack of the block template? Are people-that-you-consider-socks such lowly forms of life that you have no obligations towards them? ] (]) 15:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1263792399 -->
:I already admitted that it was an error, and I should have left one. Next time I will do so. Keep in mind that I am a fairly new admin and have not blocked many people, so sometimes I make mistakes. WavePart, I apologise for not leaving a template (though I still feel that the block itself was correct). <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 19:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:: Thank you for providing that apology ] (]) 20:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
::: Re . FWIW, since I've been critical of you, I think the evidence for not-new-user-ishness that you list there is good ] (]) 08:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Thank you. I felt it was about as compelling as you can get without a Checkuser, Scibaby or not. It wasn't that I just went with my gut feeling, I really took time to comb through the account's contributions. Some claim that I assumed bad faith and blocked without looking carefully, but that isn't true. There is more evidence that I found when analysing his edits, but what I posted in my statement is a fairly representative sample of what I discovered. He may end up being a productive contributor, sockpuppet or not - only time will tell. He seems to be editing in other areas now, so my immediate concerns have been at least partially alleviated. Anyway, I appreciate your comment. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 08:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::: I'll just point out that you may be wrong in saying "sockpuppet"; he could be a returning user (he could also be the ip-edited-in-2001-2003 but that is improbable), which would make him an alternate account, which is permissible, not a sock ] (]) 09:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::It is possible, yes, however the "alternative plausible explanation" that he gave to get unblocked makes no mention of this. He mentions a few IP edits 8 years ago, but by now he would have completely forgotten the content policies. I'm fairly certain things like 3RR didn't even ''exist'' 8 years ago. Instead of concocting that story about seeing something in the news and coming here to edit, if he had simply stated "Yes, I am a ] account and/or had a previous account here, and i'll disclose that to a functionary" I would have been willing to unblock immediately, provided said functionary could confirm that the previous account was not malicious or banned. So while your alternate theory is plausible, the user hasn't mentioned that. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:03, 25 December 2024


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

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 9 months and 21 days.
Immediate requests      Purge Entries
Candidates for speedy deletion 1
Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages 0
Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations 0
Requests for unblock 44
Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests 110
Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests 84
Misplaced Pages template-protected edit requests 26
Misplaced Pages fully protected edit requests 8
Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests 50
Requested RD1 redactions 0
Open sockpuppet investigations 28
Click here to locate other admin backlogs
Contentious Topics awareness templates
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: He should not be given alerts for those areas.


A TARDIS for you

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Question

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

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

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

policy question

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

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

Sockpuppetry

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

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

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding SPI

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

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

Wisdom-inc

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

Thomas Hope

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

I have no idea what this is about. The Wordsmith 20:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Massive disruption

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

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

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

CaseofGoliath SPI

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

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

Christine-dark

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

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

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

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

Re. future sockpuppet cases

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

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

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

SPI Asphonixm

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

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

Arbitration case opened

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

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

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

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Done The Wordsmith 18:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

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

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

Peter Middlebrook

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

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

SPI investigation clarity

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

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

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

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

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

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

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

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

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

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

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

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

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

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

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

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

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

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

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

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

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

You've got mail!

Hello, The Wordsmith. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

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

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

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

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

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

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

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

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

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